Scottish Labour Going Down?

I have not posted here for some time as I took a little breather over the summer.  However Johann Lamont’s recent speech in Edinburgh has prompted me to put pen to paper again as it were.  I have read and reread her speech and still find it very hard to understand what she is trying to say and more importantly perhaps, why she went to all this bother  Her speech seems to be a very clear attack on the principle of universal benefits, despite some feeble attempts by her supporters to deny this.  Most commentators have concentrated on this part of her speech.

  

In this post I want however to highlight what was missing in her speech and to argue that this makes her both dishonest and defeatist.  To give her some credit she does make some very pertinent observations.  For example when she states: “This is the stark choice that Scotland has to face up to: if we wish to continue some policies as they are then they come with a cost which has to be paid for either through increased taxation, direct charges or cuts elsewhere.”  She then goes on to correctly, in my view, state that: “Once we have decided as a country what kind of public services we aspire to, then we must have an honest debate about affordability.”

Unfortunately the rest of her speech was to ignore completely the issue of affordability.  For this reason I feel she is being dishonest.  She repeatedly insists that there will be less money around.  While this is true for the immediate future, it is not the result of some immutable law of nature.  It is the wholly political and ideological choice of our current nasty government in Westminster.  Yet at no stage in her speech does Ms Lamont challenge this situation.  Her whole premise is based on accepting whatever Westminster decides to allocate to Scotland.  We can argue and debate about who gets what, but we must never challenge the amount we get.  This it seems to me is a most defeatist approach.  So in essence I accuse Johann Lamont of being both dishonest and defeatist.

In her speech Ms Lamont was quite happy to highlight some of the gross inequalities that demean Scotland.  For example she asks: “What is progressive about a chief executive on more than 100,000 a year not paying for his prescriptions, while a pensioner needing care has their care help cut?”  In parliament she continued with this line by exposing how much Nicola Sturgeon and her husband earn.  Now, I agree with Johann Lamont on this.  It is wrong and in my view indefensible that we have people earning £100, 000 and more a year while pensioners need care.  But where I fundamentally disagree is that this iniquity can be solved by means testing or restricting universal benefits.  The answer it seems to me is to increase taxes on high earners like Nicola Sturgeon.  But of course Johann Lamont cannot do that because the Scottish Parliament has no real powers over fiscal matters.  And it is her refusal to contemplate any serious debate about this issue that confirms to me that she is dishonest when it comes to talking about affordability.  She is right that we cannot have a mature debate about what kind of public services we aspire to for our country without including affordability.  But equally we cannot have a mature debate about affordability if we do not have the powers over taxation and the economy in general.  

This does not necessarily mean independence, though of course that is one option, and the one I personally favour.  However there is a range of options within the UK for Scotland to be given control over significant areas of taxation to full fiscal autonomy.  But on this Johann Lamont has nary a word to say.  The only tax she mentioned was the Council tax.  Which she apparently wants to increase.  Probably the most regressive and hated tax of all.

Ms Lamont concludes her speech with bit of a rallying call when she claims: “But we can change Scotland now. We have the powers in the Scottish Parliament now, to change radically education, health, public services. What we lack is the will.”  This again is to my mind another example of the basic dishonesty in her whole approach.  Firstly a minor point, there are some radical changes going on in Scotland.  I will mention only one - the Curriculum for Excellence.  Whatever one thinks of this, it is certainly an attempt at radical change.  And one that was initiated under a previous Labour government at Holyrood.  So I find her belittling of what has changed and is changing in Scotland both insulting and surprising.

The more fundamental point of course is that it is manifestly not just the will which is lacking in Scotland.  It is the money.  As she herself admits, there will be less money around.  Yet she makes no suggestion whatsoever as to how we might increase the money available for public services.  Whether it is the UK or Scotland we are talking about very wealthy countries.  To claim that we must content ourselves with whatever Westminster condescends to give us is to my mind both dishonest and defeatist.

And the Winner is - SNP

The recent local elections in Scotland produced one clear winner - the SNP and one clear runner-up - Labour.  Below is the final tally (with 3 councillors from Dunoon still to be elected) of councillors won by each party, with changes from 2007 in brackets.

