tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/scottish-referendum-9496/articlesscottish referendum – The Conversation2021-04-29T12:42:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1598582021-04-29T12:42:04Z2021-04-29T12:42:04Z‘Brexit has changed people’s minds on independence’: Q&A with Kezia Dugdale, former Scottish Labour leader<p><em>Scotland is going to the polls on May 6 for what promises to be a landmark national election. It’s the first since the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland/results">Brexit referendum</a> in June 2016, which led to Scotland (and Northern Ireland) leaving the EU against its will.</em> </p>
<p><em>Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has long said this is a “<a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-right-choose-putting-scotlands-future-scotlands-hands/pages/7/">material change</a>” in the nation’s circumstances that justifies a second referendum on Scottish independence. Support for independence has been much improved ever since. Sturgeon is now using the May election to seek a mandate for a second referendum.</em> </p>
<p><em>To help understand the machinations, we caught up with Kezia Dugdale for our podcast <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-why-independence-is-central-to-may-election-campaign-podcast-159883">The Conversation Weekly</a>. She is the director of the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow and a lecturer in public policy. She was Scottish Labour leader between 2015 and 2017. Here are some edited extracts from the conservation.</em></p>
<p><strong>Q: Can you explain what’s at stake on May 6?</strong></p>
<p>The No side won the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">2014 referendum</a> with 55% of the vote, and we thought that that would be the end of the constitutional question. But because it was relatively close, questions around the devolution settlement and Scotland’s continued place in the UK have continued to dominate. Whether you are Yes or No to independence is still the biggest factor over how you will vote in May. </p>
<p>Labour people get very uncomfortable with such a binary dynamic. People in the party don’t define themselves as either nationalists or unionists so much as social democrats or democratic socialists. Some might support independence; some might support the United Kingdom. Some like me support a federal solution, with a lot more devolution across the four nations of the UK, but retaining a UK-wide network to redistribute power and wealth. That’s quite different to a unionism that is much more about queen and country, a flag-waving British nationalism. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Listen to Kezia Dugdale’s interview in <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-why-may-election-is-crucial-for-independence-movement-and-the-uk-podcast-159883">The Conversation Weekly podcast</a>.</em></p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/60899b812984c378fd29a86a?cover=true&ga=false" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay" width="100%" height="110"></iframe>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-561" class="tc-infographic" height="100" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/561/4fbbd099d631750693d02bac632430b71b37cd5f/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Q: Does that division over unionism prevent an electoral coalition between the unionist parties?</strong></p>
<p>A little bit. You have to remember that there were some odd bedfellows in the 2014 referendum. In the context of British politics, the Labour and Conservative parties are arch enemies. For them both to be on the same side of an argument was very unusual. </p>
<p>After the referendum, Labour voters felt guilty about voting for the union. They had thought it was right, but it wasn’t comfortable. They didn’t like their party working with the Conservatives. The SNP exploited this, to their credit, saying, this is supposed to be the progressive Labour party, and they sided with the Conservatives to sustain the status quo.</p>
<p>It was a very potent political message. Labour has been burned very badly from winning the referendum. And let’s remember it was Labour’s ability to persuade left-of-centre voters to vote No that took the campaign over the 50% line. </p>
<p>To put it in context, I was the party’s education spokesperson in 2014. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, we lost our leader (Johann Lamont). Then we lost another leader (Jim Murphy), in the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32635871">2015 UK election</a>, because he lost his seat. The day before that election, Labour had 41 members of parliament. The day after, it had one. I was deputy leader in that election, and everybody sort of turned and looked at me. It was my turn to take over the mantle, which I did. </p>
<p>In the 2016 Scottish parliament election, when I was leader, we lost a third of our seats. Not quite the damage of 2015, but not vastly better. And in the 2017 UK election – I’m still leader at this point – we started to make up some ground. We went from one MP to seven, but interestingly, the seats we won were seats with very heavy No votes in 2014. You could look at a seat in Scotland, find out the referendum result, and take a pretty good guess about who would win there in the UK election. </p>
<p>In that election in 2017, there were another 20 seats where the majority fell for the SNP MP from tens of thousands of votes to under 1,000. Come the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/scotland">2019 general election</a>, with so many close-run seats, everybody expected to see the SNP lose substantially again, but Labour fell from seven seats back to one. I was long gone by this point, but we’re talking about six or seven years of Labour being punished for its role in the 2014 referendum. </p>
<p>Labour was also punished by the Conservatives, who were ruthless at saying you can’t trust Labour with the union; they’re not as strong as we are; not as trustworthy. They suggested I was soft on the union because I favour a federalist solution. So the Conservatives kept on attacking Labour. The SNP were attacking Labour saying they’ve sold you out. And that in many ways is why Labour is the shell of what it once was: bear in mind it was the dominant force in Scotland for most of the latter half of the 20th century.</p>
<p>In the current election campaign the Conservatives’ main message is vote for us to stop a second independence referendum. They’re also challenging the Labour party to form a unionist alliance. That’s a win-win for them. They know an alliance is never going to happen, and it reminds everybody who might be thinking of voting Labour that they sided with the Conservatives in 2014.</p>
<p><strong>Q: The Scottish parliamentary system was designed to make it harder for one party to get the majority, but now the whole focus of this election is the majority. Why?</strong></p>
<p>We have 129 members of the Scottish parliament, 73 of which represent constituencies. The remaining 56 seats are made up of eight regions which each elect seven MSPs (members of the Scottish parliament) proportionately, using our formula called the <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/19209143.everything-wanted-know-dhondt-voting-system-holyrood-election/">D'Hondt system</a>. </p>
<p>This combination of first past the post and proportional representation means we’ve had a more colourful parliament than in the UK. We have Green politicians because they come in via the list, for example. This system is designed to produce coalitions and to stop outright majorities. It did that until 2011, when the SNP managed to break the system with the force of their popularity and win a majority (in 2016, the party fell short of a majority). </p>
<p>We’re now in the situation where people think 2011 can be recreated, which is actually quite unfair on the SNP. The polls show the SNP constituency vote <a href="https://ballotbox.scot/">at around 50%</a> – phenomenally high after 14 years in power. They will, I think, fall short of an overall majority, but will have a majority for independence if the Green vote delivers what it looks like delivering. </p>
<p><strong>Q: Can you explain the Alba party?</strong></p>
<p>Alex Salmond (the former first minister) has broken away from the SNP and set up Alba. He has taken a number of people with him who would be described as fundamental nationalists: people who want an independence referendum yesterday, definitely today, and not in two years’ time. They’re also very against some of the more socially liberal policies that the SNP have advocated under Sturgeon.</p>
<p>Salmond is asking people to vote SNP in their constituency vote and to vote for Alba on the list. His <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/4485248f-bf6a-401e-8824-807e3b2010f2">argument</a> is that if you vote Alba, we could get a “super-majority” situation where two-thirds of MSPs are supporters of independence. It would then be impossible for the UK government to refuse a second referendum, is how the argument goes.</p>
<p>A problem for Salmond, and he has many, is that he will have to get somewhere between 6% and 8% of the list vote in every region to return members of the Scottish parliament in each. But the polls show that Alba is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56889344">barely scraping 3%</a>. </p>
<p>It’s likely that he will manage to get to 6% in the north-east of Scotland. He has represented both the Banff & Buchan and Gordon constituencies in that region. He’s very well known and popular there. That would elect him to the Scottish parliament, but in my view there will be nobody else with him. That’s not a super majority. </p>
<p><strong>Q: What has led to the shift in independence support and do you think Yes would actually win a second referendum?</strong></p>
<p>Since January 2020 (at the time of the interview) there have been <a href="https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask/?removed">25 opinion polls</a> on the constitutional question. 22 have shown Yes ahead, which is very new. I think there were only two polls in the run-up to 2014 that had Yes ahead. There have been two recent exceptions where No has started to climb again, and people suggest that might be to do with the success of the vaccine roll-out across the UK. But the reason for people moving from No to Yes is quite well evidenced and it’s to do with Brexit. </p>
<p>I was closely involved in the polling in the 2014 referendum. The targeting that we did broke Scotland down into five different categories of voters, with undecideds being a big wedge in the middle. That’s about 1 million Scots that we considered could be persuaded one way or the other, and both the Yes and No campaigns heavily focused on them. </p>
<p>When you looked at who they were and what they cared about, it boiled down to economic security. This is why so much of the No campaign focused on arguments around what the currency in an independent Scotland would be, who the lender of last resort would be, who would underpin pensions – all these big economic questions. </p>
<p>Those same people are up in the air just now, who could fall either way, but what’s changed since 2014? These are people aged 25 to 45 who tend to live in urban centres like Edinburgh, Glasgow or along the central belt. They are educated to university degree level mostly. </p>
<p>They are socially centre-left but economically centrist or centre right. By that I mean they are supporters of gay marriage but don’t want high taxes. They are passionately, proudly pro-European and all voted Remain. And they’re very angry about leaving the EU. </p>
<p>If presented with a binary choice of an independent Scotland in Europe with a progressive leader or staying in the UK led by Boris Johnson with a little-Britain Brexit mindset, they’re choosing the progressive independent Scotland in Europe. </p>
<p>They might not like it. They certainly don’t love it. But it’s better than what they’ve got. In short, Brexit has changed people’s minds.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Protester holding up sign that says 'Scotland voted remain'." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397561/original/file-20210428-17-1y8vlgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brexit: 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU at the 2016 EU referendum.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-united-kingdom-23rd-june-2018-1119225317">Ben Gingell/via Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Q: If there’s a pro-independence majority, what are the options available to Nicola Sturgeon to hold a second referendum?</strong></p>
<p>She has zero options because she’s ruled out UDI (universal declaration of independence). I think she’s right to rule that out. The constitution is reserved to the UK parliament, so only the UK parliament can say yes to having a second referendum.</p>
<p>This all boils down to mandates and morality. If there’s a majority for independence, you would expect the UK government, as in 2011, to say yes to a referendum. But if there’s a majority for independence in the election, you will see the SNP demand the right to hold a referendum, and Boris Johnson will I think say no very quickly. The question is how long that no will hold for and the arguments that underpin it. </p>
<p>The first thing they’ll say is, not during a pandemic. They also might say, not now not ever, you said once in a generation. That’s a riskier strategy. And there’s a growing school of thought that if the majority is big, if independence or a second referendum feels inevitable, it’s in the UK government’s interests to go now rather than delay for a long period.</p>
<p>The UK government is currently spending a lot because of the pandemic. We’ve got one of the most right-wing chancellors in my lifetime and he’s spending like a left-wing socialist. So there’s lots of money coming to Scotland and lots of means by which you can demonstrate the value of the UK to Scotland. </p>
<p>In 18 months’ time, that spending has to stop. The UK government will then have to decide what taxes go up and what public sector saving decisions or cuts have to be made to balance the books. The longer you wait to hold a second referendum, the less advantageous the circumstances for the UK government.</p>
<p><strong>Q: How do you think everything will play out?</strong></p>
<p>There’ll be a lot of Punch and Judy-style back and forth. Every time the UK government says no, it will work in the SNP’s favour because it reaffirms everything they tell the electorate about the UK government not observing the will of the people of Scotland. Bear in mind that message has been hammered home consistently since the EU referendum. </p>
<p>Westminster considers itself a protector of the union and Boris Johnson describes himself as the minister for the union, but it never seems to amount to very much. In the past 12 months we’ve had the UK government announce a massive decentralisation around UK government departments, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56380128">including to Scotland</a>. Equally it <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/27/no-10-reportedly-wanted-union-flag-on-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-kits">has suggested</a> putting Union Jacks on vaccine vials to remind people that it’s the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine saving people right now.</p>
<p>But these are superficial arguments for the union. I’ve always said that to save the union, you need an argument of the head and an argument of the heart. The No campaign is very good with arguments of the head. They’ll point to Scotland’s balance sheet and falling oil revenues and the fact that Scotland benefits greatly from public spending redistributing wealth generated largely in London and the south east. </p>
<p>A problem with federalism is that there isn’t one clear definition of what a federalist Britain would look like. There will be different answers in different parts of the country. Also, to what degree would you devolve further powers? Many would argue that the benefit of the UK is the ability to share the same tax system to redistribute wealth, and a UK-wide social security system to spend the receipts of that taxation. </p>
<p>Other people will say federalism should allow you to have localised social security and localised income tax-raising powers, and that’s perfectly legitimate. But it would decrease the strength of my argument as to why the union is a good thing. So there’s no one common thread.</p>
<p><strong>Q: To what extent are Catalonia and Quebec useful comparisons?</strong></p>
<p>I don’t profess to be an expert on Catalonia. But the comparisons aren’t particularly strong because Catalonia is considered an area of substantial wealth and is a net contributor to Spain’s wider economy. Unionists in the UK will argue the reverse is the case with Scotland – especially with the oil price a fraction of what the <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/">2013 white paper</a> for Scottish independence was based on. </p>
<p>There’s a huge gap in the economics of Scottish independence, which leads a lot of people to say Scotland’s too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent. As I understand the arguments in Catalonia, it’s the reverse. </p>
<p>I went to Quebec about two years ago. The province had two independence referendums in succession and then <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/30/terrebonne-hold-out-of-quebec-separatism-faces-end-of-the-dream">just seemed</a> to have had enough. The big changing factor was that after the second referendum, the nationalist parties started losing really heavily. </p>
<p>People assume, I think a bit lazily, that if there were a second independence referendum in Scotland and the No campaign won again that somehow support for nationalism would also fall through the floor. I’m not wholly convinced.</p>
<p><strong>Q: What’s the tenor of the debate in this Scottish election and how does it feel to be watching rather than taking part?</strong></p>
<p>I’m thoroughly enjoying it to be honest. Five years ago I was the one in the TV debates and running around the country doing photo calls. Now I’m an academic and I get to muse on it at leisure. </p>
<p>It doesn’t feel like the campaign has been set alight yet. I’m actually worried about turnout. I don’t think there’s huge awareness that the elections are taking place, because of the pandemic and the degree to which COVID is monopolising the news. </p>
<p>This also means the tenor is not as toxic and acrimonious as recent electoral contests in Scotland. I think it’s likely to stay that way, and something spectacular would have to happen in the next ten days for the SNP not to win. The constitution and COVID are the dominant issues. COVID is largely about competence and that works largely to Nicola Sturgeon’s credit. </p>
<p>The one sore point for her and her record is social care and elderly people being discharged from hospitals into care homes during the pandemic without being tested. That scandal doesn’t look like hurting her just yet. But she’s committed to a public inquiry into decisions she took during the pandemic, so that will be a very difficult issue for her in 12 months or so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159858/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kezia Dugdale is affiliated with the John Smith Centre which exists to make the positive case for politics and public service.</span></em></p>Ahead of the Scottish election on May 6, the former Scottish Labour leader explains what’s at stake – and what could happen next.Kezia Dugdale, Director, John Smith Centre, Senior Lecturer, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/751972017-04-03T13:28:48Z2017-04-03T13:28:48ZShould there be second referendums? Ask Duke Ellington<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163354/original/image-20170330-4576-12vk1l4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C59%2C2176%2C1337&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sir Duke wants a second referendum. Or does he? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jazz_musician_Duke_Ellington.JPEG">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A second referendum on Britain exiting the European Union should be held, some people contend, once voters have a better idea of what a departure would actually involve. Meanwhile, politicians in Edinburgh are seeking a second referendum on Scottish independence sometime in the next few years, though many voters in the first were led to understand that their decision would hold for “a generation”. </p>
<p>So, if voters expect the result of a first referendum to stand, can a follow-up one be justified?</p>
<p>In thinking about this question, I was reminded of a story about Duke Ellington. The Duke, so the story goes, was so addicted to music that after a gig finished he would stay at the piano and keep playing all night. This was inconvenient when he had to play the next day so he gave a member of his band the job of forcing him off the piano. The man with this job, however, had a serious problem. After the gig, Ellington would try to override his previous instructions. But before the gig he instructed the man to take no notice of such attempts. Now which Duke, exactly, was the man answerable to?</p>
<p>Economists call this <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/time-inconsistency.html">the problem of time inconsistency</a>. But a philosopher could argue that it’s a question of metaphysics. </p>
<p>If Ellington is one undivided entity that <a href="https://medium.com/r/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Ftemporal-parts%2F">endures</a> through time, then his instructions are just contradictory. Post-gig Ellington and pre-gig Ellington are one and the same man – one who has instructed his bandmate both to stop him from playing the piano and not to do so. His bandmate can’t be obliged by contradictory instructions, so he isn’t obliged to do anything at all.</p>
<p>But suppose we hold that Ellington is a <a href="https://medium.com/r/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Ftemporal-parts%2F">“perduring”</a> entity, composed of a string of “time-slices”, running from earlier to later. Then we must ask which time-slice(s) of Ellington the bandmate answers to.</p>
<p>On the face of it, there is a good reason for having the bandmate obey the instructions of the more recent time-slice of Ellington. After all, more recent time-slices have knowledge that wasn’t accessible earlier.</p>
<p>Imagine Ellington learning, just after the gig, that he would be expected to play something new at his next gig and would need to put in some extra practice immediately. Doesn’t his present self, who has acquired this crucial new information, have the right to override the instructions his past self gave his bandmate?</p>
<p>Does that mean that present-Ellington should have ultimate sovereignty? No. This is where the problem of <a href="https://medium.com/r/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Fscientific-realism%2F%23PesInd">“pessimistic induction”</a> comes in. Past-Ellington turned out to be making a poor decision when new facts came to light. But present-Ellington will soon become past. He lacks information that will come to light in the future. This is a reason to deny all time-slices the right to make a final decision. The young St Augustine <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110108.htm">faced a theological version of this puzzle</a>: if you can always repent and come to Jesus tomorrow, there is never a reason to stop sinning now.</p>
<h2>The paradoxes of second referendums</h2>
<p>There is therefore a philosophical puzzle around the question of second referendums. The phrase “the will of the people” is thrown about, but who are “the people”? Even if we rather crudely identify the people with the majority, do we mean the majority in 2016, when the referendum was held, or the majority in a later year</p>
<p>Suppose we divide “the people” up into time-slices, as in the Duke Ellington example. If, in 2017, we implement the decision of the people in 2016 without consulting the people in 2017, this would seem undemocratic. The whole franchise has been given over to the earlier time-slices.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if we let the later time-slices make the decisive choice, then we’re disenfranchising the earlier versions. They aren’t able to participate in a 2017 referendum for a very good reason: they only exist in the past. And so their past decision turns out not to have been a decision at all. Worse, by induction the same can be readily applied to the 2017 time-slices.</p>
<p>It’s no wonder that Brexiteers hate the idea of a second referendum. It goes against the will of the people, who made their decision and were told it would be final. But the Brexiteers ignore the fact that disallowing a second referendum prohibits today’s “the people” from expressing their preferences, based on the options for Brexit that are emerging.</p>
<p>Scottish nationalists, by the same token, are setting a dangerous precedent in raising the spectre of a second referendum. If they get the result they want, how will they make it stick?</p>
<p>I have no conclusion to draw from all this, except to stress that the question is cursed with paradoxes. How logical simple majority-rule could be, if it weren’t for the passage of time.</p>
