The SNP held their annual conference in Inverness over the weekend. There's a video and link to the text of Alex Salmond's keynote speech over at Syniadau.
The other parties are pushing for a clear timetable for an independence referendum and called for clarification on other independence related issues, for example defence. The Scottish Government produced a white paper in 2009 called "Your Scotland, Your Voice" which addressed many key points albeit without detailed plans for each. This white paper has been conveniently ignored.
As for a timetable, my guess is that 2012 is a no-no as "Britishness" peaks through the Olympics and Diamond Jubilee. I think the impact of these things is over inflated anyway. Apparently there was a big "British" wedding earlier in the year, but all I can remember from it is a woman's small bum becoming big news. My gut instinct says that sometime in the second half 2014, when "Scottishness" hits a peak through the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, would be the likely time. It's entirely the Scottish Parliament's decision when a referendum is held, and if Unionists want to win, it might be a good idea not to be seen to be lecturing Scottish politicians.
Also of interest, it appears as though Alex Salmond might be considering putting a "devolution-max" option on the ballot paper. This might well cost them a yes vote for independence, but it's a canny move by Salmond. A few months ago, I wrote a piece on the parallels between Scotland and Quebec, during one of the referendums there the Canadian Prime Minister went behind the Quebec nationalists back and put forward constitutional changes. Alex Salmond has now prevented David Cameron or anyone else from controlling the agenda or making a similar offer.
The only thing I can see David Cameron doing now to claw back some influence over proceedings is try prevent a multi-option referendum and push for a straight "in or out" vote. The irony considering today's motion in Westminster would be delicious. I think though that, for sheer pragmatic reasons, the UK Government would be satisfied with devolution-max - Conservatives and the Lib Dems could even support it - as long as it keepsBritish nuclear weapons on the Clyde and Scottish soldiers in the army the Union intact in some form.
Jim Murphy MP has asked "what does devo-max actually mean?" I've always understood it as the devolution of everything except defence, foreign affairs, macroeconomic policies like currency and some aspects of the constitution. Pretty straight forward stuff I think and well explained before.
Now Jim Murphy has a large head. I'm sure inside it resides a large brain - he certainly comes across as intelligent and articulate. I'm sure he knows what it means. Labour in particular have reasons to be worried about "devo-max". Firstly, the Labour party's baby – the welfare state – could find itself under the control of the SNP, joining Labour's other baby under SNP control – the NHS. Labour couldfind itself marginalised on traditional "Labour issues" both north and south of the border.
Secondly, devo-max could well justify another significant reduction in the number of Scottish Westminster MPs. That would not only make it harder for ambitious Scottish Labour personalities to climb the ladder in London, but would hurt the chances of an overall UK Labour majority for obvious reasons. Gordon Brown could very well have been the last ever Scottish UK Prime Minister. Not really that good for the union in the long term.
What does all this mean for Wales?
Gareth Hughes and Welsh Ramblings have discussed the possible implications. The first is that the Silk Commission could be pushed to devolve economic powers such as tax varying to the Assembly – powers Welsh Labour have explicitly not sought. It could also mean the end to any possible reforms to Barnett - which will no doubt dismay both Plaid Cymru and Labour - but help keep Scotland in the Union.
Handling Alex Salmond with kid gloves is going to have a "negative" impact on Wales regardless. Alex Salmond isn't there to look out for anyone else but Scotland, and that's what makes him such a brilliant politician. There isn't any sort of "Celtic solidarity" when it comes to the nitty gritty issues.
The onus will be quite firmly on the Welsh Government to improve our lot in ways that really matter, instead of twiddling their thumbs thinking of tiny "quality of life" issues to resolve. If the Silk Commission does decide to give Wales similar economic powers to Scotland under devo-max, the Welsh Government would no longer have a half-empty toolbox.