SNP 424 (+61)

Labour 394 (+46)

Conservatives 115 (-28)

Liberal Democrats 71 (-95)

Greens 14 (+6)

SSP 1 (-)

Others 201 (+8)

So not only did the SNP secure the most seats, they also enjoyed the biggest gains.  These figures come from the Scot Goes Pop blog and the full article can be read here.  This is by any standards quite a remarkable achievement.  To get an indication of just how good this performance is by the SNP, we need look no further than the Tory party.  In the local elections in England and Wales the Tories did very, very badly losing over 400 councillors.  Many Tories have tried to excuse this poor showing by pointing out that the Tories have been in government in Westminster for two years and that this is just a mid-term blip.  Yet the SNP has been in government in Scotland for five years and is still making gains!

If you relied on the mainstream media, including alas the BBC, for your information you could be forgiven for failing to spot this great SNP victory.  For all the press and the BBC have gone out of their way to portray the results as a victory for Labour and a shattering setback for the SNP.  For details of the misleading, if not outright lying by the media see this post from Wings Over Scotland.  

Not only have the media tried to present the outcome as a setback for the SNP, they have ferociously tried to somehow turn these local elections into a dress rehearsal for the referendum on Independence.  The Daily Mail for example had that well known ultra Unionist, Gerald Warner screaming:  “If they can’t take Glasgow, how can the Nationalists hope to rip Scotland out of the Union?”   Quite why Glasgow should be singled out as opposed to the overall results in Scotland as a whole is never quite explained.  Even in Glasgow, which Labour did retain, the SNP still managed to improve their position on the council.  If this is the best the Unionists can come up with then they are in serious trouble.  For this is the none too subtle subtext to all the media reporting.  Talk up the Unionist vote, even at the expense of the truth.  We have reached the sorry state that arch right wing Tories are now cheering Labour victories.  Anything to preserve the Union.  Whether lying and scaremongering is the best way to save the Union is debatable, but that they have to resort to it does show how desperate the Unionists are.

The Positive Case for the Union - Is there One?

Yesterday the Scottish government published its consultation proposals on the referendum on Independence for Scotland.  Cue for lots of media coverage both here in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.  What I find most fascinating about the responses from the Unionists is that they invariably fall back on the claim that independence would be damaging to Scotland and to Scots.  At the same time they are desperate to make a positive case for the Union.


Is it in fact possible to make a positive case for Scotland to remain in the UK?  Looking over some of the recent comments by Unionists, their case rests on three fundamentals:  the economy, defence and British nationalism. Given that with devolution, the Scottish Parliament is now responsible for just about all domestic matters - education, health, policing, housing, justice, transport etc - this focus on the economy and defence makes sense from a Unionist perspective.


However, despite claims to the contrary, their pitch is relentlessly negative.  Their key message is that Scotland is too small, too poor, too weak and goodness knows what else, to survive as an independent country.  Without England we poor Scots would be alone and defenceless in the world and even poorer.  The Scottish Daily Mail, one of the bastions of the Union, provided a nice illustration of this in their edition from 25th January.  Entitled 1,000 days to save the Union, this front page editorial was full of dire claims of how disastrous independence would be for Scotland.  According to this bulwark of the Union an independent Scotland would "confront a deficit of at least £9billion, enforced membership of the euro and a potentially unlimited liability in the ownership of toxic banks."


Now of course, as par for this kind of diatribe, no evidence was provided to support these claims.  However what was  really fascinating about this editorial was that despite the paper's clear view that Scotland is a basket case, which could not survive without English largesse, despite all this, the Daily Mail believes that Scottish Independence "will ultimately be a disaster for the whole of the UK."  Pretty hard to square that circle I would have thought.  Not that they even begin to try.  If Scotland is so poor why on earth is the Daily Mail and other Unionists so keen to prevent our independence.  So keen to keep Scotland in the UK that they are prepared to lie and spout out unsupported propaganda.


I suspect that part of the reason for the focus on negativity is that at bottom all Unionists are British nationalists.  They are too emotionally tied to Britain and in particular notions of Great Britain that they cannot conceive of Britain without Scotland.  At heart they know that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, which is why, like the Daily Mail, they are aware that Scottish Independence could prove a disaster for the rest of the UK.  Or more precisely the London dominated elites that currently rule the UK.  But they cannot make too much of the UK's need for Scotland, for that would confirm that Scotland could not simply survive as an independent country, but would in fact be a very rich and successful independent country.  Far easier to pretend that Scotland is a poor wee country and to fall back on the so-called glories of the past.