<p>Diogenes the Cynic is said to have responded to <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ParMot">Zeno’s famous paradoxes of motion</a> by getting up and walking. Perhaps his point was that we shouldn’t let paradoxes get in the way of our projects. All the same, it’s a dereliction of duty for any thinking person to pretend, in the teeth of a paradox, that things are as clear as day. And there seems to have been a lot of pretending on both sides of these referendum debates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Douglas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>He’s been gone for 40 years but the Duke could still make a valuable philosophical contribution to the Brexit debate.Alexander Douglas, Lecturer in History of Philosophy / Philosophy of Economics, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747842017-03-17T18:01:38Z2017-03-17T18:01:38ZNicola Sturgeon is playing great politics with indyref2 but victory still long way off<p>Who ended the week with the upper hand in the constitutional battle between the UK and Scottish governments? It started with Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, wrong footing London with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39254695">her plan</a> for a second independence referendum in either late 2018 or early 2019. As a result, Theresa May <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-wont-be-triggered-this-week-theresa-may-eu-referendum-latest-news-rome-treaty-a7627676.html">appeared to</a> delay triggering the Brexit clause, <a href="http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html">Article 50</a> of the Treaty on European Union, until the end of March. </p>
<p>But on the eve of the <a href="https://www.snp.org/conference">SNP spring conference</a> in Aberdeen, the prime minister sought to seize back the initiative: with the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-now-is-not-the-time-for-indyref2-1-4393668">repeated message</a> of “now is not the time”, she signalled she wouldn’t discuss a potential referendum before the Brexit negotiations are complete. Sturgeon’s team <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/nicola-sturgeon-rejects-holding-advisory-referendum-without/">responded</a> by insisting that the vote would happen on her timetable, while the first minister hinted at “other options” if she is formally turned down by the UK government. </p>
<p>May looks to be in the stronger position. The Conservative government <a href="https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2017/03/13/stephen-tierney-a-second-independence-referendum-in-scotland-the-legal-issues/">can in theory</a> prevent a referendum by withholding permission, while opinion polls <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/half-scots-do-not-back-second-independence-referendum-brexit/">tend to</a> indicate that a majority of Scottish voters do not want a referendum without knowing the results of the Brexit negotiations first. In appealing over the heads of the Scottish government, May’s position will play well both with voters most committed to Brexit and those fearful of greater uncertainty. </p>
<h2>Risk and reward</h2>
<p>Nevertheless the approach carries risks. After the Scottish parliament votes in favour of Sturgeon’s proposal on Wednesday March 22 – all but inevitable because of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland">pro-independence majority</a> between the SNP and Scottish Greens – Sturgeon will claim to have a democratic mandate. This will rally supporters and create a Scotland versus Westminster fight. The debate will shift from the pros and cons of independence to who has the right to decide on the vote. </p>
<p>The pro-independence side is guaranteed to exploit the Conservative democratic deficit to the hilt throughout. And May has the further weakness that she has no personal mandate at UK level either, relying instead on David Cameron’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results">victory in 2015</a>. If she were to decide for other reasons to address this by calling an early election, it could provide Sturgeon with a fresh Westminster mandate for a referendum if the Scottish nationalists were to repeat their near clean sweep of 2015. </p>
<p>In the short term, this polarisation between Sturgeon standing up for Scotland and May refusing to alter her course from hard Brexit might suit both their parties at the upcoming council elections in May. These are likely to be viewed as a test for both leaders – as a barometer of May’s early premiership and an opportunity for the SNP to take the last big prize in Scottish politics, Glasgow City Council. In this kind of nationalist/unionist battle, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are both likely to struggle. </p>
<p>The question though is how long the UK government can delay even discussing a potential referendum. To do so for the two years of Brexit negotiations will be difficult. This will depend on avoiding a sustained Yes lead in opinion polls and is unlikely to succeed without a concerted and risky campaign warning about the dangers of independence to the Scottish economy, currency and borders. Sturgeon’s latest hints about “other options” <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/nicola-sturgeon-rejects-holding-advisory-referendum-without/">might mean</a> there would be petitions and protests to contend with along the way. </p>
<h2>Plan B?</h2>
<p>Sturgeon no doubt expected the response that has come from Westminster. With May <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/brexit-bill-passed-mps-reject-lords-amendments">unwilling</a> to agree to amendments over the Brexit bill from the House of Lords and fighting High Court battles over the process, she was hardly likely to discuss a referendum for Scotland until after Brexit negotiations were completed.</p>
<p>This being the case, might she be thinking about holding a referendum without Westminster’s permission? Such an option is highly risky and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-and-a-second-independence-referendum-what-is-the-legal-situation-74468">issues of legality</a> would be paramount. Certainly the SNP government would want to avoid a situation where the process was blocked in the courts. As Catalonia <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/81-of-catalans-vote-to-secede-from-spain-in-symbolic-referendum-2014-11?r=US&IR=T">demonstrated</a> in 2014, holding such a referendum without permission can result in No voters boycotting it and rendering the result meaningless. The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/nicola-sturgeon-rejects-holding-advisory-referendum-without/">early indications</a> from the nationalists are that they are not heading in this direction. </p>
<p>For May, fighting on two fronts is never advisable. And when she does finally agree to a referendum it will be treated by the SNP as a victory over Westminster. May’s recent response makes that seem inevitable sooner or later, while Sturgeon <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39299305">has indicated</a> she is willing to negotiate on timing. One big question both sides will be asking themselves is who benefits more from holding the referendum after Brexit. Until more is known about the terms of the final Brexit deal, this is almost impossible to answer. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d4XyylmlRiE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the meantime, the SNP’s focus will be working out a strategy of how to win a referendum while maintaining and increasing support in the polls for independence. Crucially it has still to formulate arguments on the currency and economy, both of which were <a href="https://medium.com/@gordonguthrie/why-we-lost-a5085f807703">key weaknesses</a> in 2014; and also how to deal with the important minority of potential Yes voters who don’t want EU membership. </p>
<p>Indeed, if May had wanted to wrong foot the SNP she could have offered an earlier referendum. The UK government’s obsession with avoiding anything that makes it look weak to EU negotiators has limited its options, however.</p>
<p>Instead over the next few months the nationalists will have to work on the substance of their independence proposals. Sturgeon may score numerous political points over this second referendum, but lose sight of the underlying case and it will not matter much when it comes to the crunch.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William McDougall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Scottish and UK leaders exchanged fire this week – so, who’s winning?William McDougall, Lecturer in Politics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/744912017-03-13T17:11:26Z2017-03-13T17:11:26ZScotland heads towards a second independence referendum<p>The seemingly inevitable prospect of a second referendum on independence was finally confirmed in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/13/article-50-commons-lords-brexit-sturgeon-speech-corbyn-clarifies-his-position-on-second-scottish-independence-referendum-saying-hes-opposed-politics-live">speech by Nicola Sturgeon</a>, First Minister of Scotland. The Scottish government will begin preparing for a referendum sometime in late 2018 or early 2019, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Brexit</a> negotiations unfold.</p>
<p>A second referendum became likely the moment the result of the EU referendum was confirmed. The devolution settlement that has endured since 1999 was always going to be put under considerable strain when Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU, while the UK as a whole voted to leave.</p>
<p>In her speech, Sturgeon was at pains to point to out that, despite attempting to engage and persuade, the UK government had more or less dismissed her appeals for Scotland to be allowed to stay in the European <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/brexit-may-single-market-scotland-fears">single market</a> after Brexit. Such a prospect was never likely anyway, but the incorrigible nature of the UK government’s position on the matter has, according to Sturgeon, left the Scottish government with no choice.</p>
<p>From the point of view of the Scottish government, a referendum on independence should now be held towards the end of the Brexit negotiations. That would, it is suggested, give the people of Scotland the chance to weigh up their options with the maximum amount of information available before the UK actually leaves the EU.</p>
<p>Sturgeon said she will ask the UK government to push a section 30 order, which would hand Scotland the right to hold a referendum. There is clear precedent for this: the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement between the UK and Scottish governments, which set out the broad terms of the 2014 referendum, preceded the official approval of the section 30 order in February 2013.</p>
<p>There is nothing to suggest that the technical process of holding a second referendum will be any different this time around. <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-and-a-second-independence-referendum-what-is-the-legal-situation-74468">Politically, there may well be some stumbling blocks</a> – though it would be counterproductive for the UK government to block a referendum entirely.</p>
<p>The UK government was accused last time of giving the Scottish administration carte blanche to decide when the referendum would be held and set the question on the ballot. That said, wise counsel would suggest too much interference in the second referendum could simply boost support for independence. </p>
<h2>Is everyone ready?</h2>
<p>When it comes to campaigning, the pro-independence movement is in a far healthier position than its opponent. Some elements have never ceased activity. Groups such as Common Weal and Women for Independence are still very active campaign organisations. The new media scene has also grown since 2014, with outlets such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jun/22/commonspace-joins-scotlands-burgeoning-alternative-media-outlets">CommonSpace</a> now playing a key role in Scotland’s media landscape. It won’t take long for the pro-independence movement to return to full capacity again.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"841254780068605952"}"></div></p>
<p>The pro-UK side, however, is in a different situation. Scottish Labour was badly tarnished by its role in Better Together, the campaign that was on the winning side in 2014. Since then, Scottish Labour has been absolutely decimated as a political force in Scotland and its poll ratings ahead of local elections in May are abysmal. Better Together Mk.II has some serious thinking to do about how to organise and who to select as its figurehead.</p>
<p>The polls have shown a slight increase towards Yes since the last referendum. However, the latest <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line">poll of polls</a> still puts No in the lead with about 52%. That’s well within the margin of statistical error, so for all intents and purposes, the current state of play is neck-and-neck. This is very encouraging for the pro-independence movement since it started from a much lower base last time around. However, it remains to be seen if it can persuade enough women and older voters to back independence – two groups that voted No in 2014.</p>
<h2>What’s changed?</h2>
<p>The Brexit vote has transformed the independence debate in a number of ways. Whereas staying part of the UK was framed as the safe, stable choice last time around, the same can no longer be said with any real conviction. The decision to leave the EU has triggered all kinds of uncertainties and unknowns.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are still serious questions around the fiscal and economic case for independence. The drop in the price of oil and the subsequent collapse in revenues to an estimated £60m as a result has left Scotland with a very high <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132">estimated fiscal deficit</a>, were it independent today, of over 10%, compared to the UK’s fiscal deficit of 4%. The Scottish economy has also been significantly <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/022aeeb2-dd85-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce">lagging behind</a> the UK economy for quite some time. Any vote for independence would require serious and stark choices to be made on public expenditure in Scotland.</p>
<p>What’s more, the Scottish government will have to make plans for the future of its currency in the event of independence. Assuming it wants to remain a member of the EU, Scotland will have to sign up to the EU’s exchange rate mechanism in anticipation of the adoption of the euro. In the meantime, it would probably have to adopt its own currency and set up its own central bank. That process is perfectly possible but would probably have significant implications for the country’s credit rating when borrowing funds on international markets.</p>
<h2>What to expect now</h2>
<p>Last time, there was an official campaign period in the run up to the referendum. In reality, however, the campaign started a couple of years before that. Whatever your constitutional preferences, Scotland is back in campaign mode and the referendum to come will unquestionably dominate public life once again. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Brexit process will occur simultaneously. The future is therefore extremely uncertain, although once the Brexit negotiations between the UK government and the EU get properly underway there may be greater clarity as to what sort of impact that is having on opinion in Scotland.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has indicated that the country will again seek independence – this time against the backdrop of Brexit.Craig McAngus, Lecturer in Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/654862016-09-16T11:16:25Z2016-09-16T11:16:25ZScotland shouldn’t rush second indyref – that’s Ireland’s bitter lesson<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137954/original/image-20160915-30614-2sa6hg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nation divided. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-380882974.html">Dmitry Kaminsky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two years after it was derailed in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">referendum</a> of September 18, 2014, Scottish independence is back on track. The UK’s vote to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum">leave the EU</a> in June, contrary to Scottish wishes, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14721998.Iain_Macwhirter__The_timing_of_the_referendum_is_the_biggest_decision_Nicola_Sturgeon_will_ever_make/">has given</a> those in favour of independence grounds for a second referendum. All the more so, on the back of the SNP’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland">sweeping victory</a> at the 2015 UK election. </p>
<p>But there’s a problem. While some polls <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/brexit-fails-boost-support-scottish-independence/">show</a> a slight increase in support for independence, it’s not enough to have the Scottish nationalists reaching for another referendum. The uncertainty caused by Brexit <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-02/brexit-brings-back-old-dilemmas-for-scots-seeking-independence">may be</a> sowing fresh doubts among those put off by the No side’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11928102/Project-Fear-stopped-Scottish-Independence-but-can-it-keep-Britain-inside-the-EU.html">Project Fear</a> last time around. </p>
<p>Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon knows that getting the timing of a referendum wrong could take independence off the table for a very long time. While she keeps her cards close to her chest, some opponents <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/david-davis-accuses-snp-of-u-turn-on-second-indy-referendum-1-4221997">have been</a> taunting her about U-turning on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36620375">her plans</a> to hold one imminently. </p>
<p>So what is the right way forward for the Scottish independence movement? It is worth looking at Ireland, which this year marked the centenary of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-days-that-shook-the-world-how-the-easter-rising-changed-everything-57140">1916 Easter Rising</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137949/original/image-20160915-30617-1ontf3c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Charles Stewart Parnell.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=charles+stewart+parnell&client=safari&channel=mac_bm&biw=1440&bih=762&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-r4r-uJHPAhXmBsAKHV1cBLoQ_AUIBigB#q=charles+stewart+parnell&channel=mac_bm&tbm=isch&tbs=sur:fc&imgrc=v3QzbpoHbXt6ZM%3A">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the years leading up to that moment, Ireland and Scotland both appeared to be heading for Home Rule – the prototype of what latterday Scots call “<a href="http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-meaning-of-devo-max/">devo max</a>”. The death of the great Irish parliamentary leader Charles Stewart Parnell in 1891 <a href="http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/parallel-parnell-parnell-delivers-home-rule-in-1904/">hadn’t quite</a> scuppered hopes for these constitutional settlements, as some had feared. What <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29048884">eventually</a> did <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/home_rule_movement_01.shtml">was</a> World War I. </p>
<p>The socialists in Ireland, led by Edinburgh-born <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po04.shtml">James Connolly</a>, refused to fight in the war or to believe Home Rule would be forthcoming afterwards. Instead they rose up in Dublin in Easter 1916 in what became the first step in a bloody path to independence. </p>
<p>The price they paid was partition and civil war and a capitalist arrangement very far from their socialist vision. It demonstrates that the British state does not readily give up what it sees as its core constituent parts. Winston Churchill <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-world-crisis-volume-iv-9781472586957/">called</a> the relinquishing of 26 Irish counties “one of the most questionable and hazardous experiments on which a great Empire in the plenitude of its power had ever embarked”.</p>
<p>Scotland, by contrast, did not rise up prematurely for the sake of piecemeal independence. It never settled for half, never relinquished a key region, as Ireland did with Ulster. Instead it moved at a stately pace. Too stately, at times, <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/news/exclusive-poets-lost-plea-for-nation-to-be-confident-and-self-aware-unearthed-after-70-years.17796">for some</a> who desperately wished to see independence in their lifetimes. </p>
<h2>Shared histories</h2>
<p>Part of the key to understanding why Scotland has developed differently is in its historic relations with other parts of the UK – not least Ireland. It is well known that Scots ran the empire hand in glove with the English, but what is less well known is the background to its involvement in Ireland. </p>
<p>The six counties in Ulster that were excluded from Irish independence were <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/planters/es06.shtml">predominantly settled</a> by Scots as part of the British plantations scheme of Ulster in 1609. This successful joint venture just after <a href="http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofthecrowns/index.asp">the union</a> of the Anglo-Scottish crowns of 1603-1608 was a crucible for Britishness that bound the two nations together. </p>
<p>Commentators often cite the bankruptcy of the Scottish merchant classes following the failed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/11/britishidentity.past">Darien Scheme</a> as the main reason for the <a href="http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/">union</a> of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707, but this arguably obscures the more important staging post in Ulster several generations earlier. The point is that Scotland’s sense of involvement with Britain runs very deep and is therefore understandably difficult to disentangle. </p>
<p>That said, devolution and disintegration is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/acts_of_union_01.shtml">arguably</a> part and parcel of the history of the interaction of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England. And Brexit could help bring Scotland and Ireland closer together insofar as both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. </p>
<p>Then there is Wales: despite voting to leave the EU, Cardiff <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/brexit-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-eu-referendum">has been</a> threatening to team up with Belfast and Edinburgh to demand the right to vote on the terms of Brexit. This is a sign that all three Celtic countries are committed to ensuring that England, having long used the British union as a bulwark against Europe, doesn’t dictate future arrangements. Allegiance to the centre in London is certainly not what it used to be. </p>
<p>In short, both Ireland and Scotland’s histories are reminders to Scots in favour of independence that this game is best played long. The Brexit vote may look like a mixed blessing from their point of view, but it’s worth remembering that 2014 was preceded by a vote against devolution in the referendum of 1979 that was nevertheless followed by a Scottish parliament 20 years later. Scottish independence <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/scottish-referendums-swings-and-turnabouts-two-years-on-the-long-road-to-poll-position-9745063.html">is less likely</a> a road to nowhere than a long journey with twists and turns along the way. </p>
<p>Ireland’s independence story suggests that doing things quickly, whatever the passions of the present, is never wise. To borrow from <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/">Karl Marx</a>, if 2014 was a tragedy for Scottish supporters of independence, a premature sequel could end in farce. Nearly 310 years <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/341284.stm">after</a> the Act of Union of 1707, “the settled will of the Scottish people” remains unsettled. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37250448">Keep talking</a> and the independence movement is liable to eventually end up on the right side of history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65486/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Willy Maley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To achieve independence, history says you should play a long game.Willy Maley, Professor of Renaissance Studies, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/614572016-06-24T06:01:57Z2016-06-24T06:01:57ZScottish independence back in play after Brexit shock – with a note of caution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128056/original/image-20160624-28391-1rmx2pe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bring it on?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCb17h3aYWA">YouTube</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One question that was omnipresent in the EU referendum debate referred to Scotland: <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-scotland-blocks-england-from-brexit-what-happens-next-61387">what would happen if it</a> voted to remain in the EU but was pulled out on the back of votes from elsewhere in the UK? Would it lead to a second independence referendum and then a vote for independence? </p>
