Thanks Kenny. I had forgotten we were approaching the anniversary of Indyref. More to do with the volume of things we’ve dealt with since Sept 2014.
Your desire for a united Scotland is admirable but now looks quaintly naive. My recollection is 2014 was the first social media vote. We quickly got into our camps and stayed there. I was taking a friend of my son home from sports and we got chatting. His view - Yes was winning due to all the social media he had seen. I countered that most people weren’t on Twitter or Facebook but he was having none of it. I still bristle when I hear that Indyref was a joyous occasion. It certainly wasn’t for No voters
Talking of Brexit, I do believe that the leave campaign learned all the right lessons from 2014 and deployed them to devastating effect.
Thanks Dom. The compartmentalisation of the Scottish electorate is still a thing of wonder to me. I have a friend - an academic - who insists he knows no-one who supports independence. Whereas half my family voted Yes and half noted No. In fact I had one son vote Yes and the other son vote No.
I was born in England (to English parents) but brought up and educated in Scotland. I moved south of the Tweed on graduation and viewed the referendum from afar as a passionately interested non-voter. I had (and have) friends and family on both sides of the debate and, as you acknowledge, those positions have only hardened in the decade since. I think your editorial was passionate and brilliantly argued, albeit to a Scotland which you think had moved on from the position you were arguing to maintain.
My own view - of Indy and Brexit - is that referendums divide us in a way that I think is unhealthy. Whatever your views of the outcomes, our politics is more divided and more toxic as a result. I wish neither had happened.
That is well said. Incidentally, the SNP has never twigged that Brexit changes forever the criteria under which a UK govt will agree to a major constitutional referendum.
I think if I had believed “devomax” would be the best of all worlds 10 years ago, I’d keep quiet about that now.
Having experienced the chaos and acrimony of Brexit, the chances of “feert” Scots voting for more of that are slim indeed.
Unlike other posters, I experienced the independence debate as hugely energising and engaging: having it defined as “decisive” reminds one of how history is written by the victors.
As a Scot, it isn't easy to do this but I think when you take the emotion out of it, Scotland's decision on 2014 was correct based on the facts as they stood then. Post-Brexit, and with devolution having been significantly rolled-back by the re-reservation of dozens of competencies as part of EU withdrawal, by the Internal Markets Act and by the de facto abolition of the Sewel convention, that is much more questionable. The full calamity of Brexit is not yet evident, and there is a "boiling the frog" element at play. But the UK is becoming - slowly but surely - comparatively poorer and poorer as a result. If this continues, and it most likely will unless something large and structural changes, we will get to a point where it will be increasingly obvious that the No vote was in retrospect a strategic error. Irish reunification, or the prospect of it may yet shake the constitutional kaleidoscope. Meanwhile, it is particularly dispiriting to see Labour, as the creators of devolution, acquiesce in and then continue the undermining of it.
These are legitimate concerns, although I note from the most recent figures that the UK economy is growing at twice the rate of the eurozone. I guess my argument would be that it is too early to judge Labour in the terms you describe. They have promised to strengthen Sewel, but their intentions remain opaque on the Internal Markets Act. They seem to be willing to devolve new powers on employment law and jobcentres. We’ll see.
I am in two minds on IMA. On the one hand every single market needs rules. We were happy to have the EU’s rules in the EU single market. So why not Westminster’s rules for a UK single market? I suspect many Scots simply trust London less than they trust Brussels. On the other hand Whitehall needs to be able to make a distinction between when it acts as the UK government and when it acts as the English government, as is the case on many devolved issues. Work to do!
Check out our GDP per capita versus other Western European countries (let alone the USA)....take the plummeting value of Sterling over the long term....I could go on but it's too depressing.
As for the IMA, what happens if the law is changed in England in a way which would infringe the IMA if it were similarly changed in Wales or Scotland? Can the Welsh or Scottish Governments strike it down? No. That's the difference - in the EU the members are equal and the same rules apply to everyone (and had to be unanimously agreed in the first place). In the UK, the IMA was imposed on Scotland and Wales without consent (Sewel ignored again) and only inhibits actions of their governments. So, not a great comparison.
Totally agree there needs to be some way UK ministers in devolved areas make a distinction between when they are acting in a UK capacity or acting in an English capacity. Some kind of kitemark/certification process? I know this was something Gove was looking at when this was his bailiwick.