For a more detailed,  yet light-hearted look at the failed attempts by Unionists to specify just what benefits Scotland gets from the Union, have a look here.

The UK needs Scotland - but Scotland doesn't need the UK

As the debate about independence for Scotland heats up a bit, I am amazed at just how insistent our London based leaders are in keeping Scotland in the Union.  Such unanimity is very rare in politics.  Just think of the EU and the range of views among our political, business and media elites over what relationship the UK should have with the EU.  But when it come to Scotland, everyone in positions of power in London all share exactly the same view - Scotland must remain within the UK.

One reason given for this is that without the largesse that comes from London , we Scots would be quickly reduced to penury.  This view, while quite pervasive is of course nonsense.  I am not even sure that its proponents believe it.  But they have to say something and beyond vague generalities about being stronger together and sharing the same values and other platitudes, they fail to make any positive case for the Union.  This I think is both deliberate and revealing.  For it is my firm conviction that the UK in its current form, needs Scotland far more than Scotland needs the UK.  In particular the position and world view of our London based elites would change dramatically and for the worse (from their point of view) if the UK were to be reduced to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  I can think of at least five reasons which explain why our elites badly need Scotland to stay in the Union.

Economic - This may come as a bit of a surprise, but despite the Unionist claims to the contrary, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy in more years than not.  Scotland has many successful industries, for example tourism and agricultural products.  One of which, whisky is an iconic brand throughout the world.  And of course there is North Sea Oil.  While it may have passed its peak in terms of production, there is still barrels of oil out there to be recovered and discovered.  The UK continues to depend on the taxes from North Sea oil and gas to balance its books.  Without these revenues the UK government would be in an even bigger mess than it currently is.  The revenues from Scotland’s share of these reserves are just too important for our London based elite to give up without a struggle.

Military - This was the reason the UK came into being in the first place.  England needed to secure its northern border.  While this is no longer a factor - no-one really thinks that Russia or another continental power is going to try and invade the UK.  However Scotland is still vital for the UK and its military ambitions.  It is a useful place for airbases, but most of all, it is the home for the UK’s nuclear submarines.  Where else in England , Wales or Northern Ireland could they be based?  Not a choice the military brass and politicians would want to make.

Size - Despite what many people say, size does matter.  Especially for countries that want to be seen as great powers.  Now the current UK is not that large a landmass as major countries go.  The UK is slightly larger than Romania and a bit smaller than Italy.  But without Scotland it becomes much smaller.  A UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be smaller than Uruguay and just slightly larger than Tunisia.  If it was just England on its own, well it would be very slightly smaller than Greece and very slightly larger than Nicaragua.  Quite a downgrade in size for a great power.  (Not to be contemplated.)

Self-Image - This is clearly related to the above in that for most of our elite and for many English people in general, Great Britain and England are pretty much the same thing.  I image that most English people would find it incredibly difficult to draw a map of the UK without Scotland.  Probably even more difficult for them to draw a map of England alone.  It is, I suspect, way beyond their ken to conceive of the UK without Scotland’s land mass to the north.   It is even worse for our London based elite, whose image of themselves is very much related to the notion of Great Britain and all that goes or rather, went with that name.  The largest Empire in the world, once upon a time.  Yet without Scotland there is no Great Britain, or rather, it reverts to a mere geographical term, without any political substance.  There would also be the loss of the Union flag.  Union Jack no more.  Whatever remains of the UK would need to devise a new flag.  And what would this new country be called?  To be Prime Minister of the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not have anything like the same ring to it as Prime Minister of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  (We do not like this at all.)

Status and Standing in the World - Here we come to the crux of the matter.  While the economic and military aspects of Scottish independence can be negotiated and dealt with, however reluctantly, the other consequences for the rest of the UK are enormous.  Or at least for their London based elites.  Just what standing in the wider world would or could this truncated UK command.  For how much longer could this truncated and much diminished UK retain its permanent seat in the Security Council of the UN?  Many in the UK are proud to talk of the UK “punching above its weight” in international affairs.  But much of this is a residual of our Imperial past, when GB did rule the waves.  I suspect that the loss of Scotland would be seen by our London based elites and by the rest of the world as a massive blow to their power and influence.

So the next time some Unionist politician or cheerleader waxes lyrical about the UK and how much Scotland would lose from leaving, just ask yourself - how much more would the UK lose from an independent Scotland?

Scottish Independence - Start Negotiating Now!