<p>In the aftermath of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36615028">the result</a>, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has given the clearest indication of what the answer will be. She <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-result-live-counting-leave-remain-brain-in-europe?CMP=fb_gu">told a press conference</a> it is now “highly likely” a second independence referendum will be held. </p>
<p>It comes after a clean sweep of Scottish local authorities voted to remain in the EU but faces being forced out by the Anglo-Welsh Brexit vote. She said the Scottish government would begin drafting legislation to make such a referendum possible. </p>
<p>It was a bold move by the SNP leader, implicitly daring Westminster to suggest such a vote will have no legal basis. Yet she was cautious, too. She cleverly hasn’t committed to a timescale and said the Scottish government will look to open channels of communication with the EU and other member states. This will buy her time while the UK gets its Brexit negotiations underway, allowing her to showcase to Scottish unionists her competency in standing up for the nation’s interests in this fraught period. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hCb17h3aYWA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The debate about Scottish self-government intensified from Margaret Thatcher’s time in office in the 1980s, when Scottish support for the ruling Conservatives fell away sharply. Much was made of the complaint that what the electorate in the south of England voted for was imposed in Scotland against the people’s democratic will. It was one of the driving forces in the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999 and a key argument for Scottish independence in the 2014 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">referendum</a>.</p>
<p>The EU referendum result has brought this issue to the fore in perhaps the most acute manner yet. This result represents what was described in the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Tu6kHw0HUMdXZyb0RHNHdRSzQ/view">SNP’s manifesto</a> for the Scottish election in May as the kind of “material change in circumstances” in Scotland’s status as a constituent part of the UK that would justify a second referendum. As such, Sturgeon referred to it in her press conference. </p>
<p>One reason why EU membership has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32222806">long been</a> given this status by Sturgeon and her senior colleagues is that during the 2014 referendum campaign, the pro-UK Better Together campaign argued Scotland was more likely to stay a member of the EU as part of the UK. Far from being allowed to continue, Better Together claimed the EU would make Scotland apply for membership from scratch and be denied some of the UK’s favourable conditions – how ironic this looks now. </p>
<h2>Treading lightly</h2>
<p>So now that the unionists have played right into the SNP’s hand, why the need for caution? First, the party will want to wait and see how the post-Brexit negotiations play out. The deal that the UK is able to secure with the EU, whether it is some sort of continued membership of the single market or something much looser, will be crucial for the Scottish electorate when it comes to making a cost-benefit analysis of what Brexit actually means. </p>
<p>A number of devolved policy areas such as fisheries and farming are in actual fact Europeanised in the sense that the major decisions are taken at an EU level. Taking the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm">Common Fisheries Policy</a> as an example, Marine Scotland would take sole responsibility for the management of fish stocks in Scottish territorial waters, with its operations under more direct scrutiny from the Scottish parliament as a result. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128003/original/image-20160624-28354-59ssc1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mackerel: important to Scottish economy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=mackerel%20net&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=420168919">Thiradech</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Brexit therefore actually enhances some of the powers and competencies of the Scottish parliament, something that those who back devolution over independence may well take into consideration. Having said that, there are questions for the Scottish government and Scottish parliament regarding the oversight and scrutiny of these policy areas in future.</p>
<p>Secondly, if Scotland was to vote for independence and was able to remain a member state of the EU, it would share its land border with a non-member. The last independence referendum campaign threw up a number of difficult questions about a shared currency and cross-border trade that will be <a href="http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/what-will-nicola-sturgeon-be-hoping-june-23rd">even more</a> tricky to answer in a post-Brexit contest.</p>
<p>The mechanics of the possible relationship between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK are therefore significantly altered to what they were in 2014. This requires a rethink from the Scottish government and the wider pro-independence movement on what shape and form Scottish independence ought to take.</p>
<h2>The Quebec precedent</h2>
<p>The third and probably most crucial reason for holding off from the point of view of the SNP is that there is <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/06/could-brexit-lead-to-indyref2/">little evidence</a> to suggest that support for independence would receive a significant boost as a result of Brexit. The SNP’s leadership is keen to avoid Scotland “doing a Quebec” where a second referendum on independence took place and was defeated, and over 20 years later the prospects of it holding another are all but dead. </p>
<p>The fiscal and economic conditions that an independent Scotland would be subjected to are significantly worse than they were in 2014, with the North Sea struggling due to the low price of oil. This would leave Scotland with an <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692">estimated fiscal deficit</a> of £11.9bn (7.8% of GDP) compared to the UK’s fiscal deficit of £59.8bn (3.3% of GDP). It is also unclear how important Scottish voters feel membership of the EU is and whether or not it is more important than economic risk – one of the most important factors that led to a No vote. </p>
<p>That the SNP had not yet persuaded the Scottish electorate to choose independence in spite of these problems is highlighted by a paradox in the party’s 2016 election manifesto: while the “material change of circumstances” clause has clearly been triggered, another SNP referendum test has not. The manifesto talks about requiring clear and sustained support amongst the Scottish electorate for independence before a second referendum would go on the table. A source within the SNP has <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-60-support-needed-before-next-independence-referendum-1-3920508">previously stated</a> that support for independence would have to consistently remain at about 60% for this to be satisfied. </p>
<p>Clearly the SNP felt such a clear Scottish mandate to stay in the EU could only be met with a strong signal that the second referendum is now all but irresistible. Yet Nicola Sturgeon’s caution, preceded by a <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/salmond-scottish-referendum-would-be-dictated-by-brexit-negotiations/">round of interviews</a> by former leader Alex Salmond, shows that victory is far from in the bag – even in the face of such a difference of opinion with the English and Welsh. </p>
<p>In the timeframe available, she will hope that the pro-independence movement can awaken again and mobilise with the same vigour as last time – and that Brexit really does tip enough Scottish unionists towards supporting independence. The SNP will then have to win the argument or potentially face the same fate as their counterparts in Quebec. </p>
<p><em>This article was updated post-publication to reflect rapidly moving news events</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61457/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You might think those seeking Scottish independence just got exactly what they wanted. It’s not quite that simple.Craig McAngus, Lecturer in Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/594972016-05-17T12:59:44Z2016-05-17T12:59:44ZThe BBC’s biggest problem? The public has no control over it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122848/original/image-20160517-9484-z532rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your turn.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/zapthedingbat/3231146485/in/photolist-5Vwtha-h3RAcd-hC9CaG-6bPVME-hC9q5C-aofgTA-du2hFR-BtcWbK-C2jCo3-5X789N-mJGX8i-fFT6iA-cpPNn-79y3Qt-79x7zc-79x5Vz-9AaUXB-duJmox-hC8jct-4FJw3Z-6Ko5V-e5imc5-cB6HZm-9XfoFJ-5X733Y-hCaX12-5X6NEm-dDYoUa-88LRqb-daZzjS-kg4t9L-e5iwgh-e9a6Fa-duqPJu-e5iddj-hC9BN6-e6iBeT-e5irSo-h3Rpom-e5dZXV-mo6pY2-e5iqwL-95Hukv-cpMT1-95rJdC-cpPmG-e5hMCW-aBDVhY-cpRmf-cpQ4T">Sam Greenhalgh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To the relief of many in the BBC, the proposals in the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-bbc-for-the-future-a-broadcaster-of-distinction">white paper</a> appear relatively modest compared to what <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-white-paper-the-worst-has-not-come-to-pass-but-the-leash-is-tightening-59282">many expected</a>. If voices on the right had their way, the government would have scrapped the licence fee and effectively ended the BBC’s special status as a public broadcasting service with state funding. Instead it might have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07b9j1v/this-week-12052016">ended up as</a> a subscription-based competitor to Netflix. </p>
<p>From the left, too, the BBC has been under attack – this time for its <a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/315723-corbyn-petition-bbc-bias/">perceived establishment prejudice</a> against the Labour leadership under Jeremy Corbyn and <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report">against the</a> Yes side in the Scottish independence referendum. Yet the BBC remains <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbc_report_trust_and_impartiality_jun_2015.pdf">stubbornly popular</a> with the public – just like the UK’s other great national public institution, <a href="http://www.health.org.uk/blog/wisdom-crowd-what-do-people-think-about-nhs">the NHS</a>. That may well have protected it from the direst predictions about the white paper. It certainly cannot be taken for granted in future, however. </p>
<p>The BBC has always defended its cherished “independence” and looks uneasy about the new proposal for almost 50% of its board to be appointed by the government. A response is that at least the government has some kind of democratic mandate. One remarkable truth about the corporation is that the British public is rarely considered in the debate. Never mind that it pays for the BBC to be its servant. </p>
<h2>Whose Auntie?</h2>
<p>Because the BBC was constituted at arm’s length from government, it has always enjoyed a certain autonomy. But this also made it a creature of the “great and the good”, personified by its founder <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/research/culture/reith-1">Lord Reith</a> and his paternalist values. It betrayed a lack of trust in “the masses” by the social elites that ran the British Empire. </p>
<p>The BBC nonetheless developed an independent public-service ethos in the more tightly regulated national-media era of the 1950s and 1960s. This is arguably the root of its enduring popularity, and lives on through the likes of Radio 3, Radio 4 and the Asian Network. Yet imposing all this without consulting the public always smacks of metropolitian elitism. </p>
<p>The BBC’s public service is also a long way from what it was. Since at least the days of John Birt’s very market-oriented director generalship in the 1990s, the corporation has been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3563180/BBC-must-restore-its-values-if-it-is-to-survive.html">regularly accused</a> of losing this ethos. In the scramble for mass-market ratings in the fragmented TV world of the 21st century, it produces much less critical and innovative programming than it used to. It is hard to compare today’s fare with the heyday of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165592/">Play For Today</a> and prime-time slots for landmark documentaries and fearless current affairs coverage. </p>
<p>Complaints about the BBC apeing its competitors and invading the natural space of the private sector are another long-running theme. There has been <a href="https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/television/bbc-studios-lose-crown-jewels-like-strictly-come-dancing/">much talk about</a> removing prime-time giants like Strictly Come Dancing, and most recently the BBC <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/17/online-recipes-off-the-menu-of-slimmed-down-bbc">has announced</a> it will take down most recipes from its website to placate its critics. </p>
<p>So will the public continue to stay onside to protect all this? The lack of trust in the public that was built into the BBC’s foundations is now being reciprocated by a growing public hostility to the political and media classes on the back of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7029940.stm">television fakery</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15686679">Leveson</a>, Iraq, the financial crisis, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20026910">Jimmy Savile</a> and all the rest. The cultural gap between the elites that run the corporation and the public that funds it may lead to a loss of support in future. </p>
<p>This might be aided by the long campaign by anti-BBC cheerleaders such as Rupert Murdoch, and the corporation’s evident difficulties with diversity. The sight of Scottish independence supporters <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/yes-voters-are-blaming-the-bbc-for-losing-them-the-referendu?utm_term=.yvXNaNM6lW#.auv1J1W3qz">cancelling their licence fees</a> two years ago to protest the BBC’s coverage of the referendum shows the risks. And there is a new danger to public-service broadcasting in the white paper: the BBC will come under the control of broadcasting watchdog Ofcom – a <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/what-is-ofcom/">creature whose</a> “principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and of consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition”.</p>
<h2>Democratising the corporation</h2>
<p>A radical answer would be to use the process for renewing the BBC’s Royal Charter in December to do away with elite appointment and have a democratically elected BBC Trust instead. Drawing on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/corbyn-public-ownership-push-reflects-what-is-happening-all-round-the-world-47652">experience of</a> newer and more representative forms of public ownership outside the UK, changing the governance structure could ensure that both consumers and the BBC’s other great neglected constituency – its workers – are properly represented.</p>
<p>A possible model could be to have one third of the board elected by licence payers; one third by the workforce; and the remaining third by government appointment. To ensure adequate geographical diversity, the government section might also include appointees from local and regional government. You would have fewer City grandees and more members of the general public and representatives from the UK’s regions. They could redetermine the corporation’s mission statement and values and bring a much more diverse range of experiences and knowledge.</p>
<p>The BBC would still have its independence and operational autonomy and be funded by the licence fee, but those who pay for it would now have proper ownership. The director general could still be a professional appointee with the right kind of managerial experience of running television and media enterprises. </p>
<p>Who knows if it would transform the corporation’s current output. I suspect you would see the BBC moving away from the increasingly narrow profit-driven commercial interests that characterise the corporate media, but either way the public would have helped choose. Look at what happened when the BBC <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jul/05/bbc-6-music-saved">listened</a> to the Save 6 Music campaign and imagine that public representation being right at the heart of the corporation. </p>
<p>A democratic mandate would finally make it harder for future governments to undermine the BBC or remove the licence fee, and harder for the likes of Murdoch to criticise it – thereby helping to guarantee its independence. We live in an era where viewers vote constantly in reality TV shows. It is time we extended it to the people who oversee the BBC itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59497/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Cumbers receives funding from ESRC for a current research project 'Transforming Public Policy through Economic Democracy'.</span></em></p>If you want to safeguard the licence fee and shore up public-service content, time to introduce democracy to the BBC.Andrew Cumbers, Professor of Regional Political Economy, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415882015-05-11T05:26:57Z2015-05-11T05:26:57ZBritain’s political earthquake: the aftershocks for UK and Europe<p>So David Cameron confounded the polls and won a thin but absolute majority in the House of Commons, while all his adversaries in England were shattered, as witnessed by the immediate resignation of the leaders of Labour (<a href="https://theconversation.com/milibandism-crushed-at-the-polls-but-ed-doomed-from-the-start-41525">Ed Miliband</a>), the Liberal Democrats (<a href="https://theconversation.com/lib-dem-wipeout-prompts-clegg-to-hint-he-will-step-down-41512">Nick Clegg</a>) and even UKIP (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-political-parties-choose-their-leaders-41534">Nigel Farage</a>). But Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-aftershocks-of-the-snps-success-will-be-felt-throughout-the-next-parliament-41127">triumphed</a>, sweeping up 56 out of the 59 Scottish constituencies. </p>
<p>The first consequence for the EU will surely be that Cameron will announce legislation to fix the date <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282">for the in-or-out referendum</a> scheduled for 2017, with some discussion of whether it could be brought forward into <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11420472/David-Cameron-plays-down-prospect-of-2016-referendum.html">2016</a>. </p>
<p>This will be the easy part. Much more tricky will be the second step: to set out what Cameron actually wants, going beyond the vague rhetoric about “renegotiating a new settlement or better deal for the UK within a reformed EU” that he has relied on so far. </p>
<p>And so on to negotiations with the EU, and then the referendum itself.</p>
<h2>The UK’s potential demands</h2>
<p>Cameron’s demands to the EU institutions and other member states will most likely fall under the three key words he has been using: repatriation, renegotiation and reform.</p>
<p>Repatriation in any strategic sense means deleting <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences/faq">competences</a> from the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm">Lisbon Treaty</a> for all member states. But Cameron’s own <a href="https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">Balance of Competence Review</a> went into this question thoroughly, and found no instance where there was a sound case for repatriation. </p>
<p>At the level of secondary legislation, unnecessary or obsolete regulations and directives (“red tape”) could be weeded out, precisely what <a href="http://www.politico.eu/person/frans-timmermans/">Frans Timmermans</a>, first vice-president of the European Commission, is now mandated to do. Cameron can certainly champion this appointment as something he has always wanted – and if he wants to call Timmermans’ recommendations repatriation, so be it. </p>
<p>Renegotiation means changing the specific terms of the UK’s membership. Here, Cameron’s scope is limited by three factors: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>A large part of EU policies concern the broad single market area, but the UK has attached the highest priority to more rather than less EU action, and above all to have all EU law for the single market applied by all member states. </p></li>
<li><p>The UK’s existing opt-outs are already huge – the euro, Schengen, justice and home affairs – and there is nothing about them to be renegotiated.</p></li>
<li><p>Decisions in major domains such as foreign and security policy and taxation demand unanimous votes in the EU Council, so nothing can be passed there without the UK’s agreement. This is the biggest reason why Cameron’s renegotiation talk has rung so hollow. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>But aside from these, there are two conspicuous UK complaints outstanding: immigration from the EU and some labour market regulations, for example the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205">working time directive</a>, which establishes minimum standards for. </p>
<p>On immigration, Cameron’s first line of action can be to exploit the recent <a href="http://eutopialaw.com/2014/11/13/the-end-of-free-movement-of-persons-the-cjeu-decision-in-dano/">Dano ruling</a> of the European Court of Justice of November 2014, which confirms national powers to decide the criteria for residence by “other” EU nationals, which in turn controls access to many social welfare benefits and so-called “benefit tourism”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EU immigration: a conspicuous complaint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/malias/223212749/in/photolist-acgFti-8BfDrU-wt7B-4q9Aqs-9Bv4ea-kJ2nF-meS2Ph-pnkgx3-rhLfJL-6kowHu-cJva7j-bbCjPZ-e9KY8A-3ak6EA-s4zJyW-b7RUPa-b7RUSX-b7RUK4-e78Uki-e78Ujv-fo1Noq-yGfxh-acgEQv-87TE1P-a3shAn-zF5wN-7C1WVM-5Ct57z-upSWr-5DbcpX-auxUH4-7goESP-7LodVp-7Lo2Di-7LseA5-7LsacN-7Lo5yv-7Ls5ey-7Lob4K-7Ls9am-7Lo454-7Lsbvy-7Ls28j-7Lo7ik-7Ls76j-7LoeoH-7LoeSn-7Lsc7L-7Ls3yU-7Ls7CL">Gideon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK can re-calibrate these criteria on its own responsibility, without requiring any renegotiation. However several other of the richer member states have similar concerns over “benefit tourism”. Even if the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-benefits-tourism-exist-22279">evidence for this phenomenon is quite weak</a>, there might be some new secondary EU legislation in this area forthcoming. On the working time directive, maybe some specific UK opt-out from some provisions, such as for hospital workers, could be agreed.</p>
<p>On reform or policy improvement, by contrast, there’s a very substantial agenda, in many instances corresponding well with what the UK has been driving at. </p>
<p>Cameron wants “a reformed EU”, and could claim success in building up a critical mass or momentum for change in areas such as financial services in particular, energy and climate, and the digital sector. He could also point to recent reform achievements in agriculture and fisheries, and in achieving some <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21379667">cuts in the EU budget</a> for the multi-annual period until 2020. </p>
<p>Looking ahead the EU is engaged in many trade opening negotiations, including with the US, India and Japan, which corresponds to a key UK priority. </p>
<h2>Would this fly?</h2>
<p>Many member states are adamantly against the idea of treaty change these days for any purpose, let alone just for the UK. The above package could be broadly acceptable to Brussels and other member states without treaty change.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will the wind now blow in a different direction?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gertcha/2067915187/in/photolist-49JB98-RYp2E-6KnpEc-e1ENG-ozZ4pu-dKyJ8Y-eic3gf-ei69Yg-ac336f-4vVgzm-98ugn3-eTgFHk-5DkU-7ZPTci-tgow6-eibWeE-ei6d6Z-ei6jeF-ei6iHP-ei6ksx-eibUpE-eic6ns-eibWBC-eibUHJ-ei6kXZ-eibUXs-eic3Lh-eic6aq-ei6dqi-eic4FC-ei6c5H-ei6e8D-eibU4s-ei6kdk-ei6jxx-eibVwW-ovhKbD-5xtMS8-atCrmF-bXofqs-4TffqD-7M67Mh-dNX1ua-dpGQHq-fqrKiA-8rXnop-aJiueP-dP3JKQ-7uhdkL-nGb7MK">Stuart Chalmers</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But would this fly at home for Cameron? The above agenda is certainly short of what many Tory MPs say they want. Without the restraining presence of the Liberal Democrats in coalition, the all-Conservative government might be tempted to switch into making far more radical demands, such as abolishing EU powers and returning them to the national level, which would require treaty change.</p>
<p>Of course, various europhobic Tory MPs would approve of a radical agenda that was sure to fail and thus lead to a no vote in the referendum.</p>