I await with excitement the day the UK Government acting as the UK Government vetoes legislation passed by the UK Government acting as the English Government!
You sum up the dilemma succinctly. Elsewhere in the world this is the kind of thing dealt with by a constitutional court. The UK supreme court would probably resist such a role, but it may be the logical answer.
Incidentally, Kenny, very well timed piece considering Ian Murray's announcement yesterday that he will continue to undermine the devolved settlement by following Alastair Jack's "muscular unionism" strategy.
Labour would be better off strengthening/entrenching devolution rather than undermining it - after all, the Conservatives win at Westminster 70% of the time and before long the boot will be on the other foot.
I’m pretty relaxed about Sec of State giving Scotland extra money, over and above Barnett. As long as it’s spent on things that are uncontentious. I’d be unhappy if a Tory Sec of State tried to, for example, fund academy schools in Scotland. Otherwise I see no harm. In fact UK govt is already spending extra billions in devolved areas with the enthusiastic backing of SNP ministers and SNP councils, including half a billion on a Glasgow city deal. V&A Dundee, which I was in yesterday, is kept afloat by successive UK govt injections of cash, allowing it to anchor the city’s waterfront redevelopment. Should we hand this money back to the Treasury?
The point, I suppose, is that as matters currently stand there is no restriction on what the UK government can spend money on in Scotland. To take your example, they could spend it on academy schools if they wanted. This is, of course, a major undermining of Labour's own devolved settlement.
Labour really should be looking round the corner on this and considering how they will feel when a future Conservative Government wants to play pork-barrel or ideological political games in a Labour-run Scotland - something which could quite conceivably happen within the next decade. This feels like a triumph of tactics over strategy, which is always a bad idea in the long term.
This funding should be added to the block grant and spent by the democratically elected government of the day (as it in England, of course).
Thanks Kenny. I had forgotten we were approaching the anniversary of Indyref. More to do with the volume of things we’ve dealt with since Sept 2014.
Your desire for a united Scotland is admirable but now looks quaintly naive. My recollection is 2014 was the first social media vote. We quickly got into our camps and stayed there. I was taking a friend of my son home from sports and we got chatting. His view - Yes was winning due to all the social media he had seen. I countered that most people weren’t on Twitter or Facebook but he was having none of it. I still bristle when I hear that Indyref was a joyous occasion. It certainly wasn’t for No voters
Talking of Brexit, I do believe that the leave campaign learned all the right lessons from 2014 and deployed them to devastating effect.
Thanks Dom. The compartmentalisation of the Scottish electorate is still a thing of wonder to me. I have a friend - an academic - who insists he knows no-one who supports independence. Whereas half my family voted Yes and half noted No. In fact I had one son vote Yes and the other son vote No.
I think that the other interesting point is the extent to which the two sides - even when they mix - don't talk about it.
We learnt in 2014 that it was an emotive subject and that feeling persists even now.
Yes, there's definitely a "don't mention the war" factor.
It's not a conversation that you'd start with someone you didn't know.
Completely! My wife tries to work out their Y/N position in conversation.
I was born in England (to English parents) but brought up and educated in Scotland. I moved south of the Tweed on graduation and viewed the referendum from afar as a passionately interested non-voter. I had (and have) friends and family on both sides of the debate and, as you acknowledge, those positions have only hardened in the decade since. I think your editorial was passionate and brilliantly argued, albeit to a Scotland which you think had moved on from the position you were arguing to maintain.
My own view - of Indy and Brexit - is that referendums divide us in a way that I think is unhealthy. Whatever your views of the outcomes, our politics is more divided and more toxic as a result. I wish neither had happened.
That is well said. Incidentally, the SNP has never twigged that Brexit changes forever the criteria under which a UK govt will agree to a major constitutional referendum.
I think if I had believed “devomax” would be the best of all worlds 10 years ago, I’d keep quiet about that now.
Having experienced the chaos and acrimony of Brexit, the chances of “feert” Scots voting for more of that are slim indeed.
Unlike other posters, I experienced the independence debate as hugely energising and engaging: having it defined as “decisive” reminds one of how history is written by the victors.
What do we want? Asymmetric federalism! When do we want it? As soon as possible, please!
