Conference Paper

Been a bit busy recently, so I've been quiet on here.  Inevitable consequence of trying to do a million things at one time.  

One of those things I'd like to point you in the direction of is a conference paper which I've jointly written with my PhD supervisor, Dr Peter Lynch.  I will be presenting it (alone - Peter is out of the country!) at the PSA conference in Edinburgh on the 30th March.

The paper is entitled:

"From National Conversation to Independence Referendum?:  The SNP Government and the Politics of Independence"

You can read it on the PSA Conference website, along with the other papers which appear on the same panel.

For those of you who don't really want to wade through 6,000 words of research, the abstract is below.  But you know you want to...

This paper will examine the political background and activities of the SNP Government’s National Conversation to promote independence ahead of a referendum in 2010. It will set the process in the context of similar constitutional reform exercises in other countries (such as statute reforms in Spain) and look at the level of public and pressure group engagement with the National Conversation through assessing the range of events and media coverage of the process. The paper will argue that the National Conversation process has had little apparent effect on the popularity of independence – in terms of opinion poll support - but has allowed the SNP government to engage with community organisations across Scotland, boost its own popularity and play an agendasetting role over the issue of constitutional change more broadly.

Read more...

Worthwhile reading

Further to my post yesterday (have a read of some of the comments for a good discussion of the points I was trying to make) and as it forms a good part of my research at the moment, I thought I'd post a few links to Scottish Government documents which comprise their National Conversation.

I'm currently listening to the podcasts of National Conversation events around the country from the past year, and what is interesting to note is the balance of questions. At some of the events, questions regarding the constitution are in the minority, maybe as little as 10-15% of the questions. At others, questions are more finely balanced, 50-50 between independence/ constitutional change and other policy concerns. Nevertheless, the Cabinet members present at the events are happy to engage in the discussions - about whatever issue - and the public seem quite happy to be asking the questions. I guess people really do like to be consulted about things.

Anyway, National Conversation events aside, I've been looking at several Scottish Government documents as well. They are (in pdf format):

• Choosing Scotland's Future
• Fiscal Autonomy in Scotland
• An Oil Fund for Scotland
• Europe and Foreign Affairs

Obviously each of the documents provides the Scottish Government's position on their preferred constitutional option - independence - but they also discuss other options, such as enhanced devolution, fiscal autonomy and minor tweaking to the current arrangements.

Whether independence is your own preference or not, I'd suggest the documents are well worth a read, if only, in the case of some, as opposition research. I have to say, I'm not totally sold on some of the stuff myself, but one question I have been considering with regards the Oil Fund paper is that if so much can be made out of such a relatively small investment, why hasn't the UK Government set up such a fund? I reckon - assuming the working is all correct of course - that this is a cracking idea, particularly in light of the current economic position we find ourselves in.

Anyway, have a read - and let the Scottish Government know what you think. For their consultation is one which is keen to hear all views - whatever people think. Not like some we could mention...

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...