Labour's place in a devolved Scotland

As the (admittedly self-proclaimed) architects of devolution, one of the crucial repercussions of the decade since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened has been the difficulties which the Labour Party has faced in trying to find its place within the new political tapestry.

Ironically, part of the problem has arisen from the situation that out of the main Scottish political parties Labour is the only one which doesn't actually have a devolved political structure. Iain Gray is the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament - beyond that his jurisdiction is limited, with technically no role as leader of ordinary party activists like myself. Instead, the party remains run from London, albeit with a strong core of Scottish MPs at its heart.

This has left Labour wide open to its designation as "London Labour" by the SNP, arguably the single most effective attack that the Nats have put together in the past decade. Regardless of Labour's role in devolution, regardless of the strong Scottish history to Labour, regardless of Labour's work in the Scottish Parliament, Labour is billed as being a party of outsiders, of non-Scots whose priorities lie elsewhere.

The SNP have stuck to this line of reasoning so successfully that it has become a recurrent motif in political discourse in Scotland. Sadly however the SNP cannot claim all the credit for this situation - Labour must shoulder a large part of the blame through its own actions which have added very strong credence to the attack.

There has been a very visible hostility to the Scottish Parliament from many Labour MPs in Scotland, with outright warfare often seeming to bubble beneath the surface. Successive Scottish Labour leaders have been undermined and restricted by interference from down south, leaving Salmond and his party free to crow about the Englishness of the party - and let's not pretend that this isn't the allusion which the SNP are seeking to entrench in public opinion. The 2007 Holyrood campaign ended up with three different camps interfering in the running of the campaign, each appearing to mutually loathe the others. The internal politics of the party spilled over into the vital work of trying to return a Labour administration to the Scottish Parliament, and helped to contribute to the subsequent defeat. And ever since the party has appeared adrift in the Scottish political environment, shorn of its role as the presumed political leaders of the country and not sure how to function in opposition to a canny minority government. Coupled with an evermore unpopular and aimless government in Westminster and it is no wonder that Labour's opponents in Scotland have been walking around with broad smiles on their faces.

Labour needs to stop and determine what Scottish Labour means. I am not advocating divorce from the UK wide Labour Party, however I think it is becoming ever clearer that to be successful in the devolved environment Scottish Labour must be able to demonstrate and create a clear and engaging Scottish identity. Polling since the SNP came to power repeatedly demonstrates that Scots do not seem to want independence; however they very clearly do want a Scottish Government which will fight on their behalf and use the powers (of which they wish to see more) entrusted to them to put forward a distinct Scottish agenda.

The reality is that this agenda would best fit with the Scottish Labour Party, however the party is failing to respond to the public's demands. Scotland is a diverse country and the somewhat simplistic view that it is a solely left wing nation ignores the realities of the different communities and environments existing across the nation. However, the context of Scotland does ensure that there is scope for a progressive agenda which is not achievable at Westminster under the current voting system.

The SNP have tried to bill themselves as the leaders of this progressive agenda, however the reality is that this does not sit easily with their actual political agenda. Fundamentally the current SNP administration (and admittedly it could be very different if one of the other Nationalist factions in the party came to power) is a broadly centre-right party supportive of business and less motivated by the realities of combating inequalities than by the PR positives of talking about it. They are making some attempts to address some of Scotland's shocking problems, however as with much of their rhetoric the reality is rather sparse. And needless to say, the other Holyrood parties are not filling the gap - the Tories are Tories no matter what Osbourne tells the world; the Greens are currently too small to be much more than Jiminy Cricket type figures; and the Lib Dems are, well, quite frankly pointless in the current environment, scared to work with the SNP despite the obvious shared areas of interest and uncomfortable to work with the other parties.

This would appear to leave open a perfect space for Scottish Labour to take the political agenda by the scruff of its neck and rebuild its damaged fortunes, however it is thus far failing to do so. This is because there is a lack of direction and a lack of inspiration motivating the party in Scotland - rather a fatalistic approach appears to have sunk in at points with an approach of waiting and hoping that the SNP/Salmond screw up at some point. This is not good enough.

