Elephants versus the Union

I haven't been hugely impressed with the Final Report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution (or, as it is more commonly known, the Calman Commission). I reckon it must have been full of vegetarians... it lacks anything in the way of meat. (I'm here all week... try the veal - unless, of course, you are vegetarian...)

Anyway, I had to laugh at this exchange at the House of Commons Scottish Affairs committee yesterday.

SNP MP (and former Runrig star) Pete Wishart:

"Was independence the 'elephant in the room' during the Commission's discussions?"

Sir Kenneth Calman, chair of Commission on Scottish Devolution:

"I think it is entirely inappropriate to describe independence as an elephant."

Nice to see some people still have a sense of humour about things.

Actually, apparently, the Scotsman has a sense of humour about spelling... check the title of this piece. Maybe all the cutbacks have led to less... proof-reading.

Read more...

A very Calman influence

I've been reading Final Report of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. Well okay, the Executive Summary - I don't have the time to read 269 pages today.

It's an interesting read for those interested in Scotland's constitutional future - whatever that may be. Plenty has been written elsewhere about the content of the report, I just wanted to focus briefly on one aspect of it.

RECOMMENDATION 6.5: Section 31(1) of the Scotland Act should be amended to require any person introducing a Bill in the Parliament to make a statement that it is (in that person’s opinion) within the Parliament’s legislative competence.

So says the Calman Final Report. I guess that is their way of suggesting that a referendum on independence couldn't/ shouldn't be considered by the Scottish Parliament. And I guess that debate could go on for awhile - particularly given it is a legal decision.

I do find it funny to note that the person introducing a bill (which, in the case of an independence referendum bill would presumably be Mike Russell) merely has to say that they reckon it is within the Parliament's competence to debate it. They don't have to get any kind of legal opinion or anything.

I can't see Mike Russell having a problem saying "I think the Scottish Parliament has the competence to debate this referendum bill" - can you?

Read more...

Not a Calman influence...

I've been reading Sir Kenneth Calman's comments regarding the Calman Commission's upcoming report. The title of the BBC's piece, "Calman warning to SNP government" is another piece of bizarre biased reporting from the Beeb (not to mention somewhat questionable grammar).

Said Sir Kenneth yesterday:

"If it [the Scottish Government] doesn't wish to help with that process - and we would like it to help - then it will be quite difficult for them to criticise at the end. If you don't vote - you shouldn't criticise the outcome."

I understand the principle of his comment, I do. But I don't think his comparison works. Let me explain.

I encourage everyone I know to vote come election time. Everyone tells me what a waste of time it is, that whoever gets in willl just do the same as the last lot and that nothing will change (which is, I suppose, also a fair charge). But my point is always that if you don't make your view known by voting for someone - anyone - then you forfeit your right to complain about anything politics related (which is most things).

But this is slightly different. In an election, everyone has the opportunity to put their point across. Anyone (with certain caveats) can stand in an election if they don't think they agree with any of the other candidates. No one's view is excluded from the democratic process and people can make up their mind on who to vote for from a variety of different viewpoints. That's how democracy works.

The Calman Commission is not an election. Not everyone's view is represented. Some views (notably those supporting independence) have been disallowed from discussion. By my reckoning, if your views are not only not represented but have absolutely no means of being represented within that body, you are well within your rights to criticise that body.

By Sir Kenneth's reckoning, the Unionist parties in Scotland shouldn't be allowed to criticise the Scottish Government's National Conversation on the very same basis - that they haven't gotten involved in the process.

Both arguments are absolutely barking. Criticism and debate are part and parcel of a healthy democratic process. And the Scottish Government, like everyone else, will be well within their rights to criticise Sir Kenneth's Commission when their findings are made public.

To think otherwise, is just plain stupid.

Read more...

A flip-flopping guide to saving the union

Hearing a little more on a - rather crazy - theory that is going around at the moment. Goes a little bit like this:

Lib Dems a little - irritated - by the lack of listening to their point of view in the Calman Commission by their larger siblings in the unionist family. This is apparently an ongoing thing (and something I alluded to in December).

