 |
| Just a passing place… |
As a member of the YES Movement, I obviously wanted Scottish independence, for reasons of social justice, a fairer and more equal society, and to have full control of our economy so we could grow Scotland in the directions we choose. The majority preferred NO and I respect that, but the aspirations behind my own position haven't changed.
The promise of new powers, more powers, for Scotland, in my view, meshed with the broader preferences of Scotland as a whole. Devo Max was seen as the most popular choice prior to the setting out of the referendum and its questions; I see it having as broad an appeal now.
Some politicians have recently suggested Devo Max shouldn't be on the table for discussion. I disagree. The tenor of Gordon Brown's intervention in the final days was exactly that more powers would approach full home rule or federalism. I believe that is what most Scots believed it meant, particularly those inclined to NO and it's what an overwhelming majority now want, spanning YES and NO. Anything short of it will be taken as a promise broken.
The prevailing energy now in Scottish politics is one of powerful popular engagement, an energy which strongly supports a move away from politics as usual. To demonstrate that, a Scottish settlement must achieve greater levels of transparency and popular participation. The Smith Commission, in my view, must address the breadth of new powers, at the same time, building openness and a participatory framework in which these powers will reside.
Having nailed my colours, as it were, let me say what I demand in the settlement, prefacing it with my own, home-rule biased, view as a UK citizen. The principles of the kind of society I want to live in rest on social justice as stated above. That applies to the Union as much as to Scotland. Independence seemed to be a proper model to begin to achieve it. As we now are, I expect the more powers settlement to embrace a goal of assisting this aim, in Scotland within its jurisdiction and in the constituent parts of the UK, as a model or example. I don't expect it to draw us further into the social divisiveness currently evident in the status quo.
Where tax revenues are shared and distributed to Westminster, any redistributive mechanisms (like the Barnett formula) should be clearly set out, shared in the public domains and constructed on a basis of clarity and fairness. All variations in the process should be a consultative exercise involving both Scotland and Westminster. The UK Treasury alone should not be the sole arbiter as it is currently with Barnett.
Pensions should also be devolved fully, so Scotland can develop a pension strategy to suit its needs or to protect, enhance and develop its provision. Broadcasting should also be devolved so Scotland can use it's population share of revenues, including the licence fee should that be retained in Scotland, to fund broadcasting. Whether a spend for public service broadcasting is best served by funding a Scottish BBC service or funding a state broadcaster on a different model should be a decision for Scots and Scotland.
Welfare, since we have a very different view of its function, must be fully devolved. I think the view in Scotland appreciates better the need to support our vulnerable and sees the potential for motivation within welfare if structured differently. This view, I believe, resonates across a wider spectrum of political opinion than elsewhere. We should have the power here to guide its evolution.
On other currently reserved powers, I appreciate the need to harmonise more closely on issues of collective interest. I would prefer to be rid of Trident but in the present arrangement see little hope of that in the short term. Immigration might be as vexed a question; foreign affairs, too, although it's very clear the appetite in Scotland for participation in foreign military campaigns is far less and has a completely different ring to it.
Any settlement, however, must embrace participation and representation: participation that reaches to the grass roots and gives people, sovereign in Scotland, a voice; representation that gives our elected representatives a place wherever powers reserved to Westminster are managed and policy discussed.
Specifically, I expect the settlement to offer direct representation in national and international forums up to now attended by Westminster representatives chosen without consideration of the UK's intra-national or regional composition. For example, I'd expect a Scottish share of EU representation (as I would for voices from Northern Ireland, Wales and such English Regions as require it). I'd expect representation in the governance of the Bank of England in the same way. Since we all own it, a proper, proportionate and representative spread of participation is long overdue.
To construct anything less than this would produce a Scottish settlement which gives with one hand only to take back with another. This would be unworkable as well as deceitful. The solution and the arrangements it springs from have to respect, not the margin of majority in the Referendum, nor the considerable numbers who separately voted so decisively for both NO and YES, but for the 3.6 million or so who became engaged and cast their votes. Westminster must recognise the democratic change wrought in Scotland is more than a brief experiment. It is the possibility of new and empowered democracy. As such it should be encouraged and nurtured.
Yours Sincerely
Pensions should also be devolved fully, so Scotland can develop a pension strategy to suit its needs or to protect, enhance and develop its provision. Broadcasting should also be devolved so Scotland can use it's population share of revenues, including the licence fee should that be retained in Scotland, to fund broadcasting. Whether a spend for public service broadcasting is best served by funding a Scottish BBC service or funding a state broadcaster on a different model should be a decision for Scots and Scotland.
Welfare, since we have a very different view of its function, must be fully devolved. I think the view in Scotland appreciates better the need to support our vulnerable and sees the potential for motivation within welfare if structured differently. This view, I believe, resonates across a wider spectrum of political opinion than elsewhere. We should have the power here to guide its evolution.
On other currently reserved powers, I appreciate the need to harmonise more closely on issues of collective interest. I would prefer to be rid of Trident but in the present arrangement see little hope of that in the short term. Immigration might be as vexed a question; foreign affairs, too, although it's very clear the appetite in Scotland for participation in foreign military campaigns is far less and has a completely different ring to it.
Any settlement, however, must embrace participation and representation: participation that reaches to the grass roots and gives people, sovereign in Scotland, a voice; representation that gives our elected representatives a place wherever powers reserved to Westminster are managed and policy discussed.
Specifically, I expect the settlement to offer direct representation in national and international forums up to now attended by Westminster representatives chosen without consideration of the UK's intra-national or regional composition. For example, I'd expect a Scottish share of EU representation (as I would for voices from Northern Ireland, Wales and such English Regions as require it). I'd expect representation in the governance of the Bank of England in the same way. Since we all own it, a proper, proportionate and representative spread of participation is long overdue.
To construct anything less than this would produce a Scottish settlement which gives with one hand only to take back with another. This would be unworkable as well as deceitful. The solution and the arrangements it springs from have to respect, not the margin of majority in the Referendum, nor the considerable numbers who separately voted so decisively for both NO and YES, but for the 3.6 million or so who became engaged and cast their votes. Westminster must recognise the democratic change wrought in Scotland is more than a brief experiment. It is the possibility of new and empowered democracy. As such it should be encouraged and nurtured.
Yours Sincerely
Edwin
It's not an exhaustive propostion but a plain shopping list isn't being asked for. There are bound to more points and topics. Behind the list and the important matters of full tax powers and autonomy' there is a central question: HOW. Smith and the commission must reflect the democratic potential of Scotland's level of political engagement and embrace a different kind of politics. After all if Clegg and the Lib Dems can come out ginning for the Tories, claiming to be the party of a different kind of politics, surely they will ensure this dimension is part of the new power settlement. Still, they kept that low key while actually shoulder to shoulder with Tory and Labour for, what, three years.
We'll see. In the meantime we should all contribute our views and visions. Make it an outpouring.
Email the Commission at haveyoursay@smith-commission.scot.
No comments:
Post a Comment