A properly devolved Scottish Labour Party would not need to entail constant fighting or bickering with Labour on the UK level - such a situation would be counter-productive and would alienate both members and the wider public. However, Labour introduced devolution because there was a recognition that Scotland is a different context and environment to the UK as a whole and therefore requires specific responses to its particular needs and priorities. By failing to follow this awareness through into the actual functioning of the party structure, Labour ignores its own findings and creates a burden for itself which is largely self-inflicted.

It is vitally important that Labour fights to ensure that Scottishness does not become a copyrighted property of the SNP - this would be damaging to both the party and the country as a whole. The Lib Dems and Tories are less worried about that situation - the Lib Dems being more firmly European/internationalist in billing whilst the Tories remain happy to fixate on their status as Unionists, albeit with a more Scottish tinge in recent years. However Labour has the potential to demonstrate that Scottishness is a broad spectrum of realities, rather than just the slightly Brigadoon-esque approach wrapped in sporting pride (although admittedly that is rather tarnished after last night's woeful performance) which the SNP have successfully peddled over recent years.

This potential is failing to be met because fundamentally the Labour Party as a whole is lost just now, stuck in a period of navel gazing and infighting which appears to be the natural status of all political parties, particularly those in power for a significant period of time. The party does not know what it wants to be, and therefore is lost and to a certain extent uninterested in working out how a devolved party should work.

The problem with this is that, to the general public, it appears like arrogance and complacency, an ignorance to the reality that Labour cannot rely upon any heartlands or safe seats. The SNP's growth is not inexorable and they will struggle as their own internal contradictions strive to become dominant, particularly in a situation where the government and/or the independence agenda runs into trouble; however the reality is that they are working very successfully to eat into the traditional heartland constituencies and supporters of the Labour Party, whilst at the same time possessing a much broader national support than the Labour Party does. The very contradictions which have caused in the past, and will do so again, so much trouble for the SNP are also the strength that allows it to be supported in rural communities and urban communities, in areas of affluence and destitution. There is always somewhere else for the SNP to regroup - Labour lacks this strength in regards to the distribution of its support, even if there is a strength in terms of the actual depth of the support itself.

Labour needs to motivate and captivate the Scottish public, draw them into a vision of Scotland's future which can challenge and defeat the tartan and lace vision which the SNP promulgate so successfully. The polling indicates that Scots want to be part of the Union, but are looking for strong voices to stand up for the fact that we do have different priorities in Scotland. The SNP provide one side of this desire, but there is a gap just now which should be filled by the Scottish Labour Party. The party needs to devolve the structures, to firmly establish the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party as leader of all members, elected or otherwise, in Scotland. They need to give this role the freedom to react to the Scottish agenda alongside working closely with the wider UK party. It needs to develop the inspiration that Scotland is looking - for the first two terms of the Parliament the Lab/Lib coalition 'managed' Scotland quite well, but the public are looking for so much more. They want successful management coupled with a belief, a conviction, that Scotland can and will be better. The SNP argue this very point, coming to the conclusion that this can only be achieved through independence - Labour has a responsibility to set out the alternative but equally compelling vision of improvement, achieved through the strength of union but within a Scottish context.

Within the Scottish Labour Party it is sometimes easy to become fixated upon the hatred, indeed utter vitriolic loathing which elements of the SNP have for the party. This hatred is hard to read, particularly as so much of it is spawned within the free-for-all of the internet where common decency is a long lost myth; however to fixate upon it misses the fact that the people of Scotland do not hate the Labour Party, rather they are bored and apathetic towards it. In many ways this is worse.

Scotland has been billed as a Labour country for decades, even when this ignored the realities of what was happening on the ground. There is no doubt that the election of May 2007 was traumatic for the party and it is still struggling to find its feet - after all, two years is no time at all in the grand scheme of things. However, the struggle appears to many people to be stagnating into inertia and this is where the danger lies for Labour. A vision, a motivation, heck a sign of coming out fighting - these can start to counter an SNP government which at the end of the day only has one more MSP than Labour. After all, we are technically only a resignation away from a change in administration. However, inertia and stagnation can turn an electoral defeat into long-term isolation from power and a disconnection from the Scottish public. There is constant talk of the fightback, however we are yet to see evidence of it arriving - in the meantime the SNP attack London Labour as a way to avoid discussion of their own paltry efforts in government.