<p>How strong will the temptation to give in be? This is where the new Scottish reality comes into play. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has so far said quite clearly that she would not favour returning to the independence question with a new referendum except in materially new circumstances, or a “new situation”. </p>
<p>That clearly extends to a hypothetical “Brexit”. If Cameron’s negotiations with the EU started going badly wrong, this hypothesis would liven up – and he would then be facing his ultimate nightmare scenario, simultaneously presiding over the secession of the UK from the EU and of Scotland from the UK. </p>
<p>Cameron could, however, become a leading proponent of a more effective European foreign, security and defence policy. That would perfectly complement the UK’s role in pushing a progressive agenda in the single market and external trade domains. On foreign policy, Cameron’s first government has done the reverse on a most alarming scale: there used to be a “big three” in EU foreign policy, but now there is only a “big two” – France and Germany, who took the lead on Europe’s response to the Ukraine crisis. </p>
<p>There is still room for a fresh initiative to contribute in a very significant way to the enhancement of the EU’s foreign, security and defence policy. If Cameron wants to include some things that would require the active support goodwill of his partners in his agenda for a new settlement with the EU, it might be a good place to start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson receives funding from various foundations and governments.</span></em></p>Now that he commands a majority government, what might Cameron’s demands to the EU be and what’s his worst nightmare?Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/357982014-12-23T19:49:15Z2014-12-23T19:49:15ZFrom joy to despair, Glasgow’s George Square has seen it all this year<p>Stunned, open-mouthed, horrified. How else to describe the events in Glasgow three days before Christmas as a council refuse lorry ran out of control in George Square in the heart of the city? It mounted pavements, knocking down shoppers and pedestrians, under the glare of the Christmas lights and fairground amusements. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/22/bin-lorry-crash-pedestrians-glasgow-serious-incident-police">Six people dead and eight more seriously injured</a>. It’s a terrible, tragic accident to bring the year to a close. </p>
<p>And it’s the kind of year that has not been seen here for a long time, if ever. It began following a dreadful low point, if we go back to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crash">last November</a>, when ten people died as a police helicopter plummeted into the Clutha Vaults pub near the city centre. </p>
<p>In between we’ve seen several incredible highs as the city first played host to the Commonwealth Games and then George Square became both an emotional heart and rallying point for many supporters of the Yes campaign during the independence referendum. If it seems almost trite to add that Glasgow School of Art’s iconic library <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27556659">burned down too</a>, that says something in itself. For contrasting reasons, the enduring legacies of this year of very mixed emotions will last a long time. </p>
<h2>The success of the games</h2>
<p>Back in the summer, the Commonwealth Games allowed the city to bask in the glow of international attention. Television crews from across the world mingled with athletes and visitors in George Square, adjacent to the magnificent Victorian-era City Chambers. Laid out in 1781 and named after King George III, the city’s central square has been a common thread through much of the year’s events, adding to what was already a very rich history. </p>
<p>There was opposition to the games, some of it reflected in <a href="http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/20713">political events in the square</a>, from activists and others who felt the huge sums spent would have been better addressing poverty and other social problems in the city. But while the games’ longer-term legacy also remains <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/01/commonwealth-games-glasgow-east-end-legacy">controversial</a>, the event itself was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/commonwealthgames/11009010/Commonwealth-Games-2014-Glasgow-emerges-as-the-true-star-of-a-successful-Games.html">widely regarded</a> as a huge success – <a href="https://theconversation.com/behind-the-fence-the-side-of-glasgow-games-youre-not-meant-to-see-29927">at least</a> in terms of organisation and delivery, and the unprecedented <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/commonwealthgames/10990057/Commonwealth-Games-2014-final-medal-table.html">medal haul</a> by Scottish athletes (4th on the leaderboard). </p>
<p>The hosting of the games was intended to crown longstanding efforts to challenge the dominant UK-wide view of the city as the example, par excellence, of urban decay, dereliction, deviancy, political agitation, slums, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/06/mystery-glasgow-health-problems">bad health</a> and violence. Even if some residents have sometimes tried their best to live lives that seem only to confirm the worst of the city’s negative stereotypes, the reputation of Glasgow as a hard place for hard people is not recent. It traces back to the mid to late nineteenth century, when it was the “second city” of the British Empire.</p>
<h2>Glasgow at war</h2>
<p>This second city status within the empire was already coming to an end by the close of World War I, the centenary of the start of which was also marked in 2014 with a visit from prime minister David Cameron and the UK’s other main political leaders. More Glaswegians rushed to enlist for that war than any other city in the UK. The <a href="https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=14316">annual Remembrance Sunday commemoration</a> in George Square in November was perhaps even more emotional than usual, given this historic legacy. </p>
<p>World War I was also the era in which Glasgow’s reputation as a bastion of socialism, trade-union militancy and political agitation was consolidated. This culminated on Friday January 31 1919 with the so-called “Battle of George Square”, when a demonstration of more than 60,000 workers prompted sufficient fears of a Bolshevik uprising that the tanks of the British Army were deployed. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hwsFkQIUjRw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Fast forward 95 years and George Square was back at the centre of British political events this September during the Scottish independence referendum. It became one of the key meeting places and rallying points for supporters of the Yes movement, gathering night after night under scores of Saltire flags. After all the constituencies of the city <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29273491">voted Yes</a>, there <a href="https://www.facebook.com/renamegeorgesquareindependencesquare">were calls</a> to rename George Square as Freedom, or even Independence, Square. On September 19 it <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/glasgows-george-square-turns-ugly-4290576">was also</a> the site of a skirmish as members of various Loyalist and far-right pro-UK groups celebrated the victory of the No campaign by engaging in violent disorder. </p>
<h2>“I belong to Glasgow…”</h2>
<p>If this felt like a low after such an invigorating campaign, it has since been eclipsed by the current refuse-lorry tragedy, for whose victims a memorial service <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30588880">has been held</a>. This latest sad turn of events makes it harder still to take in how much this one part of Scotland’s largest city has witnessed during the past year. Many have commented during this time on the unique character of Glasgow people, and the spirit that they are said to possess. </p>
<p>If all cities are unique in some ways, Glasgow’s uniqueness is shaped by history, by geography, by politics, by global change, by migrations, by fortunes and many misfortunes. “I belong to Glasgow, dear old Glasgow town, but something’s the matter with Glasgow, for it’s going round and round,” sings the first two lines of the famous song of the city. </p>
<p>As well-wishers lay so many flowers in George Square under the Christmas lights, the city’s central plaza has been the focal point for this cycle of joy and sadness like so many times before. What an unbelievable year. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KNrVkDqPsbM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35798/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Mooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Stunned, open-mouthed, horrified. How else to describe the events in Glasgow three days before Christmas as a council refuse lorry ran out of control in George Square in the heart of the city? It mounted…Gerry Mooney, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy and Criminology, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/356062014-12-17T14:52:36Z2014-12-17T14:52:36ZDilly-dallying coalition is still baffled by the English Question<p>William Hague has made a big show of setting out a plan for English votes for English laws in a document published on December 16. The trouble is, his plan isn’t up to much. As one MP put it, his proposal couldn’t even be called a dog’s breakfast since <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-16/labour-mp-a-dog-would-turn-its-nose-up-at-hague-plans/">“any sensible dog would turn up its nose”</a> at what is on offer.</p>
<p>The English Question has become increasingly pressing over the past few months. Just ahead of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland-decides-14">Scottish referendum</a> in September, all three party leaders pledged to devolve even more powers to the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. </p>
<p>But with greater devolution, Scottish members of the UK parliament would find themselves able to vote on even less legislation affecting Scotland. They would though, still play a fundamental part in decisions that only affected England. This doesn’t seem fair to many MPs, who don’t think Scottish members should be able to influence English issues with their vote if the same is not afforded in reverse.</p>
<h2>The proposal</h2>
<p>William Hague has now published his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387598/implications_of_devolution_for_england_accessible.pdf">report</a>, setting out a range of options for resolving this problem.</p>
<p>It puts forward a number of possibilities, all of which involve the internal procedures and mechanisms of parliament and how MPs scrutinise bills. These options range from more minor tinkering to large-scale amendment and reform.</p>
<p>Most involve the speaker of the House of Commons having to consider whether or not a bill is considering an “English-only” law. The more minor reforms include having a specific part of the legislative process (committee and report stage) for English laws in which only those MPs representing English constituencies will be able to participate.</p>
<p>The more major reforms include a complete ban on any MPs representing non-English constituencies from taking any part in scrutinising bills which are considered by the speaker to be “English-only” laws and a Liberal Democrat proposal for a grand committee of English MPs who are empowered to veto these England-only measures. </p>
<h2>The problem</h2>
<p>The options are interesting but they do little to offer a decisive answer to the English Question. Instead, they point to wider issues within the government. Most obviously, it highlights its tendency to look active while being indecisive.</p>
<p>The Conservative party’s <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/Files/Activist%20Centre/Press%20and%20Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto2010">2010 election manifesto</a> committed to resolving the position of English MPs through some form of consent mechanism, ensuring that English MPs have given their explicit consent to legislation that affects England. Similar commitments were included in the party’s 2005 and 2001 election manifestos.</p>
<p>Once in government however, it quickly became less of a priority. The issue was only mentioned in one short sentence in the coalition’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf">initial plans</a> for legislation. Even that only stated that a commission would “consider” the issue. It took nearly two years for this commission (the McKay Commission) to even be put together and when it <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf">reported</a> back, the government barely acknowledged it.</p>
<h2>Road to nowhere?</h2>
<p>The rhetoric is identical to what we heard back in 2010 and again following the referendum. We seem to be no closer to a decisive answer on this issue. This is just like the discussions that took place about House of Lords reform under Tony Blair, which showed how futile such exercises can be. In that case, the House of Commons failed to back any of the seven options presented to it and very little changed as a result.</p>
<p>The Conservatives will decide which of Hague’s options they prefer in the new year but he himself has admitted that he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/english-votes-english-laws-three-options-william-hague">hasn’t even bothered to run his proposals past the speaker</a>. Even if the proposals are voted on, it is unlikely that one will have a majority.</p>
<h2>Different paths</h2>
<p>We can also see these events as yet another sign of an increasingly fractious and divided government. The idyllic days of the Rose Garden press conference back in 2010 are long gone. Clegg has referred to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141118/debtext/141118-0001.htm#14111842000004">tension</a> between the coalition parties on many occasions and now they are putting forward completely separate proposals in one document. </p>
<p>Constitutional reform is always tricky and has been a particular problem for the coalition. Of the 27 items of constitutional reform listed in the original <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf">policy programme</a>, very few have been successfully achieved. And those that have been achieved – such as fixed-term parliaments – haven’t been easy. </p>
<p>The Conservatives will struggle even to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30505292">reach an agreement</a> even within their own party. Agreement at a cross-party level will be even harder. </p>
<p>So in many respects we are back at the beginning, with a similar set of proposals to those we have seen before. It is now a race against time to see if cross-party agreement can be found before the general election. The clock is ticking but no one seems to be even at the starting line. The chances appear very slim indeed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>William Hague has made a big show of setting out a plan for English votes for English laws in a document published on December 16. The trouble is, his plan isn’t up to much. As one MP put it, his proposal…Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/354532014-12-13T10:47:03Z2014-12-13T10:47:03ZJim Murphy wins in Scotland … but can he save Ed Miliband?<p>So the bookies <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-scottish-labour-leader">were right</a>. The new leader of Labour in Scotland is indeed Jim Murphy. The challenge from Neil Findlay (less so Sarah Boyack) wasn’t enough to produce an upset. Not only is the future of Scottish Labour in Murphy’s hands, but to a fair extent the outcome of the 2015 UK election is too. </p>
<p>He was always the front-runner, of course. The affable and soft-spoken MP was by far the best known of the three candidates. In an age when the relative merits of party leaders is a key consideration for voters, the fact that he is a consummate TV performer probably swayed a fair number of party members. The surprise, in a way, is that his victory was not a foregone conclusion. Explaining why sheds a light on one of the problems he will face as leader. </p>
<h2>Blairite tarnish</h2>
<p>Murphy earned his spurs as a Blairite fixer by helping out in some adroit political manoeuvring even before he was elected to parliament at the age of just 29 in 1997, <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yZ9vAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT170&lpg=RA1-PT170&dq=Jim+Murphy+Network+Blair+SEC&source=bl&ots=tsJMIDodoF&sig=k1rzQJvdN7hAF2wENb_FZf2AN0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XwuMVNPlIMG1UeS6hPgN&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jim%20Murphy%20Network%20Blair%20SEC&f=false">helping to</a> clear leftists out of the way in Scotland for example. In his years as MP, as he slowly climbed the ladder, he consolidated his reputation as a loyal Blairite and as a politician with considerable political acumen and organisational skills. </p>
<p>In the Scottish leadership election, however, this reputation did not serve him well – particularly in the trade union section of the three-way bloc (the others being Scottish Labour politicians and party members). The fact that he was backed by none of the three major unions – <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/04/jim-murphy-scottish-labour-leadership">Unison, Unite</a> and his own, <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gmb-backs-neil-findlay-bid-4591285">the GMB</a> – was bound to dampen his support among the union rank and file, though it should be remembered that the union vote was decided by one-member-one-vote.</p>
<p>Murphy will be well aware that, as leader, he will need to establish a better working relationship with top union officials. The loosening of the relationship between the party and the unions that occurred during the Blair years was never replicated in Scotland. Murphy is well aware that New-Labour-style politics will not be welcomed by the unions, by the party at large and, indeed, by Scotland as a whole. </p>
<p>So Murphy will probably seek to fight the 2015 UK election and 2016 Scottish election in a way which reflects the balance of opinion across the party. Where New Labour kept union leaders at arm’s length, Murphy will replace this with more openness, understanding and lots of smiles.</p>
<h2>The Donald, Henry, Jack, Wendy, Iain, Johann and Anas Show</h2>
<p>Murphy will be well aware is that he is Scottish Labour’s eighth leader in 15 years (counting current caretaker leader Anas Sarwar, who did not run). There seems to be little security of tenure in the post. After <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/oct/12/guardianobituaries.labour">Donald Dewar</a>, the first of them, died in post, the rest have tended to be edged out either because of a minor misdemeanour or after an election defeat. But the underlying reason was that they all struggled to gain and retain the confidence of their party. Why?</p>
<p>Labour’s problem is that, since Dewar’s untimely death, it has lacked a leader of comparable public stature to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28835771">Alex Salmond</a>. Perhaps for this reason, perhaps also because of weaknesses in their repertoires of skills, none obtained mastery of their party. </p>
<p>The institutional position of the leader has also been rather insecure. For whatever reason, successive leaders were unable to use the power of patronage or control over party resources to consolidate their position. And their power bases were primarily networks of friends and allies held together by personal connections rather than by shared principle and outlook. </p>
<p>So Murphy’s task will be to construct a coalition, both within Holyrood and in the wider party, which will afford him solid and durable support in the testing times ahead. <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-i-will-wrest-scottish-labour-from-uk-party-control.25842676">He made clear</a> during his campaign that he will seek to bolster the post of Scottish Labour leader, both vis a vis the party in Scotland and the UK-wide power structure. After his predecessor <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/24/johann-lamont-resigns-scottish-labour-party-leader">Johann Lamont’s biting criticism</a> about Scotland being little more than a “branch office” to London, not to mention the SNP’s surging support, he arguably had little alternative of course. </p>
<p>In this task, Murphy admittedly has a big advantage: as the first Westminster frontbencher since Dewar to make the move from London to Edinburgh he has considerable experience and political know-how, a shrewd understanding of how the party machine works and a wide network of political connections. </p>
<h2>The hard road ahead</h2>
<p>There is no doubt about the scale of the challenge. A raft of <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-bombshell-ed-milliband-shows-4646014">polls indicate</a> that Scottish Labour is lagging behind the SNP by a wide margin. The reason that this is equally alarming for the UK party is that its <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4266157.ece">standing in the polls</a> is stuck in the lower 30s, making prospects for an outright win next May seem pretty remote and another hung parliament far more likely. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67132/original/image-20141212-6045-1j1lxgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Forward march!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=T7weOxs7g4xoAUs5FP-SJw&searchterm=long%20road&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=216892456">Maciej Czekajewski</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This means that Labour is heavily reliant on its solid phalanx of Scottish seats. Murphy’s priority as leader is simply to hold on to as many as possible. This may be difficult. </p>
<p>The most remarkable feature of the independence referendum was the <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1338396/astonishing-turnout-breaks-uk-voting-records">huge turnout</a> – the highest ever in a UK election. Given that electoral participation varies strongly with age and class it seems likely that many new voters were young and working class – precisely the groups to whom Labour would normally expect to appeal. But evidence from the polls indicates they are swinging to the SNP. This compounds a period of gradually electoral attrition as, since 1999, the overall curve of Labour’s share of the vote has been downwards. </p>
<p><strong>Scottish election results</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67135/original/image-20141212-6045-ekar4e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Now = Dec 2014 YouGov polling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Blairite baby in the bathwater?</h2>
<p>There are those among the Blairites <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/07/strange-death-labour-scotland-review">who believe that</a> Scottish Labour faltered because it was “not New Labour enough”. But I would predict that Murphy will make little progress in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-labour-wants-to-win-in-2015-it-will-need-to-turn-left-in-scotland-34888">current Scottish climate</a> if he sticks to old Blairite nostrums like the pursuit of a mythical middle ground or a putative “middle Scotland”, triangulation and business-wooing. </p>
<p>My guess is that Murphy is too shrewd and too sensitive to party opinion to adopt such an approach. But one New Labour axiom he could imbibe is its capacity to operate strategically. There is a sense that Scottish Labour is on the wrong side of history, with a growing belief that independence, as the leading Scottish journalist Iain Macwhirter, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/nationalism-is-driving-scottish-politics.26048987">recently put it</a>, “is now surely only a matter of time.” </p>
<p>A besetting weakness of Scottish Labour has been its pragmatic, unimaginative and ad-hoc mentality. It has exhibited little willingness, aptitude or capacity to widen its angle of vision or think in terms of stories and narratives. It has resorted to the tropes of old-style Westminster adversarial politics which, to many voters, smacks too much of bickering over minor issues or personalised name-calling. </p>
<p>It has done little to present an alternative unionist version of the SNP’s self-confidently social-democratic vision of an independent Scotland, which is what needs to do now. For all its faults, New Labour understood how to build a narrative and develop strategies with clear goals, policies to achieve those goals and institutional mechanisms to see that everything was on track. In short, can Scottish Labour, under Murphy, learn to think big?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35453/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p>So the bookies were right. The new leader of Labour in Scotland is indeed Jim Murphy. The challenge from Neil Findlay (less so Sarah Boyack) wasn’t enough to produce an upset. Not only is the future of…Eric Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/353432014-12-12T15:48:43Z2014-12-12T15:48:43ZMy fellow Catholics are the lapsed unionists behind SNP surge in the polls<p>The Catholicism of the Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy has <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/unexpected-row-over-jim-murphys-catholic-faith.114307161">attracted some attention</a> this week against a backdrop of fascinating political developments in Scotland. For there is plenty of evidence that people of Irish descent have been to the fore in the <a href="http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-membership-now-exceeds-extraordinary-90000">near-quadrupling</a> of SNP membership to 92,000 since the referendum, which threatens to undo Labour at the 2015 UK general election. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/labour-face-battle-to-save-heartlands-from-snp-surge.25569018">Within weeks</a> of the referendum, Glasgow had a near five-fold rise in SNP membership and nearby Motherwell and Coatbridge had six-fold increases. These are the heartlands of a community once defined by deep Catholic loyalties. Their neighbourhoods are shared with people who adhere to a Protestant culture, but they are less likely to have been at the crest of the SNP wave. <a href="http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/09/25/indyref-according-to-ashcroft-poll-protestants-saved-the-union/#disqus_thread">According to one poll</a>, just 31% of non Catholics backed independence compared with no less than 57% of Catholics. </p>
