[…]
Yet, this promise of further devolution proved to be insufficient and, during
the referendum period, each party produced separate
plans to extend
devolution further. The parties then came together, in the lead up to the
referendum to make what is now called ‘The Vow’ of ‘extensive new powers’ for
a devolved Scotland. The Smith
Commission was
set up to take this agenda forward. It reported on the 27th November 2014, and
its recommendations include to:
▪ make the Scottish Parliament
‘permanent’.
▪ devolve some fiscal powers,
including the power to: set income tax rates and bands (higher earnings are
taxed at a higher rate) but not the ‘personal allowance’ (the amount to be
earned before income tax applies); set air passenger duty; and to receive a
share of sales tax (VAT).
▪ increase the Scottish
Government’s borrowing powers.
▪ devolve some aspects of social
security, including those which relate to disability, personal care, housing
and ‘council tax’ benefits (council tax is a property tax charged by local
authorities to home owners/ renters and based on the value of homes).
▪ devolve policies designed to
encourage a return to employment.
▪ devolve the ability to license
onshore oil and gas extraction (which includes hydraulic fracturing,
‘fracking’, for shale gas).
▪ control the contract to run the
Scottish rail network.
▪ encourage greater
intergovernmental relations and a more formal Scottish Government role in
aspects of UK policymaking.
The
UK Government now aims to produce draft legislation to take these plans
forward, although the bill will not be passed before the general election in
May 2015.
To
a large extent, the proposals reflect the plans of the three main British
parties, rather than the SNP (which requested ‘devo max’), although they go further
than those parties would have proposed in the absence of the referendum
agenda. Again, they are designed to represent a devolved ‘settlement’,
reinforced by the knowledge that 55% voted against Scottish independence in
2014 (the
turnout was 84.6%).
Yet,
this sense of a ‘settled will’ is not yet apparent. Indeed, it seems just as
likely that the proposals will merely postpone a second referendum, for
these reasons:
1. The new plan may represent the
largest amount of devolution that is possible if Scotland is to remain in the
UK. However, it does not address all of the charges associated with the
‘democratic deficit’.
The
‘spectre of Thatcherism’ is still used by proponents of independence, and a
period of Conservative-led government has been used to identify the
potential for the ‘top down imposition’ of ‘neoliberal’ policies to continue in
some areas, and for economic policy to remain focused on the south-east. It is
still used to suggest that only independence could secure a Scottish consensus
democracy. This narrative has only been addressed to some extent with the
devolution of symbolically important responsibilities – including the ability
to remove the so-called ‘bedroom
tax’ (an
unpopular policy associated strongly with Conservative-led welfare reform),
reform local taxes (associated first with the ‘poll tax’, then the difficulty
of the SNP to abolish the ‘council tax’ in favour of a local income tax), and
administer benefits related to personal social care (associated with a
longstanding dispute between the Scottish and UK Governments on ‘attendance allowance’).
2. The SNP remains remarkably
popular. Its membership has risen dramatically since the referendum, from
25,000 to over
92,000 and it is
now the third biggest party in the whole of the UK despite Scotland having only
8% of the UK population. Its leader, new First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is one
of the few to maintain a positive
popularity rating in opinion polls. Current polls also suggest that the SNP will
gain ground in the UK election in 2015 and maintain a strong position in the
Scottish Parliament in 2016.
4. A second
referendum
would have a clearer sense of what people are voting for. In 2014, the ‘Vow’
allowed people to vote No and expect further devolution. In the future, the
debate would be more simply about Yes or No to independence (albeit an
independence that does not
mean what it used to mean).
We
could also discuss how Scottish politics relates to debates in the rest of the
UK, including:
▪ Is the Scottish
further-devolution agenda tied closely to the wider UK debate on its
constitutional future? Before the referendum, there was some prospect of a UK constitutional
convention.
Now, our short term focus has returned to Prime Minister David Cameron’s
promise to address the idea of ‘English
Votes for English Laws’ (EVEL) to address the so-called ‘West
Lothian question’.
▪ What has been the reaction in
the rest of the UK to the Scottish debate? One suggestion, in some of
the media coverage, is that there would be an English ‘backlash’ prompting UK politicians
to ‘get
tough’ in any negotiations with the Scottish Government. Yet, the
evidence for this assertion is not clear.
▪ What
is the effect of Scottish devolution on Wales and Northern Ireland?
The result of the Scottish independence referendum and the future of British politics
Paul Cairney, Politics & Public Policy, November 28, 2014
http://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-result-of-the-scottish-independence-referendum-and-the-future-of-british-politics/
No comments:
Post a Comment