So an end to London Labour and a new start to the Scottish Labour Party, a centre-left party rooted in the experiences and dreams of Scotland and endlessly driven to improve the lives of our fellow citizens. A party of ideas, a party of limitless dreams which are not mired in politics of identity but which liberate the citizens of this country to be all that they can be. Scottishness is not a simplistic concept, not matter how hard the SNP try to boil it down to a single common denominator, and the Scottish Labour Party should be at the heart of this debate. To sit on the sidelines is to concede the debate and to lose the country - the Scottish Labour Party has a responsibility to the people of Scotland which requires it to fight and to win.

Blogging Hiatus

Apologies for my absence but I am afraid it will have to continue for a while - I am very busy finishing a report I am writing on barriers to participation for EM people in Scotland, and then taking a week off, so will be a couple of weeks before I return I think.

I am of course choosing a busy time to hide, what with Obama's polling showing that maybe he isn't the Messiah afterall, but just a very naughty boy; the hysterical coverage of swine flu sadly demonstrating once again that the cause of appropriate and effective public health in the UK has been wounded, perhaps fatally, by the inane media who care more for apocalyptic headlines selling papers than any sense of public responsibility - but hey, that's showbiz; the impending nightmare of the Norwich result - the question is who will it be a nightmare for? Interestingly Cameron has more to lose with the result. Oh, and the no-show of the Glasgow North East (i.e. my own constituency) by-election, with the added fun of Richard Baker's ludicrous comments thrown in.

So yeah, nothing going on, perfect time for a break! =)

See y'all soon.

Palin on the Pressure

The US Presidential election of 2008 was a massive blow to the Republican Party, leaving the Democratic Party in control of all three strands of government for the first time since the 90s. In addition they saw losses across the country in local government as well, leaving the party shattered and rudderless.

For the main figures, it has been a period of quiet recovery. John McCain has returned to being a respected Senator, Mitt Romney is working the country trying to establish himself as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012, and Mike Huckabee has a TV show as the poster boy of the religious right. These figures are doing pretty well for themselves in the post-election period, but none of them is filling the void in leadership that the GOP is suffering from.

This void is where Sarah Palin should have fulfilled her destiny. Her selection as the VP candidate alongside John McCain was, and I still stand by my analysis, a stroke of genius in a dying campaign. McCain, despite the respect and affection that many people felt for him, was never going to win the swing voters - indeed he was never going to win the election, and neither was any other Republican. Numerous factors had guaranteed a Democrat win such as Bush fatigue etc, but the simple fact was that Obama's suave and slick presentation, unprecedented media management and sheer historical significance had created a juggernaut which swept all before - Hillary never had a chance once the mythical momentum had been achieved, and neither did the GOP. Heck, Jesus would have been beaten by the greater light of Obama's media induced messianic status. In light of this, the left field introduction of Palin prevented an absolute massacre on polling day, by shoring up a conservative vote suspicious of McCain's credentials. Lieberman or another VP candidate more in line with McCain's personal stance would have potentially lost him some core Republican states - Palin kept them red and saved a tiny modicum of pride for the party.

Post-election she had the chance to become the defacto leader of the Republican Party and its frontrunner for 2012. Yeah, people had rather massive reservations (to be polite about it!) about the idea of her sitting in the White House running the Free World, however four years would have presented the potential to shore up her Republican base and to reinvent herself on the national stage as a legitimate candidate.

However, if a week is a long time in politics, then the months since the election have been more than enough time for her to destroy her career.

Her star has well and truly fallen, most painfully demonstrated in the rambling speech she gave to announce her resignation as Governor of Alaska. This decision was a huge shock to political commentators, her party and indeed at points during her speech it seemed as if it was a shock to her too. Her comments that she was leaving because she was term-limited instantly destroyed her Presidential aspirations by guaranteeing that she could only ever stand for one term - by her own admission anything more would be a betrayal of the electorate. Her positive ratings in Alaska had plummeted from the stratospheric height of the mid-80s to their current status in the mid-50s, sitting alongside a virtually non-existent legislative programme. Ironically before her selection as VP candidate she had created her success on the basis of her willingness to work with political opponents and to stand up to her own party. Now, she escapes from her role in Alaska by leading pro-life talks in other parts of the US, leaving her in the position whereby neither party will work with her now in her home state.

