Tam Dalyell in Devolution The End of Britain?
| 'The people of Scotland must be made to realise that there is not, and never can be, a tenable half-way house between remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom and opting for a Scottish state.' Tam Dalyell in Devolution The End of Britain? | |
This article is based upon an original report by John Forsyth, Political Editor of the Scotsman, in 1992.As the possibility of devolution draws nearer, the menu is getting complicated. Polls show that the Scots are hungry for home rule but the choice of constitutional options may dull the appetite. When the general election comes, voters will not be able to order 'assembly à la carte'; each party will have its own set menu.
The next general election may in effect become a referendum on Scottish self-government. With that in mind, each party is firming up its own policy for or against a Scottish assembly but also on what sort of creature it might be.
Officially, the Tories are against an assembly, the Liberal Democrats are for and Labour's plans are falling apart at the seams. The SNP will not oppose an assembly but regard it as largely irrelevant to their political programme.
However, most of the parties also have at least one strain of dissent either trying to put the brakes on devolutionary dreaming or urging a reluctant leadership to go further and faster.
There are overlapping and conflicting ideas on relationships with Westminster and Europe, electoral and local government reform, tax-raising powers and civil rights. And there are disputes about what sort of referendum, if any, would be needed to break the log jam should the Conservatives be re-elected but continue to show no interest in constitutional reform.
There are several proposals circulating for a referendum to let the people speak if the general election produces another doomsday scenario. The Liberal Democrats do not want to put their plans to the people in a referendum.
Officially, neither do the Conservatives, although there is a move of uncertain strength that the Scots should be offered two choices: stay in the union or get out. The Scottish National Party has argued for a three-way referendum on the status quo, a Constitutional Convention model of devolution and Independence in Europe. The Greens have criticised the SNP and said the third option should simply be independence. Labour are currently bitterly divided about whether a two question referendum should be held: The first question would be 'Do you want a Scottish Assembly?' and the second 'Do you want the assembly to be able to vary income tax by 3%?'. The London leadership's decision has caused a furore in Scotland - John McAllion has resigned as Labour's Scottish Constitutional Spokespan and Lord Ewing has resigned as Co-chairman of the Constitutional Convention. George Robertson, who publically stated that he is against a referendum finds himself, once again, overruled by London. It could be a recipe for the kind of indigestion that paralysed the electorate in 1979 when prominent figures in the Labour and Tory parties were represented in both the Yes and No camps during the devolution referendum campaign.
Over the last six years the Scottish Constitutional Convention has tried to provide consensus, but as some of problems have been put to rest, others have raised their ugly heads. The Convention has developed a framework upon which a Scottish assembly could be built, including some form of proportional representation, tax-raising powers and positive action to increase the presence of women.
The Labour Party says, in effect, it will adopt the SCC framework as its policy for the general election campaign. The Liberal Democrats say they have a duty both to work within the Convention but also to present their 'pure' policy on matters like the West Lothian Question, the working relationship between a Scottish assembly and Westminster. The Conservatives and SNP have not taken part and the Greens withdrew from the Convention.
The SCC is clear that its remit is simply to make the case for a Scottish assembly. It is not its business to sort out problems with Westminster like how many Scots MPs should there be, or what will happen to the Secretary of State.
But those questions are central to Labour and the Liberal Democrats who have to paint a UK-wide picture. In the 1992 general election campaign, the Liberal leader, Paddy Ashdown stated that there would be no alliance with his party without a bill to establish proportional representation. No such ultimatum was made concerning a Scottish Assembly. And though the Labour leadership is less scathing of Scottish Home Rule than in the days when Neil Kinnock compared the relevance of devolution to weather conditions in the Himalayas, few can believe that the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair would not ditch New Labour's New Devolution policy for Scotland if it looked like endangering his electoral prospects in Middle England.
The SNP has argued forcefully that the fundamental weakness of the Constitutional Convention is that its framework will be subject to redesign by the due processes of Westminster. They also point out that Mrs Thatcher abolished Labour's flagship, the Greater London Council. Any future Tory Government could just as easily abolish a Scottish Assembly: Only an independent Scotland could guarantee the maintenance of the sovereignty of the Scottish people as opposed to that of the Westminster parliament.
On one side, English back benchers are pressing for a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, not as a quid pro quo for an assembly but as a punishment for not electing enough Tories.
On the other, a substantial proportion of the Scottish party believes failure to amend the hard-line position could lead to further loss of seats north of the border. In that case it would be a practical as well as a moral problem in running an administration without enough MPs to staff the Scottish Office.