Lib Dems don't see the Calman Commission going anywhere - or at least, anywhere they want it to. Lib Dems are looking around for other options.

Lib Dems see an opportunity. After voting against the SNP's budget one week, they voted for it the following week - asking only that Salmond make a submission to the Calman Commission. Salmond was only too happy to agree.

Lib Dems soften the ground somewhat on negotiation with the SNP. Arguably in May 2007, when Nicol Stephen was the Lib Dem leader it was Tavish Scott's opposition to any deal on a referendum that scuppered any coalition deal. Now that Tavish is leader, things seem slightly different (or do they?).

According to this rumour, the Lib Dems are thinking about ditching Calman, coming on board with the SNP to get a referendum on independence through (subject to an "extended powers" option on the ticket) and capitalising on what they hope will be a victory for their preferred option (extended powers) in the referendum. Lib Dems look like "thinking" party - while the other two unionist parties are roadblocks to progress and the SNP licks its wounds over a defeat for its raison d'etre. At least that is the rumoured plan.

Except there are more holes in this theory than a packet of Polos. For one thing, even with Lib Dem support, there is still no majority for a referendum in the Scottish Parliament (47 + 16 = 63) assuming that the Scottish Parliament is allowed to hold such a referendum. And there's a lack of trust thing going on - how much would the SNP be willing to trust a party to help them deliver on not just a key manifesto pledge but their whole reason for existing? And there's the fact that the Lib Dems currently seem to be making up policies as they go along - and changing their mind on everything (see - tax and spend, tax cut, abandon policy; no negotiation on referendum, Tavish as leader "we'll see", a week later "no we won't"). Not exactly conducive to seeing this idea as anything more than another Lib Dem wheeze designed to get them some publicity for five minutes in order to shore up their plummeting poll numbers.

Balancing that is the wager (and Salmond likes those) that the Lib Dems are the means (referendum) to the end he wants (independence) and despite the inherent shakiness such a deal looks like having, he might very much be tempted to "let the people decide" the constitutional future of Scotland.

I'm not convinced that a deal is likely... however, I am pretty sure that if the Lib Dems walk away from Calman - and apparently that IS pretty likely - then they need to do something drastic to save a little face. It may well be that they see an opportunity to put independence to bed for awhile and "save the union" as their particular calling.

The Lib Dems, arch-federalists, saviours of the union? An intriguing prospect!

Read more...

Working on commission

A source who knows more about the Lib Dems than I do passed on the following tidbit of information regarding everyone's favourite party:

The Lib Dems have, over the last few weeks, been considering walking away from the Calman Commission.

Apparently, the absence of any recommendations on fiscal autonomy - a key Lib Dem policy - in the Commission's First Report saw the party think about ditching it. Commission member, and former leader of the Scottish Lib Dems Jim (now Lord) Wallace suggests here that the Commission has been directed to "improve the Parliament's financial accountability" which to him - and to most others - suggests the need for fiscal autonomy.

Apparently (and I'm using that word on purpose) it was the fact that there was no real recommendations at all in the report (and a good deal of kicking them under the table from the Tories and Labour) that saw them bite their collective tongues and retain membership.

Personally though, I think it was a political decision. What isn't, you might ask? And it'd be a fair point. But let me point this out. If the Calman Commission went ahead - without the Lib Dems - then it they would be squeezed out (even more than they already are). With the Scottish Government's National Conversation on one side and the Calman Commission to "redo" devolution on the other, the Lib Dems would face two choices: join the Government's consultation (which is looking at all the constitutional options - including independence) or sit out the most important constitutional question facing our country at the moment. Neither for them looked a particularly good option.

So, they're stuck contributing to a Commission that they feel won't provide the answer that they want it to... any ideas what they can do? Answers to Mr T. Scott - who'd be grateful for some guidance on this delicate issue.

Read more...