The decision to escape from Alaska makes a certain sense on the basis that, to be brutally honest, the state does not matter in the slightest when it comes to national US politics. Indeed, it is so detached from the rest of the nation that it counts as a negative for politicians with aspirations of national office. However, her manner of doing so has undercut her position. Not only has she fatally damaged her own chances of the Presidency, but she has also destroyed her opportunity to at least become the Republican kingmaker and leader. Her handling of her resignation has infuriated and embarrassed her own party, building on top of the damage she did by comments she made about McCain and his campaign. She has built up a popularity amongst elements of the right, however others such as Huckabee remain more convincing at holding that position.

It didn't need to be this way. Following the election she had the potential to guarantee a very decent run for the nomination in 2012. She should have been blitzing the media with a positive message, making fun of the ridicule she was subjected to and ensuring that she remained the best known Republican in the country. She should have been scrutinising every single utterance from Obama's lips and building up a network of advisors who could have helped to build a consistent message and line of attack. And she should have been building up her network across the country amongst Republican activists, not just of the religious right but of the wider conservative movement, creating a groundswell of activism to counter-act the Obama factor which is already slightly dulled by the realities of government.

Instead, she has alternatively shunned and attacked the media, reinforcing the negative perception of her. She has been absent from serious policy debate, leaving others in her increasingly fragmented party to fight the GOP corner with no demonstrations of leadership qualities. And she has attacked her own party, stoking discord at a time when they required unity and foolishly picking targets like McCain to attack.

She is not completely finished, after all America is the land of second chances. However the period since the election has been wasted and has left her barely clinging on to political significance. While Romney has slickly played the conservative field, working hard to overcome the concerns about his personal religious faith, she has slowly destroyed her chances, leaving her with nothing but bridges to nowhere.

Labour's Role in Rural Politics

I have been thinking about the role, or currently lack of, for the Labour Party in the rural areas of the UK.

The fact is that as a party, we seem to be virtually non-existent in many rural constituencies. Of course, there are historical reasons behind this situation. We are a party who came in to existence fighting for the causes and needs of the urban working class, and our fortunes have remained closely tied to that cause. However, there are equal concerns about solidarity and poverty amongst rural constituencies as in urban, and yet we as a party are not seen as fighting these causes. Instead the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP are seen as being concerned with rural issues, pushing us out of the way.

Of course, specific policies have increased this feeling of neglect in the rural seats. The ban on fox hunting was seen as an attack by urban dwellers on rural inhabitants, underpinned by a snobbery on behalf of those in the cities. Now, I don't want to dwell on the issue of fox hunting itself, but the perception of the policy was very important, and very negative to the party. Added to feelings that we do not do enough for the Farming and Fishing industries, we are dismissed as irrelevant, and indeed hostile, to rural communities.

However, there are a variety of crucial issues challenging these communities which we should be championing as issues of social justice. I would like to explore some of these, and propose some policies which may help to demonstrate that we are a party for all, not just those in the industrialised centres.

Housing
The lack of affordable housing is a key issue affecting rural communities, particularly in areas where holiday homes have become prevalent and have forced prices unnaturally high. Some approaches are being tried out, but I would suggest:

• Implementing maximum numbers for holiday home purchases
• Ringfencing money for councils in rural areas to use for building affordable social housing
• Subsidies for young people purchasing homes in rural communities
• Suspension of right to buy
  

Loss of Young People
This is one of the most damaging challenges facing rural communities. For example, Dumfries and Galloway region is facing 28% drop in school leavers, and a 38% drop in working-age residents by 2013. This poses massive economic and social implications for the regions. I know, growing up in the Highlands of Scotland, that having left I would not return. I know that there are some attempts being made to encourage young people to either stay in the areas, or at least to return, but more must be done to ensure that opportunities exist that will encourage young people to decide to make their homes in the rural areas. This issue of course ties closely into the issue of housing outlined above, and the job creation issues that I will turn to next.