Recently, the Scottish Conservatives appear to have become aware of something which has been patently obvious to many Scots since 1979: That the Conservatives are perceived as a mainly English party which governs Scotland in England's interests. Therefore in an independent Scotland a Scottish Conservative Party fighting on purely Scottish rather than English issues would not be un-electable as a government.
The Labour Party is, according to George Robertson at least, committed to introduce legislation for a Scottish parliament with marginal tax-raising powers in the first session of a Labour government. According to Labour, a Scottish Assembly could be running within two years of the General Election. In the 1970s Labour's devolution proposals were sabotaged by their own back benchers, however, this time around the situation is very different: It looks like New Labour's New Devolution policy will be torpedoed by none other than the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and the London leadership.
At one time a Welsh Assembly and English regional assemblies were also on the cards, however the foundations upon which these bodies are to be built look as substantial as Scotch mist.
Labour in Scotland has resisted the temptation to go into more detail than the Constitutional Convention, not least to avoid offending its anti-devolutionary MPs, but also because there is a risk that the Scottish party could come to different conclusions from the UK party on key issues - as George Robertson discovered to his embarrassment when Jack Straw stressed the absolute sovereignty of the Westminster parliament on the eve of the the Great Debate.
The Labour party was at odds with the rest of the Constitutional Convention which planned for a parliament of 150 members. Labour wished to limit the number of MSPs to be elected by proportional representation, as true proportional representation would reduce the chances of a Labour majority in the assembly. This problem has now been resolved to Labour's satisfaction - 129 members would be elected, 73 by the first past the post system (which currently favours Labour) and 56 from party lists by proportional representation.
The party is also unwilling to commit itself to changing the number of Scots MPs at Westminster and therefore reducing the chances of a Labour government in the UK. They are in favour of a single tier local government system funded by a 'fair' rates system modified by ability to pay. And although there is little enthusiasm at national level for a Bill of Rights Labour in Scotland goes along with the SCC's notion of a written Charter of Rights.
They are committed to a federal UK, beginning with the creation of a Scottish Assembly along with a Welsh Senedd. Eventually between nine and 12 English regional assemblies could follow as (or if) demand develops. The assembly would have limited powers to vary income tax and they also see local income tax as the source of funding for their single-tier system of local government.
Their PR system for electing a Scottish assembly of 150 to 180 members would be by "single transferable vote-plus". Around 40 constituencies would elect three to five members each by single transferable vote. The "plus" means the assembly numbers would be made up by adding the best losers from the constituency elections rather than from a party list.
The previous Scottish Lib Dem leader Malcolm Bruce took on the West Lothian Question by agreeing that the number of Scots MPs at Westminster should be reduced to 59 and that they shouldn't meddle in strictly English affairs. And if that put a different party in the majority for England as opposed to UK business, that would be a fact of life.
An independent Scottish Parliament - unlike a devolved Assembly - would have control over all the major economic instruments such as taxation, public spending, money supply and interest rates and would therefore be able to tailor economic policy to match Scotland's needs. Plus it would have its own Government with a direct input into European policy-making and the freedom to relate a Scottish economic strategy to circumstances in the rest of Europe instead of just to London.
Their post-independence vision includes PR, a similar hybrid of Additional Member System with Alternate Vote in the constituencies to make sure that only candidates who secure 50% get elected.
They envisage a 200-seat parliament with a third of the seats selected from central lists.
The SNP would lower the voting age to 16.
They are also in favour of a Bill of Rights and single-tier local government funded from local income tax.
| Issue | Conservative | Labour | Liberal Democrat | Scottish National Party |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party policy | Status quo | Devolution | Devolution | Independence |
| Type of Self Government | None | Assembly exercising powers devolved from Westminster Parliament | Devolved Assembly as part of a Federal UK | Sovereign Scottish Parliament independent in European Community |
| Tax raising powers | No |  'Tartan tax' Vary income tax by 3% | 'Tartan tax' Vary income tax by 3% | Yes |
| West Lothian Question | | | 59 MPs at Westminster | No MPs at Westminster |
| Lorraine Mann Question (Party's second choice) | Independence | | Status Quo | Devolution |
| Proportional representation for Westminster | No | | Yes | No MPs at Westminster |
| Proportional representation for Assembly | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Local government system | Single tier | Single tier | Single tier | Single tier |
| Local Government funding | Council Tax | Roof Tax | Local Income Tax | Local Income Tax |
| Bill of Rights | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Referendum | | Single or two question? | No | Three options: status quo, devolution or independence |
=Prickly problem as yet unresolved.
Return to home page