The initial skirmishes in the campaign for Independence for Scotland gives us an inkling of what is in store for us over the next 1000 days.  And it is not a pretty or edifying prospect.  Claims and counter claims will be made with great solemnity.  However without the time and resources to do a bit of research it will be very difficult for most voters to make much sense of the various claims.  We have already had a flavour of the more outrageous and unfounded assertions that the Unionist side will make.  For example George Osborne lets it be known that he, as UK Chancellor may not allow an independent Scotland to continue to use sterling as its currency.  An assertion that even Treasury spokespersons had to admit was nonsense.  However most newspaper had by then carried Osborne’s lie as a headline.  The subsequent denials were given little or not prominence.

This alas will be the norm.  Already we have had politicians and commentators wading in with dire predictions of how much of the UK national debt an independent Scotland will have to take - usually some astronomical figure.  Others claim that Scotland will have to shoulder all the costs of the bailouts of RBS and HBOS, despite the fact that both are clearly UK banks.  Then we have others claiming that an independent Scotland will be forced to join the Euro.  Which sits at odds with the claim by others that an independent Scotland will not actually be in the EU and will have to apply for membership.  Which of course might be denied - allegedly.  And of course there will be constant claim and counter claim about North Sea oil reserves.  Just how much oil is still there to be recovered.  How much it will be worth and finally, just where will the marine boundary between Scotland and England go.

All these and others are important questions and deserve serious and researched answers.  They are not of course questions that are unique to Scottish independence.  All countries which have become independent have had to find answers to these questions.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union there have been numerous countries in Europe that have become newly independent.  Most have done so without bloodshed.  Perhaps the most relevant for Scotland is the process whereby Czechoslovakia become the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both now full members of the EU.  The Czechs and Slovaks had to work out just who would get what out of the liabilities and assets of the Czechoslovak state.  Exactly the same kind of questions which are being raised in relation to an independent Scotland.  This was done through extensive negotiations.  Which is what should happen here.

Now normally negotiations would begin once both parties had agreed to independence.  But there is no reason why the negotiations cannot begin now.  The UK and Scottish governments could set up joint committees to work out the options and details of what independence would mean.  These committees would consist of UK and Scottish civil servants with the addition of outside experts nominated by both governments.  One such committee would look into the details of the economic and financial aspects of independence.  So instead of endless claims and counter claims about how much of the UK debt an independent Scotland would have to assume, this particular economic committee would present to the public the specifics of how the UK debt would be divvied up.  Now of course, it is perfectly possible that agreement may prove very difficult.  But at the very least we will know what is the basis of any disagreement and both governments will be able to publish their version.  Even in the case of some disagreement on the final outcome, it is likely that there will a great deal of agreement on many of the figures and we, the public will be much better informed.   

This would be the key purpose of starting negotiations now.  To inform, us the electorate, of precisely what Scottish independence would involve.  Of course the UK government is unlikely to agree to such a proposal.  They would see it as akin to conceding independence in advance.  However, if the Unionists are so convinced that the UK positively benefits Scotland and that independence would be harmful to Scotland, then such negotiations would only provide irrefutable proof of their case.  Perhaps they realize that their case is not so irrefutable as they would like to think.

A Referendum is Coming

So after lots of huffing and puffing a bit of clarity about the proposed referendum on independence for Scotland.  The UK government's offer to amend the current Scotland Act to give the Scottish Parliament the legal right to hold such a referendum is to be welcomed.  Despite lots of claims from the SNP to the contrary there was always the likelihood, if not certainty, that any go it alone referendum would be challenged in the courts, with all that could mean in terms of delay.  M'Learned friend, Lallands Peat Worrier has a very good and readable account of the potential legal difficulties here. 


However the UK government has done itself no favours with its blatant attempt to attach strings to this offer.  They just never seem to learn that the more they try to shackle Scots, the more Scots are likely to vote for independence.  In any case Salmond has pretty much resolved the key issue by announcing that the referendum will take place in autumn 2014.  A St Andrew's Day referendum anyone?  It is hard to see the UK government going to the wall to try and force an earlier referendum.  So it looks like Salmond and the SNP have got what they wanted.  A legally binding and thus challenge proof referendum on more or less the date they wanted.