<h2>Converts to the cause</h2>
<p>Many of these Catholic SNP converts were likely to have been among the 12,000 people <a href="http://uk.zebigweb.com/_SNPtour.html">who packed</a> the Hydro arena in Glasgow on November 22. The event <a href="http://example.com/">has been described</a> as being like the birth of a “megachurch” rather than a conventional political rally, in which new members were inducted into the political faith. Alex Salmond, the departing leader, preached a rousing sermon and anointed his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, amid great fervour. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zYku_eKQQ6I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Scotland’s Catholic community, to which I belong, has often felt itself to be a perennial underdog at the hands of a frosty establishment. But now these Scots are mainstream. Their sense of grievance, anti-imperialism and touchiness are traits that chime with plenty other Scots. </p>
<p>Yet many Scots Catholics were for a long time at ease with Britishness. Their poverty had been alleviated by post-1945 British reforms. Jobs became less scarce as the state became a major employer. <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996">In 1979</a> most of them voted No or abstained in the first referendum on devolution. </p>
<p>The Catholic church has long ceased to be an effective opinion former – a charge that could equally be levelled at most denominations, of course. It has been supplanted by <a href="http://youtu.be/1rjRmTS6xXY">left-wing agitators</a>, <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/video-elaine-c-smith-on-the-referendum/">celebrities</a>, <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/512661/Frankie-Boyle-s-four-letter-offensive-remarks-after-Scots-vote-No">mocking comedians</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733">restless academics</a> and journalists. They urged the Catholic community to spurn caution and embrace risk-taking without explaining how a largely low-income group would fare in the face of depleting oil reserves, the retreat of British state jobs, and an ageing population relying on a tax base over 12 times smaller than the present UK one.</p>
<p>During the referendum campaign, cult-like Yes rallies in Glasgow housing estates were conventions of zealotry (I attended my fair share, but the Scottish media mainly overlooked them). People with dormant grievances and minimal interest in politics suddenly became passionately intense in expressing a new faith and displaying impressive knowledge about English wickedness all the way back to 1745. </p>
<h2>Soapbox Murphy</h2>
<p>This is what arguably the only figure prepared to take on the cult of Yesism at the climax of the referendum discovered. Jim Murphy took his soapbox all over Scotland, holding 100 meetings in the campaign’s last 100 days. He spelled out the risks of partitioning Britain with so little elementary homework having been done. Despite being a Roman Catholic, some of his roughest receptions were in places with deep Irish associations such as Motherwell. </p>
<p>If he was engaged in a contest for the hearts and minds of Scots with a Catholic upbringing and some Irish roots, he failed: Glasgow and its environs voted decisively Yes. But he may have swayed enough members of the community to prevent a complete swing to separatism. </p>
<p>As the new leader of Scottish Labour, Murphy will certainly hope to bring disaffected voters to their senses by challenging what he sees as the dangerous impracticality of nationalism. This means that Catholic electoral areas can expect to see divisions in the UK and Scottish elections of 2015 and 2016. They are more likely to be within a splintered and increasingly post-religious community rather than between Orange and Green factions. If any Irish politicians warned these people about the risks of independence, he would likely be told to mind his own business. </p>
<p>The cosmopolitan outlook which membership of a vibrant world faith gave to Scots Catholics is fading. Leading bishops <a href="http://www.sconews.co.uk/latest-edition/40331/church-pays-tribute-to-first-minister/">have drawn close</a> to the SNP in the hope that they can influence it in matters crucial to church life, in what must be painful for Labour. Yet just like this makes it ironic for a Catholic to be ascending to lead Scottish Labour, the SNP is now being led by a flinty secularist. </p>
<p>And many in Sturgeon’s party have <a href="http://cumlazaro.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/snp-membership-oppose-catholic-schools.html">rather different views</a> from Archbishops Tartaglia in Glasgow and Cushley in Edinburgh about when the sacredness of human life begins and ends and how far the state should micro-manage the individual. One example would be the decision of the NHS in Scotland to end the right of Catholic staff, such as mid-wives, not to participate in abortions – it is currently the subject of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29993924">legal action</a>; Sturgeon never saw fit to intervene during her time as health minister. A second example would be the Named Person Act, which requires every Scottish child up to age 18 to have a guardian appointed by the state – to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10650090/Scottish-ministers-threatened-with-legal-action-over-state-guardian-plans.html">huge opposition from churches</a> including the Catholics. </p>
<p>We may be seeing social volatility on Clydeside harnessed and turned it into a powerful weapon. Some will see this as the acquisition of belated self-confidence by a submerged community. Others, myself included, <a href="http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/">glimpse the triumph</a> of a new form of passivity skilfully managed by the ruling centre.</p>
<p>More election successes are sure to follow. But the stridency of folk shedding their religious skins and looking for a substitute faith is unlikely to reconcile them to the rest of the Scottish nation. It would indeed be ironic if this Hibernian invasion of the SNP proved the wake-up call that reinforced the determination of many other Scots to strain every sinew to hold the union together.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Gallagher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Catholicism of the Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy has attracted some attention this week against a backdrop of fascinating political developments in Scotland. For there is plenty of evidence that…Tom Gallagher, Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of BradfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/352262014-12-08T20:20:21Z2014-12-08T20:20:21ZExactly why does Alex Salmond want to return to Westminster?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66637/original/image-20141208-5134-hce9zi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Salmond sets out to march on London once more.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/12071433306/in/photolist-82am8w-mUnqsM-mUnqnM-grNiVa-grMeos-dbyQDN-5A1iYh-joHfys-dbyPXW-bkUhSz-ar6HcM-9CiqoX-9Cmk33-ddrAFS-9Cmkf7-9Ciq7K-9CiqaH-9CmeGf-je4voM-pzvgs4-9Cmewm-9CijKa-9CijBn-dbyR8b-dbyRum-dbyNhi-oWTTJ9-9C1rra-b87JVZ-oPMGpQ-oPMbWk-p7244z-oPMFkf-oPML9o-p7feoh-p7hfJ2-p5ffjS-oPMmhe-oPN8YH-p71X2e-p726YH-p7hkWg-oPMnkg-p7fkTG-oPN8uN-p7hmBV-oPMr4P-oPN4Fe-p721hn-oPN23D">Thierry Ehrmann</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alex Salmond’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/alex-salmond-coalition-labour-return-westminster">confirmation</a> that he will contest the general election in 2015 completes what must count as one of the shortest retirements in British political history. </p>
<p>While the pro-independence campaign <a href="http://scotlandreferendum.info">gained only</a> 45% at the referendum in September, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has emerged from the long campaign in a formidable position. The party membership has <a href="http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/general-election-2015-poll-gives-snp-major-boost-1-3628337">near-quadrupled to 92,000</a>, it has a fortified and experienced activist base and if it maintains the level of support it is <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3469/SNP-open-up-significant-lead-ahead-of-General-Election-vote.aspx">presently achieving in opinion polls</a> the party could win 40 or more seats in Scotland in 2015. </p>
<p>Given all these factors, it is not unsurprising that Salmond should seek re-election to Westminster, a political arena in which he has always done well and seems well suited. </p>
<h2>Through the looking glass</h2>
<p>Nor is it surprising that he should choose the Gordon constituency in Aberdeenshire, the seat of outgoing Liberal Democrat grandee, Sir Malcolm Bruce, since in many ways this is a mirror image of the last time he attempted to hold Westminster and Holyrood seats simultaneously in the 2000s. </p>
<p>Salmond had long held the nearby seat of Banff and Buchan both in Westminster (1987-2010) and at Holyrood (1999-2001). When he announced an intention to seek to be re-elected to Holyrood in the 2007 election, he chose to fight Gordon. He won with 41.4% of the vote, defeating the sitting Liberal Democrat, Nora Radcliffe. </p>
<p><strong>Salmond’s parliamentary manoeuvres</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66644/original/image-20141208-5146-1jmdjl9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Murray Leith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The SNP came second in Gordon at the general election [in 2010](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_(UK_Parliament_constituency), with an increase of 6% in their share of the vote. Given the current Lib Dem unpopularity due to their perceived broken promises and the ramifications of their coalition with the Tories, the seat looks ripe for the picking. And given his history and links with the area, Salmond can hardly be accused of carpetbagging (which might have been fair comment had <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/salmond-plotting-to-take-danny-alexander-s-seat-1-3598664">rumours been true</a> that he would take on Danny Alexander). </p>
<p>Choosing Gordon also means Salmond can appeal to disaffected or potential Labour voters. About one third of Labour supporters cast votes for Yes in the referendum – and they represent the electorate from whom the SNP hope to gain 40 seats. In Gordon an erstwhile Labour voter could vote for Salmond without feeling they were depriving a potential UK Labour government of an extra seat.</p>
<h2>Enemies and despicable enemies</h2>
<p>Targeting Labour voters is a key theme and grand strategy which Alex Salmond and the SNP <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30061564">have woven</a> into their campaign for the next Westminster election. Like aspects of the recent <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/cant-deny-a-few-last-minute-butterflies-but-theres-no-time-for-nerves-now.25752833">“non-victory tour”</a> that the new party leader and Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon undertook last month, the SNP have borrowed from the American political system. Both the tour and Sturgeon’s conference inauguration had that kind of razzmatazz to them, while the SNP notion of standing for Westminster by standing against Westminster is an old American refrain – most recently employed by the <a href="http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/">Tea Party movement</a>. </p>
<p>By casting itself as the only truly Scottish party, operating with the best interests of Scotland at heart, the SNP has openly declared it <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-snp-will-never-go-into-coalition-with-the-conservatives-nicola-sturgeon-vows-9862803.html">will not</a> enter into a coalition with the Conservatives – which is still the nasty party in many Scottish eyes. Yet it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/alex-salmond-coalition-labour-return-westminster">has also said</a> it is open to a coalition with Labour. </p>
<p>The wisdom of such an approach is that while the SNP is polling strongly at the moment, Labour maintains a solid position as the other major alternative for Scottish voters. By appearing open to being part of a “progressive” coalition in Westminster and firmly opposed to the politics of austerity, the SNP maximise the opportunities and minimise any fallout by openly attacking any possible Conservative links.</p>
<p>But isn’t there a risk that after so many months of demonising Labour for being <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/alex-salmond-hypocrisy-former-scottish-tories-leader-annabel-goldie">in bed with the Tories</a>, making overtures to them could make Salmond et al sound insincere? There may a little, but ultimately the Labour party and the SNP are chasing the same voters in Scotland. It is all about how Scotland sees itself as left wing and anti-Tory – but also firmly Scottish. </p>
<p>The voters will therefore support the party that meets those basic criteria. As is often pointed out, Scottish voters have tended to choose differently at UK and Scottish elections, fixing more on what is in Scotland’s interests during Holyrood elections. In the past two Holyrood elections, they saw the SNP as most likely to deliver for them in Scotland. </p>
<p>But as Professor John Curtice <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/salmond-nat-mps-will-rumble-up-westminster.114135450">has said</a>, the Scottish electorate is approaching next year’s UK election still firmly fixated on what is good for Scotland. This is why the SNP looks likely to benefit. And if the electorate do next year revert to thinking somewhat about the UK during UK elections, albeit not enough to vote Labour, Salmond’s logic is that the party’s “I’ll work with Labour” approach will not greatly upset people. </p>
<p>Assuming this calculation is correct and the SNP does win big enough in May to hold the balance of power, the next question is what they would do with it. So far they have made clear that the price would be devo max, in the sense of full Scottish separatism apart from a rump of UK powers over things like defence and foreign affairs. </p>
<p>But since Labour would almost certainly refuse, would the SNP give any ground? Would it start to sound more pro-Smith-Commission, the body that has just recommended a weaker extension of powers, and perhaps argue that it has delivered more than some federal countries have? Certainly it would not only be Labour that had to calculate very carefully in these circumstances. </p>
<p>From this distance, the bookies <a href="http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/108281/m.about.html">are giving</a> 6/1 odds that Alex Salmond could be a minister in a Labour-led coalition cabinet. Scottish Secretary Alex Salmond anyone? It would certainly answer the age old problem of whether the Scottish Secretary is the cabinet’s man in Scotland or Scotland’s man in the cabinet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35226/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Murray Leith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Alex Salmond’s confirmation that he will contest the general election in 2015 completes what must count as one of the shortest retirements in British political history. While the pro-independence campaign…Murray Leith, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of the West of ScotlandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347752014-11-29T07:34:07Z2014-11-29T07:34:07ZLessons from Quebec on avoiding another Scottish referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65731/original/image-20141127-21951-1i53hh2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Montreal 1980: ring any bells?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/caribb/8399208541/in/photolist-dNd95n-8Wxp9-5y95xY-mPybUd-2jfBWf-3yNVby-dgHN3E-dgHLj6-dgHGpg-dgHGQX-dgHMHb-dgHMBv-dgHMgk-M119b-5UXcUx-5EzPxS-8tJinF">Doug</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Will the Scots be satisfied with the package of new powers that has been put before them? The <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>, which was tasked with coming up with a new settlement following the September referendum, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/scotland-scottish-parliament-power-14bn-income-tax-welfare-cross-party-deal-lord-smith">is proposing</a> a set of measures including the devolution of income tax and control over some aspects of welfare. </p>
<p>These go further than the three <a href="http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf">main UK</a> parties’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/labours-proposals-for-scotland-after-the-referendum-betray-divisions-within-the-party-24596">proposals</a> for reform that were published earlier in the year, but not as far as the moves towards a full federal structure that <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/gordon-brown-backs-federalism-in-event-of-no-vote-1-3511291">appeared to be</a> on the table at the time of the <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">parties’ “vow”</a> in the final days before the vote. </p>
<h2>Quebec 1980 – the aftermath</h2>
<p>In this context, it is worth looking at the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1980/">1980 referendum</a> in Quebec and its aftermath. Just like in Scotland, the No campaign in Quebec used negative arguments against separation, predicting dire economic consequences if the province were to become a country. </p>
<p>And like in Scotland, promises of constitutional renewal were also made. They were vague but effective. Many people voted No with the conviction that change was on the way and it would result in more autonomy. The No side achieved 60% of the vote in Quebec, compared to Scotland’s 55%. </p>
<p>Constitutional reform started in Canada the day after the referendum. But with the agenda controlled by Ottawa, the promise of change that had been made solely to Quebec became a pledge to make several ambitious constitutional modifications for the entire country. Sound familiar?</p>
<p>Finding an acceptable constitutional status for Quebec that would get support from both French and English Canadians was not going to be easy. But Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau refused to focus on that. He wanted to entrench a controversial bill of rights, get new economic powers for the federal government and a new amending formula for the constitution. </p>
<p>The Quebec dimension disappeared totally in this broader scheme. As a result, both federalists and nationalists rallied against Ottawa. In a surprising turn of events, seven of the nine other provinces also decided to oppose the federal government. The reform process became even more difficult, passionate and controversial than it was already – driving Quebec even further down the agenda. </p>
<h2>Don’t make same mistakes with Scotland</h2>
<p>That is certainly a first lesson for the UK. As Westminster now decides what to do with the Smith Commission proposals, it needs to keep the focus on Scotland. Conservative attempts to meld reform with the question of English votes for English laws would risk undermining the process – David Cameron’s latest comments on the subject following the Smith proposals <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/tax-voting-ban-proposal-by-cameron-prompts-row.25987072">attracted fresh ire</a> from his Westminster opponents this week. So would proposals of taking advantage of the current circumstances to give Britain a written constitution, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21620194-scotlands-place-united-kingdom-settled-time-deal-its-much-larger-neighbour-now">advocated by</a> The Economist and the UK’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution-says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html">leading judge</a>. </p>
<p>That said, let’s go back to the events of 1980-82 in Canada, a debate that also concerned the UK. Until that point in time, the Canadian constitution was still a British statute that only Westminster could amend. Trudeau needed the British parliament support to enact his constitutional reforms. </p>
<p>The dissenting provinces, collectively known as the gang of eight, decided to mount a public relations campaign in the UK aimed at convincing MPs and Lords to vote against Trudeau’s proposals. This was not an easy task but provincial agent-generals in London were eventually able to plant seeds of doubt in the mind of several parliamentarians. </p>
<p>Their job was made easier by the fact that some lawmakers, especially on the Labour side, were becoming attracted to the idea of devolution for Scotland – which they could see parallels with in Canada. Michael Foot, leader of the Labour opposition, was among them. For him, decentralisation was the way of the future and the constitutional reforms proposed by Trudeau were incompatible with Canadian federalism. </p>
<p>Others, especially in the Tory camp, thought that enacting a charter of rights was something to be done by Canadians once the process of decoupling the country from the UK was completed. Britain was not to be used by Trudeau to do something he could not do in Canada in the face of strong provincial opposition. </p>
<p>Margaret Thatcher eventually warned Pierre Trudeau that it would be much better if he could get more provincial support, otherwise his constitutional bill would be rejected by Westminster. He listened to this advice and made some concessions. Nine provinces rallied behind a new proposal. Westminster enacted it but Quebec has refused to endorse it ever since.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II sign the new constitutional settlement for Canada in 1982.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lac-bac/7195947898/in/photolist-8fwJhJ-86sim-bXT7Bd-9H86N3-86sis-86sir-8FgPe-8VLMo-nC3kN8-86siq-daEeJ2-51C5vz-cdKfSY-8dSzNK-5UAaGX-dYzdeT-89fkXa-8Fkvs-7XpGpW-gRhMrF-8FgPi-8VLMn-8GpK4-8GpK3-z3BVZ-nUs4zC-8FgPg-3jZwDC-nSuzvj-z4w">Library and Archives Canada</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Quebec fall-out</h2>
<p>This non-endorsement makes no difference, legally speaking. The new constitution applies to Quebec anyway. Politically speaking, however, it has had some dramatic consequences. It led to two failed attempts to include Quebec in the constitutional family, the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/meech-lake-accord/">Meech Lake Accord</a> of 1990 and the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-charlottetown-accord/">Charlottetown Accord</a> in 1992. </p>
<p>This means that Canada is in a state of constitutional paralysis. Opening constitutional talks on any topic seems impossible, from senate reform to changing the line of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/22/last-vestiges-of-the-british-empire-complicate-royal-babys-succession-to-the-throne/">succession to the throne</a> to recognise female royal heirs (while the UK would now allow a female heir to ascend to the throne, it remains constitutionally prohibited in Canada). It would mean that before agreeing to anything else, Quebec would ask for some kind of special constitutional status that took into account its unique culture within Canada. The trauma is such that few politicians are willing to take this risk. </p>
<p>Ottawa’s failure to make good on its promises to Quebec also paved the way to a <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995/">second referendum</a> on independence in 1995. It ended with a very narrow victory for the federalists, with just 50.6% of the vote, which could very easily have gone the other way. New promises of change were made but again Ottawa failed to deliver.</p>