• Financial and technical support for rural colleges and centres of learning
• Widen access and support for distance learning in a variety of courses
• Council Tax subsidies for young people choosing to stay and work/study in the area
• School exchanges/link ups between schools in rural and urban locations
• Increase support and resources for sports and leisure facilities
• Create a youth forum for each rural area with support from Local Authorities and direct say in the provision of youth, leisure and other related issues

Employment and Enterprise
Job creation is key to vibrant rural communities, and to sustaining the policies implemented for the purposes of retaining young people and encouraging inward migration to our rural regions. We need to ensure support for the traditional industries such as farming and fishing in a sustainable fashion, whilst also rewarding businesses who create work in the rural regions.

• Subsidies/tax breaks for companies investing in job creation in rural communities
• Strong enterprise agencies with focus on rural communities, like the existing Highlands and Islands Enterprise
• Start-up funds for local people to create businesses that meet needs and gaps in their communities
• Support traditional industries, and work with them rather than against them in regards to modernisation and required changes to their structures.
• Support and develop co-operatives as a sustainable means for meeting needs of communities - this also encourages ownership and localised solutions
  

Immigration
Immigration is currently a hot topic, but it has an additional relevance and importance to rural communities. There is a real need for immigration to rural areas to counterbalance population loss, however, due to the smaller communities live in rural areas changes and challenges presented by immigrant populations are more noticeable. Support is needed to ensure that the benefits of immigration are demonstrated to the existing communities, but with resources to help these immigrant communities become part of the regions, contributing to their future.

• Education
• Money made available for easily accessible English classes and cultural classes
• Money to make classes in immigrant languages (such as Polish) available for existing communities
• Support for Community/Parish Councils to allow them to play role in helping immigrants to successfully integrate
  

Culture and Tourism
We need to start actively promoting the vital role that rural tourism plays in the local and national economy. Programmes such as the Year of Highland Culture emphasised the desirability of the Highlands as both tourist and business locations, and were successful in demonstrating that rural regions are positive contributors to the country. Furthermore, rural communities posses distinct and important cultures and histories, all of which contribute to our national identity. The UK is about more than just the cities, and more pride in our rural heritage would be economically and socially beneficial.

• Follow-up concept of Highland Culture year to encourage further focus on rural communities
• Change of language in national and political debates - the UK is about more than just London/the big cities!
• Ensure that rural concerns are listened to in national debates - do not just dismiss them out of hand as being 'less sophisticated' than urban concerns and ideas
• Encourage investment in tourism - main forms of economic investment in many rural communities
  

Infrastructure
Finally, the infrastructure available in rural communities is vital. Localism is a popular political concept just now - but in rural communities there is really no alternative. There must be investment in transport links for both the local populace and business purposes, with growing environmental concerns not automatically ruling out support for issues such as rural airports, which can be crucial to development of those areas.

• Commitment to local hospitals and health centres
• Support for air ambulance facilities for outlying areas
• Investment in road and rail links - i.e. expansion of A9 to Inverness into dual carriageway, as being proposed by the SNP
• Investment in rural airports - explore options for ensuring flights remain at reasonable prices
• Dialogue with transport firms who stop services to explore why - introduce support for companies who commit to sustaining links to rural communities
  

Well, I've rattled through a range of ideas and thoughts - I am keen to hear what others think. I believe that for Labour to be the progressive party that we aim to be, it is vital that we are not just a party for some, but rather for all. In regards to the areas that I have outlined above, I believe that we can introduce policies that sustain our progressive commitments, whilst encouraging vibrant rural communities. There is a danger that we view the rural constituencies in a similar way to how the Democrats view the 'Red States' (those voting Republican) in the South and Mid-West of the US - namely, un winnable and therefore not worth thinking about. If our aim is to create and sustain a country where every citizen is able to play as full a role as possible, then we must listen to rural concerns, and work to celebrate the contribution that these communities make.

BBC poll on independence/devolution

Interesting findings published today from a BBC poll. Firstly, 58% of respondents (from a sample of 1,010) favoured holding a referendum next year on the constitutional question, which will be a finding warmly welcomed by the Scottish Government.