There will no doubt be a few more public wrangles about the fine details of the referendum - who will supervise the campaign and the count etc, but with a bit of luck we can all get down to debating the merits of the case for independence.  Here I think the Unionists will find things rather more difficult than they expect.  Already we have countless references to making the positive case for the UK, but, on examination there is never anything of substance.  The most Unionists can come up with it seems is to hark back to the past and go on about how wonderful things were long ago.  When it comes to the present or the future they have little of real substance to say.  More on this in later posts.


One telling example of how rattled and worried the Unionists are is the suggestion that Scots living in the rest of the UK should be allowed to vote in the referendum.  This raises all kinds of questions, for example why just Scots living in the UK?  Why not Scots no matter where they live?  This of course then raises the problematic of who can count as a Scot?  The proponents of this idea can only justify this proposal on the basis of ethnicity or some kind of racial or national purity.  Exactly the opposite of the kind of Scotland that those of us in favour of independence propose.  Scotland is for those who live here and for those who in the future choose to live here.  And the referendum will be decided by the people who are living in Scotland and registered to vote at the time of the referendum.  Wherever they come from or whatever nationality they hold.

Can Johann Lamont save Labour?

2011 has been a remarkable year in Scottish politics, with change the order of the day.  Only the SNP of the major parties still has the same leader.  And Alex Salmond has of course completely changed the game as regards the Scottish Parliament.  In May the SNP won an outright majority of MSPs.  Something that was not supposed to be possible with the Parliament’s partly PR voting system.  Yet the SNP did just that and the other parties have been in disarray ever since.  The LibDems and the Tories already have new leaders in Scotland.  Though as yet neither Willie Rennie nor Ruth Davidson has shown any signs that they can offer any kind of sustained challenge to the SNP.

The latest party to elect a new leader in Scotland was the Labour Party.  This time their new leader is not just the leader of the Parliamentary group in Holyrood, but is the leader of the whole party in Scotland, MPs included.  At least that’s the claim.  The new leader is Johann Lamont and as she was only elected last Saturday, there is no way of knowing just how she will perform as leader.  However the challenges facing her and her party are enormous.

Independence - it’s all about Independence

Now that the SNP has an overall majority in the Parliament, they will be able to hold their promised referendum on Independence.This is due to be held sometime in the latter half of the parliamentary term, ie sometime in 2014.  However the Unionist parties seem to have nothing else to talk about just now.  They go endlessly on about why not hold the referendum now or why not get the UK government to hold one instead.  All the Unionists seem to be running scared and have not as yet figured out how to challenge the SNP government.  The more they talk about independence and the referendum the more they help the SNP.  The real Independence campaign will probably not start in earnest until mid 2013 at the earliest.  

Yet this will be the key, defining moment for Scotland for a generation.  So the Unionists will need to get their act together if they are to save the Union.  However things are not looking good.  The Tories and the LibDems can be pretty much discounted as positive partners in any pro Union campaign.  The Tories have never recovered from the Thatcher years and the LibDems are paying the price of sustaining the Tories at Westminster.  Not to mention the rather important fact that these two parties are responsible for the largest and longest sustained attack on the living standards of ordinary folk.  You wouldn’t really want any of that lot on your side.  With friends like them, who needs enemies!

This leaves Labour as the only party that could mount a credible sustained campaign to keep Scotland in the UK.  However even Labour has  at least three major handicaps to overcome if it is to run a successful campaign.  The first is the lack of talent on offer at the top of Scottish Labour.  The few remaining well-known big hitters in the party are all at Westminster and none of them even considered standing for election.  As the new leader is not just the leader in Holyrood but the overall leader of the party in Scotland, why did the likes of Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy or Alastair Darling not even bother to stand?  I suspect that the main reason is that they recognize that the Scottish leader has to be at Holyrood.  This is where Scottish politicians have most visibility.  Not only that but most Scots like their own parliament in Edinburgh and indeed, by all accounts would like it to have more powers.  It would simply send the wrong message if Labour was to elect a Westminster MP as its leader in Scotland.  This however does nothing to hide the lack of talent among Labour’s MSPs.  The party has just suffered its worst ever defeat in Scotland and yet the new leadership comes from the very MSPs who led the party into this catastrophic reverse.  Not much hope for renewed leadership or inspiration.