<p>There lies the other lesson for the UK. Just as Trudeau’s actions were virtually the opposite of what most Quebecois wanted in 1980, there are parallels with Scotland. If the issue of Scotland is not addressed in a way that will satisfy a majority of Scots, the issue is bound to bounce back. And next time around, the consequences might be very dramatic indeed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34775/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frédéric Bastien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the Scots be satisfied with the package of new powers that has been put before them? The Smith Commission, which was tasked with coming up with a new settlement following the September referendum…Frédéric Bastien, Professor of History, Dawson CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347822014-11-27T20:43:40Z2014-11-27T20:43:40ZUK faces big changes if it is to survive new Scottish shake-up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65730/original/image-20141127-13289-7jzx7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UK in tatters?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=122500567&src=e1UHmxPgerDIMNSJDJkVQg-1-83">Gian Filippo Cantarini</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/scotland-scottish-parliament-power-14bn-income-tax-welfare-cross-party-deal-lord-smith">new proposals</a> for extending more powers to Scotland by the Smith Commission are radical: devolving extensive tax and welfare powers will make Scotland one of the most autonomous regions in western Europe. </p>
<p>Here are four changes which may well flow from Smith: </p>
<h2>1. English regionalism</h2>
<p>Regionalism has hitherto been unpopular in England but a demand for change could be sparked by the sense that a Scottish parliament with wide tax powers might use these to gain competitive advantage. This is not mentioned in Smith but it is on the agenda.</p>
<h2>2. Changes to how Westminster works</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/english-votes-for-english-laws-is-much-less-sensible-than-it-first-appears-34552">West Lothian question</a> – non-English MPs voting on issues that only affect England – cannot now be avoided. Apart from anything else, it will be an issue at the general election next year. </p>
<p>This need not mean an English parliament but it will require a revision of the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster, ensuring that important legislation concerning England alone will require majority support among English MPs – David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/english-mps-veto-english-laws-david-cameron">has already indicated</a> that his party will bring this about if it wins next year’s general election. </p>
<p>Another proposal, which would go some way to deal with the representation deficit, is reform of the House of Lords along the lines of a chamber of the nations and regions of the UK <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/labour-proposal-for-senate-to-replace-house-of-lords.24550242">as proposed by</a> Gordon Brown. Again this is not mentioned by Smith but it could offer a genuinely “union-focused” institution at the centre of the state. </p>
<h2>3. A new status for the Scottish parliament</h2>
<p>Technically the Westminster parliament is still sovereign. In theory it could take away the powers of the Scottish parliament or even abolish it altogether. Smith proposes that the Scottish parliament be made permanent. This would presumably also extend to protecting its powers. This is a more radical proposal than it may seem. It will in effect change the absolute power of parliament, the cornerstone of our constitution for over 300 years.</p>
<h2>4. A stronger Scottish government role</h2>
<p>Until now the Scottish government has interacted with the UK government through very informal arrangements. If the Scottish parliament is empowered to set radically different fiscal and welfare priorities, this could put great strain on the system and some kind of formalisation may well be needed. This is recognised firmly by Smith. </p>
<p>This could also mean Scotland, and the other nations/regions, having a formal say in how certain central government decisions are made, possibly with certain veto powers exercised through a reformed House of Lords. Powers of this kind may be needed to give the union a real sense of meaning to those on the periphery.</p>
<p>Indeed, it seems that only a federal system can manage these changes while also giving Scotland a continuing stake in the union. Federalism is about striking a balance between “self-rule” and “shared rule”. UK devolution has been all about self-rule, with very little focus on involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland closely in decision-making in London on issues that affect the whole union. This representation deficit needs to be addressed, particularly as Scotland becomes ever more devolved. </p>
<p>Otherwise, as the Scottish parliament gets stronger and stronger, the UK will appear more and more irrelevant to many Scots. Whether all of this will create a stronger sense of partnership and a renewed sense of belonging to a common union we simply don’t know, but without such a broader set of reforms, the Smith process may well further unsettle the union it was intended to save. It is not too dramatic to say that federalism may well be the last throw of the dice for the Anglo-Scottish union.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Tierney receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>The new proposals for extending more powers to Scotland by the Smith Commission are radical: devolving extensive tax and welfare powers will make Scotland one of the most autonomous regions in western…Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347782014-11-27T18:08:47Z2014-11-27T18:08:47ZIf Westminster delivers, Scotland will have one of the world’s most powerful devolved parliaments<p>It seemed like a poisoned chalice when Lord Smith of Kelvin was handed the task of chairing a cross-party commission to advise on devolving further powers to Scotland after <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides">September’s referendum</a>. There was <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-powers-for-scotland-rushed-timetable-does-the-whole-of-the-uk-a-disservice-33756">widespread concern</a> that the tight timetable would mitigate heavily against citizens being meaningfully involved, leading to a wholly political process that did not reflect the values and aspirations of the Scottish electorate. </p>
<p>The risk was that those who felt excluded would not accept its legitimacy, and those who were included would be attempting to represent the interests of disparate and sometimes conflicting political perspectives and interest groups. </p>
<h2>Mission: almost impossible</h2>
<p>All the same, Lord Smith attempted the impossible. As well as aiming to reach a consensus with the five main political parties in Scotland, he also initiated a consultation with the wider population that must have left everyone involved exhausted. As many as 407 organisations and more than 18,000 individuals sent in written submissions, and Lord Smith visited Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee and <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/what-new-powers-does-scotland-need-achieve-fairer-society">Stirling</a> to talk to different interest groups. </p>
<p>Of course an exercise designed to gather opinion from the public and civic society is bound to be problematic for several reasons. There were no clear principles agreed: what was the purpose of the consultation, what weight did the public voices have, how were their opinions going to be taken into account, what feedback were they going to get? There was also a danger of raising hopes and expectations on all sides, when in reality the commission’s role was only advisory. There was always a danger that the Smith Commission’s report would, by attempting to please all of the people, end up pleasing none of them.</p>
<p>The fact that Lord Smith managed to get a consensus from ten politicians from five different parties with very different devolution agendas to <a href="http://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf">publish a report</a> ahead of deadline was no mean feat in itself. Lord Smith also claimed at the launch on November 27 that his report reflected the issues put to him by the wider electorate. </p>
<p><strong>The main Smith proposals</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These proposals do not equate to devo max, but they do go way further than the three main UK <a href="http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf">parties</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/labours-proposals-for-scotland-after-the-referendum-betray-divisions-within-the-party-24596">proposed</a> earlier in the year. If Westminster agrees to enact them, it would make the Scottish parliament more autonomous and accountable than ever before. In fact, with such substantial powers to raise and spend revenue, it would be one of the most federally devolved legislative bodies in the world – with far more powers than US states, for example. </p>
<h2>Money and mouths time</h2>
<p>What happens next depends on whether Westminster delivers the additional powers that the commission is recommending, and how the Scottish parliament then uses them. There would be clear incentives to raise tax revenues by growing the economy, to create a fairer welfare and benefits system, and significant policy levers to achieve change. </p>
<p>At the same time, these powers will not give the Scottish parliament the power to defend itself against Westminster austerity measures, and certainly not the full control over macroeconomic policy it would need to tackle poverty, inequality and other significant social policy challenges.</p>
<p>But the ball is in Westminster’s court. If it does not keep to the timetable and deliver by January 25 next year the general election is going to look very difficult for some parties, particularly Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats. And it’s quite possible that the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Greens will take their bat and ball home, and walk away from the Smith agreement. Even on the day that the commission proposals were announced, SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-smith-commission-fails-deliver-scotland-powerhouse-parliament">said at Holyrood</a> that the new powers were less than what was promised. </p>
<p>Whether Westminster could fail to meet the timetable is difficult to say at this stage. Certainly we were given a heavy dose of realism after the vote when David Cameron <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/cameron-promises-english-votes-english-laws-what-does-labour-do-now">immediately announced</a> that the No victory gave him a mandate to develop the principle of English votes for English MPs. </p>
<p>If Westminster does deliver, the Scottish parliament will have more control over its own revenue raising, spending and social policy than it has ever had. Would it then use those powers creatively and responsibly for the people of Scotland? Or if pro-independence parties remain in power, will it baulk and insist on full independence before enacting radical change? Watch this space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirstein Rummery receives funding from the ESRC and is a Fellow of the ESRC-funded Centre on Constitutional Change </span></em></p>It seemed like a poisoned chalice when Lord Smith of Kelvin was handed the task of chairing a cross-party commission to advise on devolving further powers to Scotland after September’s referendum. There…Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347242014-11-26T16:15:48Z2014-11-26T16:15:48ZScottish income tax control needn’t raise UK borrowing costs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65604/original/image-20141126-4244-qjozsy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is former Better Together leader right about consequences of income tax devolution?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.chrisboland.com">Chris Boland</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alistair Darling, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3K3mPJqKK">writing in</a> the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and downs of tax revenues during changing economic times. With the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">Smith Commission</a> expected to <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-set-for-full-control-of-income-tax-1-3613434">announce such a plan</a> on November 26, are these concerns justified?</p>
<p>As ever, the answer is maybe. When the international markets lend money to the UK government, the rates are based on how much tax revenues they think the UK will generate in order to pay it back. A poorly designed system of income-tax devolution would change this calculus and lead them to expect a smaller tax base that is less under the UK government’s control. If so, they would then demand a higher premium for their finance. </p>
<p>But income tax raised from Scotland (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/5">estimated at</a> £11bn in 2012-13) does not even come close to funding Scottish government and Scottish local authority expenditures (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/7">estimated at</a> £39bn in 2012-13). So if the Scottish government were funded by a combination of Scottish income taxes and a grant to make up the difference that was fully under UK government control (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/what-is-barnett-formula-how-work-scotland-wales-northern-ireland">the Barnett formula</a>), then the security held by international markets over UK government tax revenues could be unaffected. The UK government could simply reduce Scotland’s funding to ensure that it still paid its share.</p>
<h2>The fix</h2>
<p>A sensible system would bring the equivalent tax revenues in the rest of the UK into line with the Scottish system. If Scottish income tax is levied explicitly to pay for Scottish public services, then the income tax raised in England should be for English public services even if this is to be administered by the UK government rather than an English parliament. It should not be the case that Scottish income taxes are used to fund Scottish public services while English income taxes are used by the UK government to repay UK public debt.</p>
<p>And international investors are not daft. They will be aware that the security of their lending depends on the overall size of the UK government’s tax resources and spending commitments. So as the UK government loses Scottish income taxes, it also loses responsibility for funding some Scottish public services. This means that the claims of international markets can be left unaffected. </p>
<p>Scotland will meanwhile continue to contribute to non-devolved tax revenues including VAT and corporation tax. If the UK government uses these revenues to fund UK expenditures such as defence, foreign affairs and national debt repayments – but not public services in England – then Scotland will be continuing to play its part.</p>
<h2>The economy factor</h2>
<p>What about the claim that full devolution of income tax exposes Scotland to the destabilising peaks and troughs of the economy? It is true that negative economic shocks in Scotland will lower income tax revenues and put pressure on public sector finances – especially if welfare is partially devolved. </p>
<p>This is what currently happens in the UK as a whole, and it is dealt with by borrowing. The solution for Scotland is for the Scottish government to have access to its share of what the UK government borrows in leaner economic periods (“countercyclical borrowing,” as economists call it). </p>
<p>This would mean that the UK government would borrow in response to negative shocks and distribute to Scotland, the other devolved administrations, and to itself (wearing its “English government” hat). This would take place according to some pre-specified formula that should compensate for the automatic fall in devolved tax revenues and the automatic rise in devolved expenditures that has been caused by the downturn in question. </p>
<p>This borrowing would be repaid with the taxes that are reserved for the UK government, to which Scotland will have fully contributed. Scotland could also borrow on its own account for public investment in Scotland, but borrowing for recessions should be done at the UK level (the fact that the equivalent is not done in the eurozone is the source of many of that area’s problems). </p>
<p>So Alastair Darling is correct to highlight concerns with rushed devolution proposals, but it’s not correct to say that income tax cannot be devolved in full without leading to the problems that he outlined. A sensibly designed proposal could achieve the full devolution of income tax and welfare.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Comerford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Alistair Darling, writing in the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and…David Comerford, Research Fellow in Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/346362014-11-24T22:11:53Z2014-11-24T22:11:53ZLaunching a pro-independence newspaper takes guts, even in Scotland<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65378/original/image-20141124-19636-1x9sy8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A daily from the Sunday team that backed a Yes vote.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steven Vass</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is no copyright in titles, although I must admit when I heard that the name of the new Scottish daily newspaper launched this week was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/24/the-national-scotland-newsquest-pro-independence">The National</a>, I was momentarily thrown. That is also the name of the long-running late evening <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/">news bulletin</a> on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s main television channel, not to mention an <a href="http://www.thenational.ae">English-language newspaper</a> in the Middle East. But it is a title which both commands attention and signifies ambition, which is no doubt why it has been chosen for the new paper. </p>
<p>Launching a new title in the current climate is very brave. Newspapers throughout the Western world have been struggling with falling circulations and revenues. Their attempts – belatedly – to impose paywalls on their online versions, as many have now do, have not yet secured the revenue needed to compensate for the decline of traditional print circulation and advertising streams. </p>
<p>And there is the additional problem of the apparent indifference of many young people to newspapers. In Scotland the situation has been compounded for indigenous titles, which have not only lost circulation in absolute terms but have also seen their market share eroded by English titles, with or without Scottish editions. Fewer than half the papers <a href="http://www.abc.org.uk">bought in Scotland</a> on a weekday are produced in the country; the figure is just over half on Sundays.</p>
<h2>Indyref press coverage</h2>
<p>The referendum campaign was one in which the press, both Scottish and English, <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-scotland-votes-no-the-media-may-well-get-the-blame-28233">was firmly</a> on the No side (<a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/its-no-go-scotland-rejects-independence.1411101075">which won 55/45</a> in the end). This might not have mattered if all the papers had offered balanced reporting of the issues. Upmarket titles did attempt such coverage, for the most part, but that was not the case with many of the tabloids. </p>
<p>The only paper that argued in favour of independence was the Sunday Herald; its stablemate the daily Herald remained in the unionist camp, albeit offering balanced coverage and harbouring several pro-Yes columnists, who were given a lot of space to air their views. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65379/original/image-20141124-19630-1kb75q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Sunday Herald was only pro-independence newspaper.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ninian_reid/15141149396/in/photolist-4xHBKB-p9xEdM-cLA99m-p9xb2E-9xpUWW-9tF1A-oS9VnZ-p4YmcW-p87CxA-fmEQer-pE21Fr-oHrgE8-i6hUYS-pnNK7C-neDEyv-pnNYsq-8w5ywj-9gSnhp-7WRftq-7zTABq-hyGbsP-p7djEo-g7h68b-g7g29o-dFRFan-7ssVRA-4Dz3kt-7XQozy-6oS1Ds-bFLCoi-2p5gbp-xLbCM-baAwEV-35yhpm-nx5Qjd-baAvZc-jUQvS-9w7r9X-9wasME-41xCr-53KKcW-pE1Kha-pnP8Fz-pnPbSY-pEhhg5-9DJDxJ-4AEXju-dCP7Nz-pEhgKL-6W4Xst">Ninian Reid</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After the Sunday title <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/sunday-herald-is-first-paper-to-back-scottish-independence.1399149163">“came out”</a> in May, its <a href="http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2014/news/pro-independence-newspaper-sees-circulation-double/">circulation more than doubled</a> to almost 50,000 and is now thought to have settled around 35,000. So it is not really surprising that the Herald group’s ultimate owner, the <a href="http://www.gannett.com">Gannett corporation</a> of the US, has backed a new pro-independence daily.</p>
<h2>Proof is in the inking</h2>
<p>What is striking, however, is that The National is not being given very long to prove that there is a market. With a print run of 50,000 it has to demonstrate by the end of this week that it has a future. An online edition is promised if all goes well.</p>
<p>The first edition is priced at 50p and has 32 pages. Only a few of those are taken up by advertising, which is not surprising, given that the preparations for the production of the paper were kept secret until late last week. The overall design is clean, attractive and uncluttered. </p>
<p>There are a number of stories with a clear independence/<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-what-is-devomax-9733931.html">devo-max</a> slant, often with a leftish hue, starting with a splash that reports that 60 Scottish charities are calling for Holyrood to be handed control over welfare. </p>
<p>The National also reports that the Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson is accusing Gordon Brown of abandoning his promise to ensure the three main UK parties’ <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">pre-referendum “vow”</a> is delivered; and that the Radical Independence Campaign is to launch a new fight against NHS privatisation. </p>
<p>There are four pages of world news, including a feature piece on the president of Iran, and an extended report on the Tunisian election. There are four pages of business news and five of sport, including a double-page profile of Formula 1 winner Lewis Hamilton. </p>
<p>What is noticeable, however, is the lack of many Scottish and “rest of UK” news stories outside of the paper’s central agenda. A comparison with the sister paper, The Herald, makes that very clear. It is also obvious that not many journalists have been allocated to the paper, particularly if it is fair to assume that “James”, “Jamie” and “Jamies” Maxwell are all the same person. </p>
<h2>Who will buy The National?</h2>
<p>So what audience does the editor Richard Walker (who also edits the Sunday Herald) have in mind? I would tend to think it is less tabloid than mid-market readers, composed of those who are not only keen on independence or some kind of federal solution but also want to know what is going beyond the UK, are interested in business and sport, but are not football fanatics (a more distilled version of the Sunday Herald, perhaps?).</p>
<p>What the paper lacks at this admittedly early stage, apart from television listings, which can be found elsewhere, are columnists of bite. Presumably if the paper is a success, then such individuals will be found.</p>
<p>Will the paper last as long as its Canadian namesake has on air? Perhaps that is unlikely in the current market, even if the paper does find the pro-independence audience it is seeking. That said, it would be churlish not to welcome the appearance of The National to Scottish newsstands.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34636/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hutchison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is no copyright in titles, although I must admit when I heard that the name of the new Scottish daily newspaper launched this week was The National, I was momentarily thrown. That is also the name…David Hutchison, Honorary Professor in Media Policy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345522014-11-21T15:20:26Z2014-11-21T15:20:26ZEnglish votes for English laws is much less sensible than it first appears<p>Ever since David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">wrong-footed his opponents</a> on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for English laws has never been far away. </p>
<p>William Hague is leading a cabinet committee that is due to produce proposals about how to proceed with the so-called West Lothian question (it is being boycotted by Labour, who see the issue as a trap designed to make it harder for them to govern). David Cameron has now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/english-mps-veto-english-laws-david-cameron">given us</a> a sense of where these deliberations are heading, saying that re-electing a Conservative government would ensure that English MPs were given a veto over legislative matters affected only them. </p>
<p>“There is a way of comprehensively answering this question in a way that maintains the integrity of our parliament and of our system,” he insisted during committee questions in the Commons. </p>
<p>But this is not a question for which we need to seek an answer. It makes more sense to think of it as a paradox of the sort that is quite common in political systems. There is no need to try to eradicate them. They are not a cause for alarm or concern. </p>
<h2>More paradoxes than grains of sand</h2>