However, there was also a clear demonstration of support for the continuation of the Union in all forms of the question asked, although the levels did vary. The preferred wording of the Scottish Government (about negotiating a settlement with the UK Government) received the highest level of support for independence (42% support, 50% supporting the Union), however other versions of the question saw support for independence at 38% and 28% respectively, very low totals for nationalists to approach a referendum with.Where does this leave us?

Well, the first clear challenge is for the 'opposition' parties to either find a different way of justifying their opposition to a referendum; or to call the Government's bluff (as they would see it) by going for a referendum - this appears to be the approach that the public would like to see. Of course, the crucial aspect of a referendum will be in the wording of the questions asked - the SNP will be desperate to stick with their preferred wording whilst the opposition parties will, as Iain Gray says, want a straight yes/no question, which appears likely to lead to a rejection of independence. If the opposition parties look like they are opposing a referendum that the people want and which it looks like they will win then this could well make them look ridiculous - they will also be terrified of the consequences of a lost referendum, leaving them in quite a conundrum.

The second challenge is of course to the SNP. As John Curtice points out (and I heard him speaking about this at a conference recently) the SNP Government have done a good job of cementing their place in the public conscious as a competent party of government and they have also undoubtedly won the argument over whether more powers should be devolved to Scotland, with their opponents falling over themselves to join the race for further devolution. However, they appear to be failing to convince the public that independence is therefore the logical answer. Indeed, it could be argued that the SNP, despite their avowed aim of independence, are actually strengthening the devolution settlement, demonstrating that Scotland can have a Government of its own whilst still remaining within the Union. The SNP are also struck with a quandary - to have any chance (and even then it is an outside one) of winning the referendum they have to stick to their preferred wording; however to have any chance of getting a referendum in place they must be willing to compromise on the wording. All of these decisions are to be taken within a context of it looking likely that the referendum would be a loss for the independence cause, leaving them with the potentially tricky task of reinventing themselves in the absence of the independence question which they themselves have stated would have to occur for a generation.

This is where perhaps the logical answer to the situation presents itself, whereby the Government and opposition parties can find ways of agreeing on powers which should be further devolved to Scotland, enhancing the devolution settlement. The opposition cannot ignore the public's appetite for further devolution and indeed their own stated support for such measures; but likewise the SNP do not appear to be in a position yet whereby they can realistically expect to close the case for independence. Working together would allow both sides to claim victory (the SNP would see it as another step along the road, whilst the opposition parties would see it as proof that the settlement is the answer) although it would raise the potential for internal troubles, particularly for the SNP with some of their more intense pro-independence elements who have been relatively disciplined to date, but might react to more evidence of Salmond's gradualism.

It is likely that such agreement will not occur of course, certainly not before the next election - politically Salmond will want to avoid the troubles I suggested above and will also be aware of the political capital which he might be able to raise in an election campaign in 2011 whereby he derides the opposition parties for denying Scots their voice. Likewise there is an almost intractable refusal on the behalf of both the SNP and Labour to consider working together in a visible way, for fear of annoying their party faithful. In addition, the Scottish Lib Dems appear to have a surprising hatred of the concept of a referendum for anything, and therefore whilst appearing on paper the most likely to support the Government on introducing the Bill will fight it tooth and nail. The Conservatives could be an interesting element of the equation - they may decide to take the SNP on and agree to the referendum in order to defeat it, however this is probably still an outside chance.

I have to say, however, that the findings have challenged me to think about my own initial opposition to a referendum (of course, it's still the case that we shouldn't have a referendum just because the SNP demand one) and it will be interesting to see if other views are affected by the poll as well.

Also published on the Scots Voices blog

Salmond's Riposte

So after the launch of the Calman Report on Monday, the FM has made his response by suggesting that the Calman suggestion could be included in the proposed independence referendum.

Hardly a shock, but a tactical masterstroke for Salmond nonetheless, which the opposition parties have only themselves to blame for. I don't believe that there is any real desire for constitutional wrangling in Scotland, however the public have a tendency to feel rather riled if they believe they are being denied their opportunity to have a say - look at public response to the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even though nobody actually understands the point of it. This response is further heightened by the current disgust with how politicians have been behaving - "not only do they sponge off the system, they don't let us have a say either!"

