Commission to review devolution

Reluctant Hero · Commission to review devolution

A commission proposed by Wendy Alexander is to be set up to review devlolution. Although I would like to see independence, I think Patrick Harvie's suggestion of a wide ranging referndum is possibly the most sensible option.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7129899.stm

Aventinian

Sounds like fun. Are the SNP going to not involve themselves in it then?

Maol.Chaluim

The National Conversation doesn't focus exclusively on independence, but also "other constitutional possibilities". The Unionist parties don't want anything to do with it because it dares to contemplate the dreaded "I" word. In order to try to derail it, they set up their own forum, which refuses to entertain the possibility of an independent Scotland.

Who's being devisive now?

George

Aventinian

Basically yeah, as far as they're concerned independence is not on the cards. There's not a lot to discuss there.

I don't see how that's remotely divisive.

As I've said before, the "national conversation" mentioned nothing about the possibility of recentralising some powers upwards, which I believe is a debate worth having.

Aventinian

George

Rinty

This was just mischief making from Alexander and her tory buddies. The SNP Govt's version included pages of stuff on the options of strengthening devolution.

This was framed to exclude the SNP, and Wendy's pathetic wee smirk at the end of the debate is nothing more than kidding herself on.

The taxpayer now has to fund this when the elected government have already kicked off the same consultation process.

What the opposition parties have done though is change the face of Scottish politics to one more akin to Basque or Catalonian politics.

We now have a significant number of voters and elected representatives who support Independence and the opposition comes from a desire for further powers and fiscal autnomy for Scotland. In effect it ends unionism and leaves Scotland as a country united in its desire for separation, only debating the level of separation. The Libs, Labour and tories have admitted that this is an ongoing evolution. By saying this they acknowledge that even the extra powers they will support will only be short term and inevitably further autonomy will come.

The two debates cannot be separated as they overlap and especially when talking about our relationships with EU, NATO etc.

Dave Coull

Reluctant Hero wrote "I think Patrick Harvie's suggestion of a wide ranging referndum is possibly the most sensible option".

Some years ago, in our household, folk were indulging in that traditional family Christmas pastime, studying the TV guides and arguing about which programmes to watch over the Christmas period. My oldest son, a brilliant mathematician, devised a complicated alternative vote system whereby each member of the family had to grade alternative possibilities by 1,2,3,4, according to preferences, and if their first choice was defeated then their vote went to their second choice, and so on.

The result of Sam's brilliant system was that nobody, not one member of the family, actually got to watch a single programme that was their first choice. Okay, so the TV stayed off more. And at Christmas time the following year, we dispensed with the multi-option vote, and just held negotiations.

I am very suspicious that Patrick Harvie's "wide ranging referendum" might turn out a bit like Sam's brilliant plan for family viewing, it might settle nothing and satisfy nobody.

In my view, it remains the case that the best form of referendum would be on a simple, straightforward, "independence - yes or no?" question.

There is no reason why such a referendum should not go ahead, and as quickly as possible. The Liberal Democrats, the Tories, and the Labour Party, are now all in favour of some form of "greater powers" for the Scottish Parliament. They are also, now, all formally committed to seeking agreement with each other on exactly what forms these "greater powers" will take. A "no" vote in an independence referendum could, therefore, be taken as a "yes" for the only other alternative on offer, the "greater powers" which will be agreed between these parties.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

Holebender

I am disgusted that these unionist twats have voted themselves a talking shop at taxpayers' expense which has been rigged from the start to ignore the option favoured by a substantial number of the population. I am going to be writing to my (unionist) MSP about this misappropriation of funds.

And, Aventinian, I don't think the idea of reducing the powers of the Parliament will be on the agenda either, so what are you doing supporting it?

frank rizzo

Quite simply this is the unionists trying to undermine a popular SNP Government. They know that if the SNP keep up their good early start (while Liebour keep making an arse of themselves) more and more people will come round to the idea that independence will be the best option for Scotland.

This more that anything else shows that it's the SNP that are setting the political agenda in Scotland.

The last thing 'Scottish' Liebour would have been considering 12 months ago would be more powers for Holyrood.

Even more hilarious is the fact that the Tories are now in on it with them. The very party that didnt even want the thing in the first place!

Keep up the good work unionists!

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "the 'national conversation' mentioned nothing about the possibility of recentralising some powers upwards".

In fairness to the "National Conversation", I should point out that, amongst the thousands of comments posted by members of the public on Alex Salmond's Blog on the Scottish Government's website, are some advocating the "re-centralising of some powers upwards". Supporters of "re-centralising" are freely able to express their views through the National Conversation. Now, of course there is no possibility of "re-centralising" being in the conclusion of the National Conversation, for the very simple reason that it is so obvious "re-centralisation" is very much the view of a small minority. For exactly the same reason, there will be no mention of "re-centralising" in the conclusion of the Labour/Liberal Democrat/Tory "commission" either. Re-centralising some powers upwards is not on their/the commission's agenda. All three of the parties taking part state that they are in favour of "greater powers" for the Scottish Parliament. They have reached agreement on this in principle, and all that this "commission" will be, in practice, is just a stalling device, while they negotiate with each other about the details of exactly how much "greater powers" the Scottish Parliament is going to have. Even if some Labour and Tory unionists wanted to re-centralise some powers "upwards", to maintain any credibility the conclusion of the commission is going to have to retain the support of all three of these parties, and the Liberal Democrats won't have re-centralisation. The Lib Dems know that unless they strongly pursue DEcentralisation, they are liable to lose votes, and even party members, to the Green Party. They also know that any re-centralising moves would further strengthen the SNP.