<p>A paradox is a surprising combination of ideas such as a clash, or apparent clash, of principles. For instance it is paradoxical that nurses wake up their patients to give them sleeping pills. It is paradoxical to say, <a href="http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/good-night-good-night-parting-such-sweet-sorrow">as Shakespeare did</a>, that parting can be such sweet sorrow. It is paradoxical to note, as <a href="http://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/imp.html">Bertrand Russell suggested</a>, that the set of all numbers is no larger than the set of all odd numbers or the set of all even numbers since all three are infinite. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paradoxes as far as the eye can see.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-117037576/stock-photo-rippled-sand.html?src=OECJhnnsskFpXsOQjTJDpw-1-22">Natalie Davidovich</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The steps required to eradicate paradoxes in our political system are often impractical or would cause more problems than they solve – even sometimes creating new paradoxes. </p>
<p>We do not allow everyone to vote. In order to vote, you must be an adult citizen. The presumption would seem to be that younger people lack intelligence, knowledge, experience or some such feature that is relevant to voting wisely and responsibly. Yet paradoxically, the votes of all adults count equally. Through ageing and injury, people can come to lose the faculties of memory, reasoning and so forth. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, they do not automatically lose their right to vote when they have lost the capacity to exercise that right meaningfully. On this logic, you could equally argue that some people should have more votes than others. The philosopher John Stuart Mill <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3e5L58BRAp8C&pg=PT193&lpg=PT193&dq=mill+some+people+should+get+more+votes&source=bl&ots=hiYnMM-Rmb&sig=P01d5vYq1ju0VYjW7k4OhUFIjdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0idvVIuXDI7taMOegFA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false">thought so</a>.</p>
<p>There is another strand here. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23074572">On the grounds that</a> young people have the prospect of a long-term stake and interest in the country, the voting age was reduced to 16 years for the referendum. Yet we did not choose to remove the right to vote from those who did not have a long-term future in Scotland, such as the terminally ill, the very old or those who were about to emigrate. As with many paradoxes of course, these are ones that we are wise to ignore. </p>
<h2>Endless grounds for disqualification</h2>
<p>MPs who have urban constituencies that do not hold fox hunts voted on the bills which <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day--fox-hunting-banned-in-england-and-wales-182326439.html#CfQwG6S">made fox-hunting illegal</a>. MPs who do not have wind turbines, oil fields, nuclear power stations or coal mines in their constituencies vote on all matters pertaining to fuel policy. MPs who are deaf vote can vote on matters relating to noise abatement. MPs who are confirmed bachelors and childless vote on such matters as divorce legislation and childcare payments. </p>
<p>Creating a devolved legislative body at Holyrood in the absence of an equivalent body for England increased and compounded the paradoxes around Scottish special treatment in our political system. It certainly wasn’t the beginning of them, however. Ever since the inception of the union in 1707, the separate nature of Scots law, Scottish education and the role of the Church of Scotland created paradoxes. </p>
<h2>Murderers more welcome over the border</h2>
<p>Suppose a man is tried for murder in Carlisle in the north of England. If eight out of the 12 members of the jury are convinced he is guilty while four decide he was innocent, he cannot be found guilty of the crime. At least ten out of the jury of 12 members must agree for a guilty verdict to hold.</p>
<p>Now suppose the very same crime with the same people, evidence and so forth were committed just over the Scottish border. This might mean it were tried 85 miles away at the nearest high court in Glasgow, where there are 15 members on a jury and, even in a murder trial, a straight majority verdict can secure a verdict of guilty. This means that if there are again eight jurors that are convinced of the man’s guilt, he will be convicted. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t let a Scottish jury get hold of you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-175655786/stock-photo-wooden-mallet-and-scottish-flag-clipping-path-included.html?src=x-JvFdJ9QZPuoqqhVMuWrw-1-0">corund</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We have chosen to live with paradoxes of this sort. Most people are not at all discomforted by them, and rightly so. Yet this is arguably a much more alarming paradox than the fact that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that only apply to English constituencies. </p>
<p>The reality is this: parliament has an interest in what happens throughout the UK and MPs can comment and vote on it in their capacity as MPs. All MPs are equal as MPs. Like equal votes for all citizens is a principle of our particular political system, whether or not it is unfair or rationally defensible as an abstract principle. </p>
<p>We should be wary of calls to eradicate the West Lothian paradox unless we are ready to accept that we might thereby create other paradoxes and alter our particular democracy in unintended, unwanted ways. Scottish MPs voting on English matters is just one of a great many constitutional matters that look hard to defend on strict rational principles, but the key is always to look at the broader principle that lies behind them. It is time for David Cameron to stop seeking political advantage and embrace the paradoxical system over which he presides.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ever since David Cameron wrong-footed his opponents on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for…Hugh McLachlan, Professor of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345042014-11-21T06:01:49Z2014-11-21T06:01:49ZWhy Greenland is a better template for Scotland than any of its neighbours<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65102/original/image-20141120-4461-1jrpwcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Any talk of a Scottish federation should be put on ice</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=greenland&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=153967604">ausnewsde</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>First the No victory in the Scottish referendum, now the debate about how much extra power should be extended north of the border. While <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">the commission</a> tasked with coming up with proposals prepares to publish them at the end of the month, it raises the question of whether any federal states around the world might provide a useful template. </p>
<p>After all, Gordon Brown <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/gordon-brown-backs-federalism-in-event-of-no-vote-1-3511291">talked about</a> a modern form of Scottish home rule, “as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85% of the population”. And the SNP’s new deputy leader Stewart Hosie <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/stewart-hosie-elected-deputy-leader-of-snp-1-3605062">has said that</a> the Scottish people were promised the “closest thing to a federal state within one to two years”.</p>
<p>There is a difficulty here, however. Aiming towards a federal state structure makes it necessary to also look at reforming the UK’s central institutions. As recently suggested by Labour leader Ed Miliband, there is the question of whether the House of Lords should be reformed into a chamber able to represent UK regions. There are also questions about the status of Wales and Northern Ireland as well as of England. </p>
<h2>No länder is grander</h2>
<p>When you look at other federal structures, they are less helpful than you might think. Take Germany for example. Composed of 16 subunits (or länder) with the same competences, the German federal system is underpinned by a commitment to create equal living conditions. The German second parliamentary chamber, the Bundesrat, ensures that all the Länder are effectively represented. It has the power to veto all significant national laws, with the Länder exercising autonomy mostly through how they choose to implement national policies. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Der Bundesrat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=Bundesrat&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=201131537">Kiev.Victor</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contrast this with the UK, where Scotland has more powers than Wales and Northern Ireland and England is not devolved at all. This is completely different from a federal scenario in which there is devolution across the whole country, giving each unit about the same powers. And demands <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29606220">from certain quarters</a> that Scottish MPs be prevented from voting on English issues directly contradicts the model of a country like Germany, where all the federal regions vote on all national issues and sometimes have a veto over them. </p>
<h2>The federal reality</h2>
<p>Spain or Canada, with their strong regional identities and the presence of a weaker second house, appear to bear more comparison. Spain has traditionally given far greater powers to historical nation regions like Catalonia and the Basque Country, even if inequalities in competences between different regions were reduced in the 1980s and 1990s in consecutive rounds of federal reform. In Canada meanwhile, Quebec still has a special status in the federal system. </p>
<p>Yet the huge variation in regional powers in the UK still makes it quite different from these examples. And if the UK gives even more autonomy to Scotland, it makes the federal analogy even more problematic. </p>
<p>If the UK was really going to shift towards a federal state structure, it would mean empowering the other regions to bring them into line with Scottish autonomy. Most federal systems also put provisions in their constitutions that stipulate how much power stays in the centre and how much is devolved to regions around the country. This is then commonly policed by a supreme court to help define the limits of the central parliament’s supremacy. </p>
<h2>Nuuk before you leap</h2>
<p>A more suitable starting point for comparison would be the so-called “federacy arrangements” that exist between the likes of Denmark and Greenland or Finland and the Åland Islands (which lie off the south-west Finnish coast, halfway to Sweden). Such agreements are commonly directly negotiated between the specific region and the central state. In the case of both the Finnish and Danish examples, the arrangement for the autonomous region has been embedded within the structure of the unitary state, with other regions not enjoying similar autonomy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Åland Islands: Baltic Caledonia?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bushman_k/4756761857/in/photolist-9zXAnv-9zXBZv-9zXBta-9zXAXH-2nbgbx-8fkDzt-Ki217-d3EkHS-d3Eub9-d3Ewxu-d3Eohq-d3Esgj-d3EFof-d3ErBm-d3EsYm-d3EqbE-d3EEgs-d3EAwu-d3EGFs-d3Ex8s-6DdziV-6S2FEM-94xiiR-pus6yw-d3ExK1-d3EoVS-d3EG3f-d3Epyq-d3Evcs-d3EHo9-d3Eyph-d3Emmj-d3EnCG-d3ECHu-d3EuGf-d3Etz5-d3Ez7s-d3En1u-d3EzW3-d3EEQf-d3EBWf-d3EDu9-d3EBjo-3JmpCU-fzN5bX-bPV6kz-fEotDm-5aY9mZ-5b3pLf-5b3ofo">Kirill Ignatyev</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Federacy arrangements tend to exist for small remote areas of land. They tend to enjoy extensive regional autonomy over domestic matters, leaving the state in charge only of defence, foreign relations and currency. This echoes the SNP’s “devo max” model. </p>
<p>That said, such autonomy comes at a price: the devolved unit in a federacy has minimal input on state decision-making overall. This would require a radical reduction of Scottish representation and influence on UK politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Bolleyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>First the No victory in the Scottish referendum, now the debate about how much extra power should be extended north of the border. While the commission tasked with coming up with proposals prepares to…Nicole Bolleyer, Associate Professor, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/344602014-11-20T06:06:00Z2014-11-20T06:06:00ZTime for UK to give Scotland what it voted for: more control over energy matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65017/original/image-20141119-31623-jm2vez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scottish energy: The status quo is not an option!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201397556/stock-photo-electricity-power-lines-scretching-acoss-rugged-countryside-in-perthshire-scotland.html?src=q1qvtZaVrLAd4OVITDXhRg-1-30">Cornfield</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid the <a href="http://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Press-statement-submissions-published.pdf">14,000-plus</a> submissions to the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">commission</a> tasked with producing a set of proposals for handing more powers to Scotland, some <a href="http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/oct/devolving-oil-tax-feasible-well-desirable">have proposed</a> devolving some control of energy. </p>
<p>Energy was one of the main battlegrounds on which the referendum was fought in September. Key points of contention included the future prospects for Scotland’s mature <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/18/oil-gas-forecasts-north-sea-pessimistic-scotland">oil and gas industry</a>, how Scotland’s renewables industry <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26054455">would be funded</a>, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ed-daveys-claim-that-scottish-energy-bills-would-rise-after-independence-is-a-fantasy-25693">cost of</a> electricity consumer prices after independence. </p>
<p>We were consistently on the opposite side of the argument to the unionists, but we could all agree on one thing: Scotland would remain a very prosperous and energy-rich country for some time to come. </p>
<h2>The status quo</h2>
<p>Currently Westminster dictates energy policy, without taking into consideration Scottish priorities if it so wishes. Holyrood has got around this to some extent with its extensive planning powers, encouraging the expansion of renewables such as onshore wind and blocking nuclear new-build. </p>
<p>Yet it is inconceivable that energy policy will not feature highly in the Smith Commission’s deliberations. The reality is that 45% of Scots voted Yes to independence, and at least some of the majority who voted No appear to have been swayed late in the day by <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">the “vow”</a> by the leaders of the three main UK parties to grant “extensive new powers” to Scotland. Given that energy was so prominent in the debate, it is hard to see how the status quo can be allowed to continue. </p>
<h2>Petroleum control</h2>
<p>There is no reason why Holyrood should not have full responsibility for tax-raising from oil and gas production, especially where vast economic assets lie in already-established territorial waters. There appears to be <a href="http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/oct/snp-submission-smith-commission">much public support</a> for this to happen. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65018/original/image-20141119-31623-149nrd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oil be damned!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-124714078/stock-photo-image-of-oil-platform-during-sunset.html?src=2ZiVGwzzHdsFkWxLfFuXXQ-1-42">Dabarti CGI</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If petroleum revenue control were devolved along with the other key taxes, it would also remove the debate about the “Barnett formula” mechanism by which the UK’s nations are funded. Instead Scotland would simply raise its own taxes and pay its way. <a href="https://theconversation.com/devo-max-in-scotland-would-be-disastrous-for-northern-ireland-and-wales-33276">Some argue</a> that any attractions of such a move are outweighed by the problems that it could cause Wales and Northern Ireland. But the UK’s leaders can’t have it both ways. This is the sort of change that Scottish No voters are entitled to expect for staying in the UK – it is clear that the whole system now needs rethinking. </p>
<h2>Regulatory control</h2>
<p>Scotland should also play a leading role in setting UK-wide energy policy and assisting Westminster in overseeing regulation. Scotland’s voice at the industry regulator Ofgem should be increased to that of a full partner, a co-driver in energy oversight – right now Scotland is not even a backseat passenger. </p>
<p>This is why years have passed without solving issues like poor grid connections to the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/plea-to-improve-grid-connections-to-scots-islands-1-3551210">Scottish islands</a> and endless delays to <a href="http://renews.biz/62896/ofgem-pushes-transmit-to-2016/">proposals to reform</a> the transmission system that removes the bias against northern producers. There is already industry support for such change, as outlined in a <a href="http://www.scottishrenewables.com/news/scottish-renewables-post-referendum-paper-proposes/">recent policy paper</a> by industry association Scottish Renewables.</p>
<h2>Renewables control</h2>
<p>Finally Scotland should also have greater control over the Crown Estate, which manages licences for activities such as offshore renewables and salmon farming. As has been <a href="http://www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/news/28-oct-2014-community-energy-and-the-smith-commission-today.asp?skip">argued by</a> Community Energy Scotland, Holyrood also needs specific funding to support onshore and marine renewables. There is no getting away from the fact that the Scottish government is much more committed to renewables while England is keener on nuclear power. The only way to allow both countries to pursue their own individual policy goals, while having a properly joined-up approach to national energy security, is to give Scotland greater say in these areas. </p>
<p>The cost consequences to this policy might not be palatable to everyone in the south of England, but the key issue has to be keeping the lights on across the entire UK – <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1361787/energy-crunch-plan-to-keep-the-lights-on">not a foregone conclusion</a> by any means over the coming years. Scotland continues to demonstrate that its vast energy capacity has the power to help keep the lights on across the UK this winter. With wind turbines <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29889811">generating enough</a> electricity in October to power more than 3m homes or the equivalent of 126% of Scottish needs for the month, these kinds of surpluses <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-attitude-to-renewables-and-scotland-is-a-risk-to-national-security-27666">are exported</a> to England. </p>
<p>The inconvenient reality is that England is electricity hungry, <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/88523/electricitycapacityassessment2014-fullreportfinalforpublication.pdf">currently requiring</a> as much electricity as it can possibly source from wherever it can. This means that more investment in onshore and offshore renewables would be a wise policy decision for all of the UK. So Westminster needs to start giving more weight to voices from north of the border when it comes to energy policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34460/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Amid the 14,000-plus submissions to the commission tasked with producing a set of proposals for handing more powers to Scotland, some have proposed devolving some control of energy. Energy was one of the…Peter Strachan, Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management, Robert Gordon UniversityAlex Russell, Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343282014-11-17T15:54:58Z2014-11-17T15:54:58ZScotland v England will be anything but friendly so soon after independence referendum<p>The value of “friendly” football internationals is often debatable. Many top players might rather not bother in the context of a busy season, and their club managers will likely agree. International managers and uncapped young players might take a different view, of course. </p>
<p>One exception to this debate is the <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/game-auld-enemy-scotland-set-3853440">Scotland v England match</a>. Coming so soon after this year’s bitter and divisive referendum campaign, all eyes are on Glasgow’s Celtic Park on November 18 to see if the in-form Scots can put one over on the Auld Enemy. </p>
<p>As Scottish midfielder Charlie Mulgrew <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30068439">said over the weekend</a>, “there’s never a friendly between Scotland and England and we’re looking forward to that”. </p>
<h2>Different trajectories</h2>
<p>Psychologically the two teams are in very different places approaching the encounter. The only real success for the England team in the recent <a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/">Brazil World Cup</a> came off the field. For the first time since 1966, the public relations around the FA successfully managed expectations. In every interview and press release, the message was clear -– this is a young inexperienced team, building for the future, expect little. </p>
<p>Sure enough, little was delivered. England crashed out in the group stages after two defeats and a draw in what was the country’s worst performance in 20 years. This was largely due to the systemic problems in the top tier of football in England which most people at the heart of the game south of the border recognise but are unwilling or unable to resolve. </p>
<p>Despite the hype, the Premier League is fit for only one purpose: the continued prosperity of the Premier League. The England team might be making its way through the Euro 2016 qualifying games without disaster, but the domestic league is unable, in its current form, to support the development of a consistently successful international squad. The manager knows this and so do the players. </p>
<p>Scotland approach the upcoming game in a very different frame of mind. The appointment of Gordon Strachan as manager in 2013 was a bold move. There were fears that Strachan’s close connections to Celtic would render him unacceptable to the other half of Glasgow. But as results and performances have improved, nobody is talking about that now. </p>
<p>Last Friday’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30063105">1-0 defeat</a> of the Republic of Ireland in Glasgow was the latest in the most promising Scotland campaign in years. Scotland had already stretched the World Cup winners in Germany, losing narrowly, drawn against Poland and beaten Georgia. The team lies joint second in the Euro 2016 qualification table with Germany and Ireland, behind Poland. Without question, the Scots are playing good football. The players appear to be responding to their manager in a way which his England counterpart Roy Hodgson must envy. </p>
<h2>Two approaches</h2>
<p>Both managers are articulate and intelligent, and both have commendable but not outstanding records in management. In fact Hodgson’s record is probably more impressive. But what Strachan has over Hodgson is the insight into the players’ mindset which comes not just from having lived and breathed it, but also having thought deeply about how managerial behaviour impacts on the players. </p>
<p>Strachan appears to have spent more time building a rapport with his team. He <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-strachan-croatia-qualifier-perfect-1903010">has brought</a> new players into the squad to see how they respond and get to know them. He has also sent messages to players currently not in the squad that they are being watched and should not lose their motivation to play for Scotland.</p>
<p>England has tried to appoint this sort of manager in the past with Glenn Hoddle and Kevin Keegan. Both had success, but ultimately failed because the respect that is essential for good communications was missing. Players disliked Hoddle’s view that he could still play better than any of them – they felt he didn’t respect him. Keegan tried too hard to be one of the boys, so they didn’t respect him.</p>
<p>On the other hand Hodgson’s speciality is tactics. In this he shares more with Sir Alf Ramsey than Hoddle or Keegan. And where Ramsey used senior players like Bobby Moore to relay messages to the dressing room, Hodgson uses Wayne Rooney. But while Ramsey had genuinely world-class players at his disposal like Bobby Charlton, Geoff Hurst and Moore, the English Premier League doesn’t produce players like that anymore. The top players that do perform in England are invariably from elsewhere, having first been developed in Spain, Germany or Italy.</p>
<p>This week’s clash between the two sides is a rematch following last year’s fixture at Wembley, which England won 3-2. That was the first time the two sides had met in a friendly since the old tradition of home internationals ended in 1989, putting paid to the oldest fixture in football history. </p>