It's hard to see how the opposition deal with Calman other than by ignoring its recommendations. To push for the changes without a referendum would be very difficult (not impossible though); to hold a referendum on constitutional change without inclusion of the independence question unthinkable in the current political climate and suicide for the Union should it ever be attempted.

The FM will be delighted with the situation so far - many of the recommendations are his anyway and the others all march down the path that he would like Scotland to take. I still believe that he would rather not have the referendum next year - a loss would seriously damage the SNP's standing and identity and still seems the more likely outcome. He had been looking forward to passing the blame onto the opposition parties - the Calman outcome will also give him the opportunity to introduce some gradual change which will please members of his own party who might other be chafing at the bit slightly. He will go into the next election with the constitution front and centre and will then challenge his opponents to justify their refusal to grant the people a say (regardless of whether this is a actually a fair assessment).

In reality the opposition parties, particularly Labour, need to move beyond the constitutional issues and start outlining plans for government, primarily around the economy and job creation. However now that Calman has (as Wardog said in reply to my previous post) let the cat out of the bag, it will be impossible to ignore the issues. However, changes that are introduced will be claimed by the SNP Government as their success, leaving the Calman process with potentially very little to show for its efforts.

The real challenge now would be for the opposition parties to take Salmond up on his offer and introduce a referendum which included the Calman options alongside the question on independence. It would be a very high risk situation, however it may end up being the only way to shift the focus away from constitutional arguments and to remove the sting from the SNP - it would kill the question for at least a decade unless the SNP wanted to look ridiculous.

It's one I need to mull over for myself, will post again when cogent thoughts form (if indeed that ever happens).

Calman Launches

Just back from Edinburgh where I attended the launch of the Calman Commission's Final Report - a very hefty document which outlines the Commission on Scottish Devolution's findings from a year of investigation and debate on the future of devolution.

I have to say that it was a slightly underwhelming event. As has been covered in the media, the main proposals are devolution of aspects of taxation (a section of income tax, along with four other areas such as Stamp Duty), devolution of certain legislative areas such as air gun control and drink driving levels, and a certain level of reform of the intra-governmental workings of Holyrood and Westminster.

The key aspect of the launch was the fact that there is every chance that this will not go anywhere. The Commission was launched as reaction to the Scottish Government's National Conversation rather than necessarily from a belief that the time for re-evaluating devolution was upon us. As such, it lacks an immediate impetus to its recommendations, particularly since the SNP's referendum is essentially dead in the water. The Commission's findings were, to me at least, also reduced in impact by the repeated assertion that they were a) unanimous and b) had considered all options. The idea that a panel composed of members of the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, trade unions, the CBI Scotland and other disparate opinions implies that they must have therefore made pretty weak recommendations in order to create unity. In addition, the Commission did not consider all options as they excluded discussion of independence - this is not in itself a problem, but they should be upfront about the agenda behind their work.

The idea of devolving the income tax powers to Scotland (building upon the Scottish Variable Tax powers which already exist but haven't ever been used) is certainly an interesting one. There is a problem just now as the Scottish Government (regardless of political colour) exists to spend money without accountability for raising their own funds. However the fact that the Government would be able to vary the actual amount of income tax without being able to increase or decrease the gaps between the tax bands (or indeed alter the tax bands themselves) limits the ability of the Scottish Government to use income tax to fully pursue ideological measures (i.e. tax cutting to a flat tax or raising the top band to fund spending). If taxation is going to be devolved enough to allow variation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, then it should surely be devolved enough to allow a distinct Scottish Government to pursue its own stated political aims as fully as possible.

The devolution of certain further powers to Holyrood will be supported across the board, as the SNP have already been arguing for many of them - indeed the SNP will probably be quite satisfied with the outcome of the Commission. Needless to say oil tax revenue was excluded from devolution - I don't think anyone expected anything else!

I think that the Commission has explored some interesting issues, but I think that the nature of the process (it was quite stuffy and formal, which excluded lots of 'normal' people from the debate) has somewhat limited the impact of its recommendations. I am sure that it will provoke continued debate on Scotland's constitutional future but I think that, like the National Conversation it set out to compete with, it has failed to answer the questions.