So far as the folk actually controlling the Labour, LibDem, and Tory parties are concerned, "re-centralising" is not on the agenda. So, what is going to happen, in practice, is that a considerable amount of public money is going to be spent on this totally meaningless public distraction while the three parties continue with their negotiations in private. When their negotiations with each other are concluded, the "commission" will report that what is needed is.........whatever these three parties have agreed through their negotiations with each other.

What YOU want, Aventinian, will not even be considered by their "Commission". The conclusions of the Commission will be whatever the Labour Party has managed to get the Liberal Democrats to agree to. A lot of taxpayers' money will be spent on a meaningless public charade while negotiations are conducted in private. So how come you are supporting such a waste of public money on a charade which won't even consider your preferred option?

Economist

It's interesting, all of this I think. To paraphrase Wendy Alexander that "the time is now right to discuss these issues" (yeah right, if there hadn't been an SNP victory in May we wouldn't be discussing the issue) These proposals, which I've read make the proposals of our pro-federalists [sic] look coherent, well thought out, structured and reasonable.

I'm not sure on the legality of this all, but to appropriate government funds for this, I'm pretty sure an Act would have to be passed - the Scottish Government are bound by acts of the Scottish Parliament, not by motions and debates, which could be strangled at birth, by the minority government if they so wished. And it would be difficult to legislate for this issue. It could be done from the Westminster side, but the Scottish public are becoming increasingly unhappy about Westminster interference in our governance.

However if this does come to pass - and I'm sceptical that it will - it only moves as further down the road and faster - which is why little of this, I suspect will ever come to fruition. Which is sad, because it would be much fun to watch.

Aventinian

sgmillerton

i have to say i'm all in support of ms. alexanders proposition (how is she still i a job by the way) extend the powers of devolutuion and to hell with independence.

RadgeJougal

frank rizzo

sgmillerton

Holebender

That's alright sg; I think you have the "silly and petty" market all sewn up.

sgmillerton

i do enjoy silly an awful lot, i take myself less than seriously which is crucial to happy living. petty, unlikely, due to my prefernce to nonsense though i'm well capable of it, are'nt we all when we think something is right? i just happen to agree with ms. alexanders view.

Maol.Chaluim

Rinty

"i just happen to agree with ms. alexanders view."

Alexander has only launched the debate on it, what is her view? I didnt know that the commission had reached a conclusion already?

sgmillerton

stop being petty, what she was suggesting seemes like a good idea to me.

Rinty

which is? what was she suggesting?

She, so far, is suggesting talking about devolution. The SNP govt had already announced a national conversation that included that subject but that was also wider ranging.

Alexander has suggested that we do this twice, once inlcuding devolution and independence and once without independence. She should have told her party to play a full part in the talks that were aleady going on.

Alexander succeeded in petty point scoring and wasting tax payers time and money.

And this is the woman who told us in May that endless talk about the constitution would destabilise our economy!

sgmillerton

for the 3rd time, i like what she is suggesting in terms of extending the powers of devolution and incase you missed it, i like what she is suggesting in terms of extending the poweres of devolution. i'll say it again if i have too, which i suspect i will as you appear not to reading this very well.

Rinty

"i like what she is suggesting in terms of extending the powers of devolution and incase you missed it, i like what she is suggesting in terms of extending the poweres of devolution."

And again, I wasnt aware that she had specific suggestions re extending devolution. It would be easier if just said which suggestions she has put forward that you like.

Holebender

I have sent the following e-mail to my constituency MSP, with appropriately edited copies to each of my Unionist regional MSPs. I await their responses.

Maol.Chaluim

Does anyone know if the Greens voted for this as well?

Holebender

I don't know the breakdown, but there were 76 votes for, 46 against, and 3 abstentions.

There are 47 SNP MSPs, 2 Greens, and a pro-independence Independent.

My guess is the Greens and Margo McDonald abstained, and there were 3 MSPs missing from the chamber. The Presiding Officer wouldn't have voted.

George

The Unionist fanatic calling himself AM2 appeared on a Sunday Herald thread yesterday pontificating about this commission and how the National Conversation did not invite posts on certain subjects.

Leaving aside this arguable assertion I noticed an answer AM2 gave in response to accusations that independence is being ignored by the Unionist Commission and that independence supporters had no mechanism for having their opinions considered.

AM2 wrote:

SLG

I think what AM2 is trying to say is that the Unionists are not going to back a referendum on independence. If the SNP want that, they will have to get a majority in Parliament for themselves (and any other pro-indy party).

They will come in for serious problems if they try and hold a referendum on more powers without an independence question. I'm not sure how they'll deal with that situation.

Dave Coull

SLG wrote "the Unionists are not going to back a referendum on independence"

Oh, there is no need for them to "back" a referendum on independence. Tony Blair didn't really "back" setting up a Scottish Parliament. Maggie Thatcher didn't really "back" scrapping the poll tax. It will be quite sufficient if, like Tony and Maggie, they find themselves in a position where they conclude, very reluctantly, that, however unpalatable they find the idea, they are just going to have to go along with it.

"They will come in for serious problems if they try and hold a referendum on more powers without an independence question".

A very British understatement. If parliamentary representatives were seen to be sponsoring a blatantly rigged referendum, then that blatantly rigged referendum would be condemned internationally, and would provide both justification and opportunities for those tempted toward extra-parliamentary action. It might even turn out that in some ballot boxes some had voted phos. For us.

garye

SLG

SLG

Maol.Chaluim

I would be very surprised indeed if Westminster agreed to the recommendations of the Steel Commission. Then again, if it means postponing independence for a few years, then maybe they will.

SLG

Well that's surely the real motivation behind the Tory and Labour moves here. They want to delay things as much as possible and they want to dilute the final recommendations as much as possible. The Lib Dems are helping them in this.

I think it is significant that even even doing all they can, things are still moving away from them - and away from the Union. It's all about the pace of change.