<p>In the run-up to this week’s game, you would expect Strachan and his players to say all the right things about how there is no place for politics in football. No one will believe them as “God Save the Queen” is booed by 60,000 fans. England will play tentatively, their stars will be harried and pressured and commentators will speak of their collective lack of confidence. Scotland will fail to convert their chances and somehow England will steal a win… As an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for many years, that is my hunch at any rate. Just don’t let anyone tell you it’s a friendly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Westbury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The value of “friendly” football internationals is often debatable. Many top players might rather not bother in the context of a busy season, and their club managers will likely agree. International managers…Tony Westbury, Lecturer in Sport Psychology, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/339602014-11-10T06:12:18Z2014-11-10T06:12:18ZCan new powers for Scotland really be delivered within promised timescale?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63997/original/qmbh64vc-1415376909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pressure is on Westminster to devolve power swiftly.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=houses%20of%20parliament&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=219049174">merc67</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Lord Smith of Kelvin’s task of steering the commission for more Scottish devolution is set to a timescale that makes <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29935465">his job chairing</a> the organising committee of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games look like child’s play. </p>
<p>It has made quick progress to date. Inside two weeks of the referendum result, the Smith commission was populated with members from each of the five parties represented at Holyrood (the SNP, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens). By the time public proposals to the commission had closed on October 31, some 14,000 submissions had been made.</p>
<p>Now it has until St Andrew’s Day (November 30) to make sense of those submissions and the proposals submitted by the five represented parties to produce a set of workable proposals. Draft legislation is due by Burns’ Night (January 25) prior to the UK general election in May, after which a bill for legislation should be included in the Queen’s Speech. </p>
<h2>Stopwatches and the big sell</h2>
<p>The difficulties break into two strands. The first is the commitment itself – <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-powers-for-scotland-rushed-timetable-does-the-whole-of-the-uk-a-disservice-33756">how to deliver</a> a workable constitutional settlement within the timetable required. The second is the political issue: how to sell the outcome as desirable and in the public interest both inside Scotland and elsewhere. To add to the scale of the challenge, this is happening a time when the public is actively engaged in the political process, watching as the proposals unfold.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clock is ticking…</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=Wvv5egkmvD2dVKl2OLsKAg&searchterm=stopwatch&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&secondary_submit=Search&page=1&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=145219852">bikeriderlondon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Constitutional change in the UK is usually a gradual process, occurring on an ad-hoc basis. It is commonly based on the whim and interest of the government of the day, seldom taking a view of the wider constitutional picture. Devolution is a case in point here: Labour provided devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to London – but when the north-east of England <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm">voted against</a> a regional assembly, the question of how to govern England remained unanswered.</p>
<p>The current process is not much different in that respect. Marrying the requirements for broad constitutional thinking and a workable settlement with a speedy resolution appears to be mission impossible. Allowing short-term political thinking to influence the outcome is simply going to exacerbate the constitutional issue.</p>
<p>So we have a timetable that is entirely political: a promise <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">made in poetry</a> during the tense final week of the referendum campaign requires delivery in prose in the cold light of a parliamentary process. Herein lies the bear-trap. The 45% who voted Yes to Scottish independence – as well as substantial numbers of the 55% who voted No – are eager for further powers to be devolved and for the timetable to be met. They will, as the outgoing first minister Alex Salmond <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-insists-scotland-can-4291189">suggested</a>, “hold Westminster’s feet to the fire” on these promises. </p>
<h2>Options, options …</h2>
<p>Lord Smith has been placed in a bind here. Does he use the available time-frame to deliver a lean package, broadly in line with what the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-do-the-strathclyde-proposals-matter-27657">three main UK parties published</a> in the months before the vote? Does he recommend that more substantial powers be devolved, considerably altering the constitutional make-up of the UK without the due diligence that a longer process would allow? Or does he say he needs more time to come up with a workable form of devolution, letting the timetable slip? Those appear to be the options, and none looks attractive. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can SNP under Nicola Sturgeon save devo max?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishgovernment/6924441790/in/photolist-6N7USn-9M6174-9M5QKp-iZ7tpc-a91xAh-fxpnb6-aBrT7M-gUgWfX-9w6TrK-9w6ToT-9w6TxH-9w9VCs-9w9Vxy-bxTz6j-bLNgAe-bLNgm8-bxTziq-fxpnuz-fxpnKc-fxpo3F-e4R8KP-e4WKy1-e4WE31-4Lw4qK-f26usf-99GMAh-eFfcYE-eFfcTu-iZ8jPW-pasSpe-prEwiM-prV8Uj-pasuu3-eJEgif-9dyWSP-9FqvvW-9Fnynn-bLuQBn-bxA9ij-bxA9af-bLinKa-bLiokv-bxA9ru-bLiog8-4Lw4tZ-iZa41u-aBuy3f-4LAgjm-4LAgnw-4Lw4xH">Scottish Government</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course the SNP would make political hay out of either the timetable slipping or the powers delivered being less than <a href="http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scotland-will-force-westminster-to-deliver-devo-max-promise/">expected</a> or <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/the-powers-struggle-poll-reveals-support-for-devo-max.25509432">desired</a>. The fact that it is involved in the Smith commission might take some of the sting out of this (which explains why former Scottish secretary Michael Moore <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141014/debtext/141014-0002.htm">kept making this point</a> during the House of Commons debate on the issue, for example). </p>
<h2>Outcomes</h2>
<p>So what happens on November 30? A timetable slip has to be a real possibility. Even to read each of the public submissions during the month of November means that the commission must read more than 450 submissions each day – or 700 a day if you rule out weekends. And once they’ve been read, they of course need to be considered and presumably collated in some way. </p>
<p>Still, postponement would look terrible so it’s perhaps not the most likely outcome. More likely there will be proposals but with some kind of acknowledgement that not all the submissions could be considered – thereby undermining the democratic force of the process. Since the three main UK parties are in the majority, the most likely is a package along the lines of what they propose: more income tax devolution, some transfer of welfare powers, but nothing much more drastic. </p>
<p>Selling that to Scotland is probably not particularly difficult. Smith and the parties will be able to present it as being on a continuum of extra powers, following the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/30903.aspx">creation of the parliament</a> in 1999 and the <a href="https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/category/calman-commissionscotland-bill/">Calman commission</a> in 2012. You indicate to Yes voters that it’s another step to their end goal while telling No voters it strengthens the parliament and represents the will of the Scottish people. You have the advantage that the Yes side know it is not politically wise to call another referendum at this stage. </p>
<p>What looks much more problematic is the rest of the UK. Will Welsh or English MPs vote for the package unless they secure new powers too? Will Scottish MPs vote for it, knowing that it will remove some of their power in Westminster? If Labour wins next year’s general election, will they take the proposals forward as legislation? They know their ability to govern the UK could be badly damaged by the idea of English votes for English laws, so any package that attempted to force through that issue would be unlikely to pass muster. </p>
<p>Where does this leave the Smith commission? With a monumental task on its hands. It could save the union for generations, or we could be looking at another referendum within the next 10 years. We’ll only find out the answer, one suspects, once the ball lands with Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for his position as a researcher for the Centre on Constitutional Change.</span></em></p>Lord Smith of Kelvin’s task of steering the commission for more Scottish devolution is set to a timescale that makes his job chairing the organising committee of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games look like…Malcolm Harvey, Researcher, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/337562014-11-03T15:54:41Z2014-11-03T15:54:41ZMore powers for Scotland: rushed timetable does the whole of the UK a disservice<p>The group charged with delivering more devolution to Scotland is to draw up the most significant programme of constitutional change for the UK since 1998 this November. Already the period when citizens could submit their views has passed: the Smith Commission’s deadline was 5pm on October 31. Such a rapid process runs counter to both the due diligence needed before deciding to restructure the UK tax (and possibly welfare) systems so radically; and the due process which ought to accompany such a seminal constitutional development. </p>
<p>The referendum campaign was a remarkable period of citizen empowerment, resulting in a turnout of <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-turnout-record-as-84-vote-1-3546826">almost 85%</a>. The Smith Commission process, by contrast, bears all the hallmarks of a return to elite-led constitutional change. It is deeply ironic that the impetus for such a rapid and party-led process should be the independence referendum itself. It was set in motion only as September 18 approached and the polls seemed to tighten, when the main unionist parties issued “<a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">the vow</a>” promising more powers for the Scottish parliament and a firm timetable for change. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">Trinity Mirror</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The timetable is astonishing. The day after the referendum Prime Minister David Cameron <a href="http://icas.org.uk/News/Latest-News/ICAS-Welcomes-Appointment-of-Lord-Smith-to-Oversee-Process-for-Further-Devolution-to-Scotland/">announced that</a> Lord Smith of Kelvin would oversee a process to take forward these commitments. The five main parties (Conservative, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party) had to submit their views by October 10. The commission will issue recommendations by November 30, with a view to a draft bill in the new year. If <a href="http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=goose/s/38//">Solomon Grundy</a> could do constitutional change, this is what it would look like.</p>
<h2>Getting it right</h2>
<p>My first objections are less of principle and more of prudence. It is not enough to make policy decisions and then complete an assessment of how these can be carried out later. You need to ascertain the operational difficulties in advance before you can make a decision on the best course of action. The devolution of tax and welfare within such a highly integrated state must be tested for its impact both on Scotland and on the rest of the UK. </p>
<p>The Smith timetable is also odd given that we are heading towards a UK general election. Of course the parties feel the need to move fast for political reasons. But the general election provides an entirely credible reason to set deliberation back until next year. By any measure it is better to do things correctly than to do them quickly. </p>
<p>And then there is the issue of due process. As a point of democratic principle fundamental constitutional change should be open, inclusive and deliberative if the people of Scotland, and more pertinently the people of the rest of the UK, are to consider it legitimate. </p>
<h2>Ignoring Britain</h2>
<p>The bigger picture is of course the UK constitution as a whole. The Smith Commission is concerned only with additional powers for the Scottish parliament. But is it feasible to address this issue alone without also considering the knock-on consequences for the entire country? For example one element of The Vow was to make the Scottish parliament “permanent”. But how can such a constitutional guarantee be made without significant changes to parliamentary sovereignty, the very basis of the British constitution?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-scotland-decides-its-future-lie-back-and-think-of-england-30993">West Lothian question</a> has already re-appeared as a counterpoint to more powers for Scotland. Should decisions be taken on radical tax powers for Scotland without advance notice of whether, and if so how, these powers may lead to a significant loss of influence for Scotland at Westminster? We also don’t know if this process might prompt a strong campaign for an English parliament within the UK system, or further devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland. </p>
<p>It might mean a re-worked system of intergovernmental relations, or even some kind of quasi-federal system, possibly involving realigning the House of Lords as a chamber of the nations and regions of the UK – something Ed Miliband first raised at the Labour Party conference in September 2014. Scots should know whether the price of more powers will be a radically new constitutional structure within which the position of Scotland is in some ways marginalised. There are also potential issues of compatibility with EU law (something Smith says the commission will address). </p>
<h2>What chance real deliberation?</h2>
<p>It is not impossible that the Smith Commission will deliberate on a genuinely constructive and non-party basis, but the fact that its membership is open only to political parties and the limited time frame makes this very difficult. </p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29857267">proposals submitted</a> to Smith are largely the well-established positions of the political parties and not the result of any independent or cross-party review. There will of course be give and take in a process of inter-party bartering, but is this the type of democratic deliberation that post-referendum Scotland aspires to? </p>
<p>All of this suggests the need for restraint. The two governments should set up a much more inclusive and wider ranging review over a much longer period of time. It should be conducted in a more independently, relatively free from party political horse-trading, taking the views of citizens and civil society seriously. </p>
<p>Why not see the referendum as the first step in a new endorsement of popular politics? The post-referendum environment offers the chance to re-engage with a public which is better educated about and enthused by constitutional politics than ever before. To explore such avenues would be no retreat from the democratic will of the people. On the contrary, such an engagement would help fulfil the democratic promise of the referendum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Tierney receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>The group charged with delivering more devolution to Scotland is to draw up the most significant programme of constitutional change for the UK since 1998 this November. Already the period when citizens…Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/336952014-11-01T08:32:10Z2014-11-01T08:32:10ZLabour Scottish leadership debacle shows it has never come to terms with devolution<p>How ironic that Scottish Labour won the referendum battle but is tearing itself apart. Following Johann Lamont’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/30/ed-miliband-scottish-labour_n_6073644.html">incredible resignation comments</a> about the party being treated like a “branch office” to the London HQ, the headlines seem to keep getting worse. Around 200 demonstrators <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/around-200-protesters-barrack-ed-miliband-outside-glasgow-hotel.1414700553">came</a> to vent their anger outside the hotel in Glasgow where Labour leader Ed Miliband was holding a fundraising dinner on Thursday October 30. </p>
<p>Meanwhile two polls found that Labour was on course for a rout in Scotland at next year’s general election – one <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/scottish-labour-snp-general-election-poll">predicted</a> that Labour’s representation in Scotland would sink from 40 MPs to just six. On these numbers, the Scottish National Party (SNP) would surge from four to 54, in what would be one of the biggest reversals in election history. Needless to say, that would make a huge difference to Miliband’s chances of winning the general election. </p>
<h2>Deeper problems than leadership</h2>
<p>Scottish Labour is at a genuine crossroads. The three-way fight between Jim Murphy, Sarah Boyack and Neil Findlay might well represent a choice between three different futures. Yet to focus on the three personalities masks the underlying issues facing the party. It may have lacked strong leadership post-devolution, but that is at least partially explained by a constitution that keeps power highly centralised and has made it difficult for the party to have a convincing strategic direction north of the border. </p>
<p>Complacency can take much of the blame. For almost half a century prior to 2007, Labour won every national election in Scotland. It was the institutionalised, hegemonic machine-like party, dominating both representation and also political debate. Its dominance was such that its networks of influence extended beyond politics to economic, cultural and civic Scotland. </p>
<p>Even before Lamont’s remarks, Labour was already facing major difficulties. It was in danger of being deserted by many of its former supporters, who had decided in favour of independence and dubbed the party “red Tories” for sharing a platform with the Conservatives. And long before the referendum, the last two Scottish election <a href="http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/26970/">studies</a> had <a href="http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/93678/">highlighted</a> that the party seen as “standing up for Scotland” benefits at the polls. It is very difficult for Scottish Labour to be seen as most attuned to Scotland’s interests if the public perceive the UK leadership to be exerting a controlling influence over it. </p>
<h2>Internal and external threats</h2>
<p>If the party is to have any chance of winning back the voters it has lost, it must address two fundamentals. It needs an appropriate party constitution that reflects the reality of the UK’s existing and developing constitutional structure and Scotland’s place in it. It also needs a strategy within Scotland to deal with the expanding, growing and governing SNP (I’m still not sure some in the party have come to terms with the SNP government). </p>
<p>You can draw an analogy with Rangers, the Glasgow football club. It went through a period of administration, liquidation and “resurrection” that has culminated in a revolving door of rather dubious chairmen, board members, chief executives and “investors” in the new club. The writer <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/alas-poor-johann-lamont-a-symptom-not-the-cause-of-labours-decline-in-scotland/">Alex Massie has noted</a> that both institutions and their followers have the same delusions of grandeur. Scottish Labour’s leadership is not quite as chaotic as that of Rangers – but the party is now choosing its seventh different leader since 1999. And since 2007 it has been stumbling along without much sense of purpose and direction. </p>
<p>Put simply, the party that delivered home rule in 1999 has since struggled to adjust to its reality. The Scottish party has looked conservative in relation to policy-making, while time and again the party has looked London-centric. Long before the SNP became an electoral force, London stalwart Brian Wilson was heard to put down the attempts of then first minister Henry McLeish to talk of a Scottish government by <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/mcleish-rides-out-the-storm-over-title-1.202770">suggesting</a>: “They can call themselves the White Heather Club if they like, but not government.” Meanwhile McLeish was caught <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1311766/Labour-ministers-caught-calling-colleague-bastard.html">referring to</a> Labour Westminster cabinet minister John Reid as a “patronising bastard”. </p>
<p>Other unionist parties adjusted with greater ease. The Liberal Democrats had a pre-existing federal constitutional structure and the Conservatives have willingly devolved increased autonomy to their party in Scotland. The Labour Party’s reforms have not yet resolved the Holyrood-Westminster tension – the pre-1999 structure was only marginally adjusted by the <a href="http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/scottish-labours-review/">Murphy/Boyack review</a> in 2011. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63395/original/rpvqg4tv-1414756350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Londoners telling MSPs at Holyrood what to do is not appreciated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/davemorris/2228339796/in/photolist-4oUPME-9US1cJ-anf91-6BHJq-589sv3-hZRHpt-4oZkCx-4oZkLg-4p4pvC-4oZmEi-4p4pM1-4p4pCW-5JE6Pr-dfaRe-9Ubb8e-4p4pgo-6rKwh4-4oZkTi-6rPEps-89ofnG-8n8ou-2fWyJ-9sj4h-6rPE6U-6rKvZx-4ZTcmV-89od6U-9LNU2Z-9LRGiQ-9sj1H-6rKw8t-9sj3a-9LNRnH-9sj2L-9sj22-4uaqEp-9sj2q-2fWyH-9LNSaR-jUh16-jUh1L-jUgZv-qNFoJ-6rKwmM-86PHzr-2Z6aq9-rbEUr-qNFuB-qNFJi-qNFAb">Dave Morris</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The next Scottish Labour leader will have to be willing to tell Westminster members of the “Labour family” to ditch the patronising tone and, more importantly, allow those at Holyrood the space to do their own thing – Jim Murphy <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/ed-miliband-labour-scotland-election-poll-snp-win">has been</a> making these noises to the media, but it will take more than words. To do this, the party’s constitution will need to enshrine much more Scottish autonomy. Only then will Scottish Labour develop the confidence and assertiveness to compete with the Scottish National Party on an even playing field. </p>
<h2>Radical Jim?</h2>
<p>In the weeks leading up the unveiling of the new leader on December 13, each candidate (as well as those for deputy) will be reaching out to the party’s membership, parliamentarians and union affiliates, each of which has one-third of the electoral college. They desperately need to see a debate that will ignite creative thinking about the party’s purpose and where it is going in Scotland. The party must take a radical new direction if it is to re-energise the rank and file and re-connect with voters. </p>
<p>It needs to match the expanding autonomy of the Scottish government with a concurrent expansion of Scottish Labour’s right to determine its own policies. And instead of just paying lip-service to the old Labour ideal of “social justice” during the campaign, which will inevitably happen, the candidates must elaborate on what it actually means and how it will inform the future shape and direction of the party in Scotland. </p>
<p>Devolution in Scotland is 15 years old. It is time for the UK Labour leadership to let the Scottish party come of age and do its own thing. The unitary nature of the party’s constitution does not reflect the reality of devolution. If the party does not address this problem, it is in serious danger of permanently losing its Scottish heartlands to the SNP. It has already lost its “party of Scotland” label. If it doesn’t change, in 2015 the losses will be reflected in Westminster as well as Holyrood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil McGarvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How ironic that Scottish Labour won the referendum battle but is tearing itself apart. Following Johann Lamont’s incredible resignation comments about the party being treated like a “branch office” to…Neil McGarvey, Politics Lecturer, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.