We'll only get a real taste of what our AMs are made of when they start making decisions that would affect personal or business finances. It could make or break devolution in Wales, and those of us who support independence will be hoping more than many others that they are up to the task.
The other parties are pushing for a clear timetable for an independence referendum and called for clarification on other independence related issues, for example defence. The Scottish Government produced a white paper in 2009 called "Your Scotland, Your Voice" which addressed many key points albeit without detailed plans for each. This white paper has been conveniently ignored.
As for a timetable, my guess is that 2012 is a no-no as "Britishness" peaks through the Olympics and Diamond Jubilee. I think the impact of these things is over inflated anyway. Apparently there was a big "British" wedding earlier in the year, but all I can remember from it is a woman's small bum becoming big news. My gut instinct says that sometime in the second half 2014, when "Scottishness" hits a peak through the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, would be the likely time. It's entirely the Scottish Parliament's decision when a referendum is held, and if Unionists want to win, it might be a good idea not to be seen to be lecturing Scottish politicians.
Also of interest, it appears as though Alex Salmond might be considering putting a "devolution-max" option on the ballot paper. This might well cost them a yes vote for independence, but it's a canny move by Salmond. A few months ago, I wrote a piece on the parallels between Scotland and Quebec, during one of the referendums there the Canadian Prime Minister went behind the Quebec nationalists back and put forward constitutional changes. Alex Salmond has now prevented David Cameron or anyone else from controlling the agenda or making a similar offer.
The only thing I can see David Cameron doing now to claw back some influence over proceedings is try prevent a multi-option referendum and push for a straight "in or out" vote. The irony considering today's motion in Westminster would be delicious. I think though that, for sheer pragmatic reasons, the UK Government would be satisfied with devolution-max - Conservatives and the Lib Dems could even support it - as long as it keeps
Jim Murphy MP has asked "what does devo-max actually mean?" I've always understood it as the devolution of everything except defence, foreign affairs, macroeconomic policies like currency and some aspects of the constitution. Pretty straight forward stuff I think and well explained before.
Now Jim Murphy has a large head. I'm sure inside it resides a large brain - he certainly comes across as intelligent and articulate. I'm sure he knows what it means. Labour in particular have reasons to be worried about "devo-max". Firstly, the Labour party's baby – the welfare state – could find itself under the control of the SNP, joining Labour's other baby under SNP control – the NHS. Labour couldfind itself marginalised on traditional "Labour issues" both north and south of the border.
Secondly, devo-max could well justify another significant reduction in the number of Scottish Westminster MPs. That would not only make it harder for ambitious Scottish Labour personalities to climb the ladder in London, but would hurt the chances of an overall UK Labour majority for obvious reasons. Gordon Brown could very well have been the last ever Scottish UK Prime Minister. Not really that good for the union in the long term.
What does all this mean for Wales?
Gareth Hughes and Welsh Ramblings have discussed the possible implications. The first is that the Silk Commission could be pushed to devolve economic powers such as tax varying to the Assembly – powers Welsh Labour have explicitly not sought. It could also mean the end to any possible reforms to Barnett - which will no doubt dismay both Plaid Cymru and Labour - but help keep Scotland in the Union.
Handling Alex Salmond with kid gloves is going to have a "negative" impact on Wales regardless. Alex Salmond isn't there to look out for anyone else but Scotland, and that's what makes him such a brilliant politician. There isn't any sort of "Celtic solidarity" when it comes to the nitty gritty issues.
The onus will be quite firmly on the Welsh Government to improve our lot in ways that really matter, instead of twiddling their thumbs thinking of tiny "quality of life" issues to resolve. If the Silk Commission does decide to give Wales similar economic powers to Scotland under devo-max, the Welsh Government would no longer have a half-empty toolbox.
We'll only get a real taste of what our AMs are made of when they start making decisions that would affect personal or business finances. It could make or break devolution in Wales, and those of us who support independence will be hoping more than many others that they are up to the task.
0 comments:
Post a Comment