As a Scot, it isn't easy to do this but I think when you take the emotion out of it, Scotland's decision on 2014 was correct based on the facts as they stood then. Post-Brexit, and with devolution having been significantly rolled-back by the re-reservation of dozens of competencies as part of EU withdrawal, by the Internal Markets Act and by the de facto abolition of the Sewel convention, that is much more questionable. The full calamity of Brexit is not yet evident, and there is a "boiling the frog" element at play. But the UK is becoming - slowly but surely - comparatively poorer and poorer as a result. If this continues, and it most likely will unless something large and structural changes, we will get to a point where it will be increasingly obvious that the No vote was in retrospect a strategic error. Irish reunification, or the prospect of it may yet shake the constitutional kaleidoscope. Meanwhile, it is particularly dispiriting to see Labour, as the creators of devolution, acquiesce in and then continue the undermining of it.
These are legitimate concerns, although I note from the most recent figures that the UK economy is growing at twice the rate of the eurozone. I guess my argument would be that it is too early to judge Labour in the terms you describe. They have promised to strengthen Sewel, but their intentions remain opaque on the Internal Markets Act. They seem to be willing to devolve new powers on employment law and jobcentres. We’ll see.
I am in two minds on IMA. On the one hand every single market needs rules. We were happy to have the EU’s rules in the EU single market. So why not Westminster’s rules for a UK single market? I suspect many Scots simply trust London less than they trust Brussels. On the other hand Whitehall needs to be able to make a distinction between when it acts as the UK government and when it acts as the English government, as is the case on many devolved issues. Work to do!
Check out our GDP per capita versus other Western European countries (let alone the USA)....take the plummeting value of Sterling over the long term....I could go on but it's too depressing.
As for the IMA, what happens if the law is changed in England in a way which would infringe the IMA if it were similarly changed in Wales or Scotland? Can the Welsh or Scottish Governments strike it down? No. That's the difference - in the EU the members are equal and the same rules apply to everyone (and had to be unanimously agreed in the first place). In the UK, the IMA was imposed on Scotland and Wales without consent (Sewel ignored again) and only inhibits actions of their governments. So, not a great comparison.
Totally agree there needs to be some way UK ministers in devolved areas make a distinction between when they are acting in a UK capacity or acting in an English capacity. Some kind of kitemark/certification process? I know this was something Gove was looking at when this was his bailiwick.
I await with excitement the day the UK Government acting as the UK Government vetoes legislation passed by the UK Government acting as the English Government!
You sum up the dilemma succinctly. Elsewhere in the world this is the kind of thing dealt with by a constitutional court. The UK supreme court would probably resist such a role, but it may be the logical answer.
Incidentally, Kenny, very well timed piece considering Ian Murray's announcement yesterday that he will continue to undermine the devolved settlement by following Alastair Jack's "muscular unionism" strategy.
Labour would be better off strengthening/entrenching devolution rather than undermining it - after all, the Conservatives win at Westminster 70% of the time and before long the boot will be on the other foot.
I’m pretty relaxed about Sec of State giving Scotland extra money, over and above Barnett. As long as it’s spent on things that are uncontentious. I’d be unhappy if a Tory Sec of State tried to, for example, fund academy schools in Scotland. Otherwise I see no harm. In fact UK govt is already spending extra billions in devolved areas with the enthusiastic backing of SNP ministers and SNP councils, including half a billion on a Glasgow city deal. V&A Dundee, which I was in yesterday, is kept afloat by successive UK govt injections of cash, allowing it to anchor the city’s waterfront redevelopment. Should we hand this money back to the Treasury?
The point, I suppose, is that as matters currently stand there is no restriction on what the UK government can spend money on in Scotland. To take your example, they could spend it on academy schools if they wanted. This is, of course, a major undermining of Labour's own devolved settlement.
Labour really should be looking round the corner on this and considering how they will feel when a future Conservative Government wants to play pork-barrel or ideological political games in a Labour-run Scotland - something which could quite conceivably happen within the next decade. This feels like a triumph of tactics over strategy, which is always a bad idea in the long term.
This funding should be added to the block grant and spent by the democratically elected government of the day (as it in England, of course).
Fair point about future-proofing Scotland, and there is a queue of things that need to be done on that front.