The second problem that Labour has to overcome is that the party is still blamed by large numbers of voters as the party most responsible for getting the country into the economic mess we are in.  This is not just a problem for Labour in Scotland, but the inability of Labour UK to offer a credible alternative to the Tory/LibDem cuts is likely to damage Labour more in Scotland than elsewhere.  As in Scotland the deeper problem is that by and large the very MPs who were key figures in the previous Labour government - the one that got us into this mess - are still around in the top positions.  They may have shuffled the pack a bit, but the team and the message is essentially the same.  And having lost on this programme in 2010, there is not much reason to expect a different result in 2015.

This is particularly damaging for Labour in Scotland as the party benefitted enormously from an anti Tory vote in 2010.  Desperate to prevent the arrival of another hated Tory government at Westminster, Scots voted in large numbers for Labour.  Yet, despite this ringing endorsement in Scotland, Scotland still ended up with a Tory government, albeit in coalition with the LibDems.  Labour can never again go into an election claiming that only Labour can protect Scotland from the Tories.  Even if everybody in Scotland were to vote Labour in 2015, the likelihood is that we will still have a Tory led government to contend with.  

When it comes to standing up for Scotland, none of the Unionist parties can really make a convincing claim to do this.  They are all, after all is said and done, just branch parties of UK parties.  They are all committed to the UK.  This is their biggest problem.  They all put the UK first and Scotland second.  While the overwhelming majority of Scots put Scotland first.  This is true for most Unionist voters who want their parties to represent Scotland at Westminster and not to represent Westminster in Scotland.

This is most clearly seen in the debate, or rather lack of debate, about fiscal autonomy or devolution max, or whatever you want to call it.  Give the Scottish Parliament control over all or nearly all taxes is what most Scots want, according to opinion surveys.  Yet none of the Unionist parties is remotely interested in this option.  As the parties of government at Westminster the Tories and the LibDems could legislate for this now.  It is a policy which fits perfectly with both parties basic philosophy.  The Tories preach fiscal responsibility and want people to stand on their own feet etc.  While the LibDems are full of rhetoric about their commitment to Federalism.  Yet in power they do nothing of substance.  Why?  Presumably because it does not suit their leaders at Westminster.  The same is true of Labour, who have shown no interest in this option.  The only conclusion that I, and I suspect many others will draw is that the Unionist parties are more interested in the UK and Scotland comes a very poor second in their list of priorities.

Does the Tory Party have a Future in Scotland?

That is a future other than stagnating at around 16% of the electorate.  This a question for all the Unionist parties, but is particularly urgent for the Scottish Tories as they are in the middle of a leadership election.  And one of the candidates - Murdo Fraser - has come up with a novel and rather daring solution to the crisis of Toryism in Scotland.  His solution is to disband the current party - The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party - and begin afresh with a new party with a new name.  Alan Trench has written an interesting piece here, showing that this proposal is in tune with developments elsewhere in the world.

There is a lot to be said for this idea, and at the very least shows that some Tories are aware of how much Scotland has changed over the last two or three decades.  Which is more than can be said of either the LibDems or Labour.  However merely changing the name is unlikely to make much of a difference.  If a new centre-right party is to succeed then it needs to accept the key reality of politics in Scotland now.  All opinion polls, not to mention actual votes, confirm that the overwhelming majority of Scots want their politicians and their political parties to put Scotland first.  To stand up for Scotland as it is often popularly expressed.  In the key constitutional question this translates into an expressed demand for the Scottish Parliament to be given substantially more powers, including financial and economic powers.  Indeed most Scots want their Parliament to have more or less full control over taxation.  Instead of a block grant coming from London to Edinburgh, the Scottish Government would send a cheque down to London to cover Scotland’s share of the remaining UK matters - primarily defence, foreign affairs and whatever else was felt to be better dealt with at a UK wide level.

Such a policy change to what is often referred to as fiscal responsibility, should be natural territory for a centre-right party.  It would ensure that future Scottish governments could only promise to spend what they were prepared to raise in taxes.  There would be no-one else to blame.  This is the kind of thing the Tories are always going on about - getting rid of the dependency culture, standing on your two feet, taking responsibility etc.

This policy has the great added advantage of making it clear that the new party is indeed a Scottish party, beholden to no-one else.  The new party could and probably will have clear links with the Conservative party in England and Wales, but it would in fact and in deed be an independent party.  Maintaining the UK would remain a key part of their programme, but the emphasis would clearly be on Scotland.  Since polls show that this is want most Scots want - a more powerful parliament, but remaining within the UK - the new party would for the first time in decades be in tune with majority opinion in Scotland.  

The other advantage that would come from such a policy change is that the new party could expect to attract a lot of popular support for its centre-right policies.  For despite appearances to the contrary, Scotland has historically been a predominantly centre-right country.  The only party to win over 50% of the popular vote in a general election was the old Tory party, way back in the mid 1950s.   There has been a steady decline since then, which became a flood with the rise of Thatcherism which was massively rejected by almost all sections of Scottish opinion.  The final blow came with the rise of the SNP, who were originally dubbed the Tartan Tories by their political opponents.  This would seem to indicate that there is fertile ground for a  centre-right party that is seen to be authentically Scottish and one that puts Scottish interests first.

But herein perhaps lies the rub.  For the current Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party seems to have become reduced to primarily representing those who are more attached to the UK than to Scotland.  It is telling that of the four candidates standing for the leadership, only one, the aforementioned Murdo Fraser, is calling for this radical change in direction.  The party seems to be bitterly divided over this proposal.  The danger for the Tories is that if they reject Murdo Fraser and his vision, they become an even more marginalised party.  A rump of embittered right wing unionists who would deep in their hearts really like to the the Scottish Parliament disappear and all would be well in the world again as in the glory days of Mrs T.  Alas for them, such a Scotland never existed.

Fiscal responsibility is of course, not just a Tory idea.  It has been LibDem policy, or at least some version of it has been.  The LibDems are after all the historic party of Home Rule and are theoretically at least in favour of a Federal UK.  Strangely Fiscal responsibility has never much appealed to the Labour party.  In this Labour too faces the prospect of a slow decline à la Scottish Tories.  They are in serious danger of becoming more and more defined by their visceral opposition to any further change and to maintaining the UK at any cost.

If the Unionist parties are to succeed in persuading a majority of Scots to stay with the UK, then paradoxically they need to become more independent and Scottish first.  Most Scots want their political parties to represent Scotland and not to be primarily branch parties of the UK.  We will shortly find out if the Tories, of all people, have seized their chance to respond to this key dynamic of Scottish politics.

Labour’s Hot Strategy - Insult the people of Scotland

Of course Labour will answer that they are only attacking the SNP, not the Scottish people.  However it is darn hard most of the time to see the difference.  In the first place since large number of us Scots did vote for the SNP at the last parliamentary elections, to attack the SNP is in a way to attack those of us who had the temerity to vote SNP.

Secondly Labour seems to have reduced itself to opposing anything and everything the SNP comes up with.  At the last election for example Labour found itself in the ludicrous position of opposing the setting of a minimum price for alcohol.  Despite the fact that this policy was widely supported by professionals and the general public.  But as the SNP had proposed this, then Labour had to be agin it.  The same happened with the proposal to levy an additional rate on large superstores in out of town locations.  A policy that an earlier generation of Labour people might have come up with as their own policy.  But, again, because the SNP had made the proposal, well, Labour just had to come down in support of some of the richest businesses in the land.

In general Labour has managed the almost unimaginable feat of becoming the Unionist party.  In Scotland more than anything else Labour is fast becoming seen as for the Union and nothing else. Why else the pathetic attempts to discredit the SNP government’s plans introduce Scottish Studies in our schools?  Their visceral hatred of anything to do or come from the SNP leads them to adopt what can only de described as an anti Scottish attitude.

You can see this in the glee with which Labour politicians grasp at any “facts” which purport to show that Scotland is subsidised by England.  I am genuinely amazed at why so many Scottish Labour people seem to rejoice in what they regard as Scotland’s immutable poverty.  After more over 200 years of Union, you would think they would want to show that this had somehow brought some real benefits to their country.  But this is perhaps the rub.  For most Labour politicians their country is not Scotland, but the UK.  Despite their much trumpeted hostility to nationalism, they are at bottom British nationalists first and foremost.  They see everything through the prism of the UK.  The always ask what is best for the UK and never, what might be best for Scotland.  Their mindset is so set that they are incapable of imagining a better Scotland that is not in the UK.

This of course continues to make life difficult politically for Labour in Scotland.  While, alas, most Scots are not yet ready to vote for independence, they do see themselves as Scots first and British second.  The vast majority of Scots do want their political parties to put Scotland first and to rejoice in and celebrate Scotland.  And where possible to make it better.  Hence the proposals to set a minimum price for alcohol  and to introduce Scottish Studies.  What they do not want is for their country to be denigrated and dismissed as a mere region of the UK.