The Wardman Wire

Welcome to this week’s Holyrood Herald. In one sense, this is quite an easy Roundup to put together as there has only been one big story, and it’s Scotland’s place in the Union. Momentum has been gathering on this matter since before the election: when an SNP-led Government looked like a possibility (around the Summer of 2006, after the Moray By-Election which saw the SNP not only hold the seat but increase their share of the vote, aong with the collapse in the Labour vote in a handful of Council By-Elections), pundits began discussing independence in the most serious terms since the 1970s - even the constitutional discussions of the 1990s centred around devolution.

The Nationalist approach

As the SNP went on to form a government - albeit a minority one - the same pundits kept going back to the SNP’s manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on independence (supposedly planned for 2010) and it was the fact that this would even be discussed which the Liberal Democrats cited as their reason for not entering Coalition negotiations with Alex Salmond’s party. However, this did enable the Government to launch a White Paper on Scotland’s constitutional future and launch the ‘National Conversation’: lauded by supporters as a chance to take the debate directly to the people, and hear their views; but opposed by critics as a partisan talking shop.

And regardless of the outcome of the Conversation, plans for a referendum would have to come up against one Parliament. Westminster would be an obvious non-starter, so Holyrood would have to provide the route. Even if the legal problems are left aside - Holyrood cannot legislate on constitutional affairs though the SNP believe that they’d found a wording of the referendum question which would get round that - then parliamentary arithmetic comes to the fore. The SNP have 47 seats, and would get the support of the Greens (with two seats) and, one assumes, Independent MSP Margo MacDonald. That makes 50 seats. In opposition to a Referendum Bill would be Labour with 46 seats, along with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats with 16 MSPs each. That makes 78 seats, so the Bill would not get past Stage 1 - the vote on the general principles of the legislation.

The Unionist answer

Nevertheless, the genie was now out of the bottle, and Alex Salmond has since taken every opportunity to challenge Unionist parties to support a referendum if they believe - as they assert - that voters would reject independence. And with the Conversation underway, the momentum looked like it was moving in the SNP’s favour. Therefore, the Labour, Tory and LibDem MSPs decided to set up their own body to consider the issue: the Scottish Constitutional Commission. The ostensible rationale, as outlined by its supporters, is simple: they argue that after eight years, it’s appropriate to hold a review of how Holyrood works, but that people don’t want independence. Critics say that it’s a Unionist talking shop, freezing out the SNP and ruling out what nationalists view as a viable (indeed, the most viable) constitutional status without even considering the option.

The difference between the Conversation and the Commission is that while the Conversation was established by the Government, the Commission was endorsed in a vote of the Parliament. However, one aspect of the Commission is that it would include input from Members of the Westminster Parliament. This has led to accusations that it has been hijacked by the UK Government. As it is, plans have continued, and this week, Alex Salmond announced that the Conversation was entering ‘phase two’ - consultations with civic Scotland - and the Commission presented its Chairman: Sir Kenneth Calman, Chancellor of Glasgow University. The two bodies are now moving, but it appears as though it will be some time before they collide.

The National Conversation

Alex Salmond launched the National Conversation in August, following a pre-election pledge to publish a White Paper on Independence within 100 days of an SNP Government taking office. The Government insists that the Conversation is open to all, and will discuss the full range of constitutional arrangements, from the status quo, through increased powers, to full independence. However, the White Paper, “Choosing Scotland’s Future” outlines some of the arguments for Independence:

Scotland is a recognised political and territorial entity, with its own legal system, borders, and other independent institutions, some of which were deliberately retained within the Union as conditions of its coming into and remaining in effect. Its territorial extent is not disputed. Scotland’s maritime boundaries and share of the continental shelf would need to be formally set down, but there are well-established legal principles for doing so.

Scotland therefore already possesses certain essential elements of statehood: an agreed territorial extent, and an acknowledged political and institutional identity. The people of Scotland have a continuing right to determine their own constitutional position, whether they choose that of an independent sovereign state, or that of membership of the United Kingdom as at present, with or without enhancement of the devolution scheme.

And a draft Referendum Bill accompanied the publication.

This week, Alex Salmond unveiled the latest part of the Conversation: to take it to civic bodies and institutions. The First Minister launched an invitation to chairities, churches, universities, businesses and trade unions to engage. This will be a risk: the CBI in Scotland has today criticised the Government for getting involved with this, arguing that the Government should be spending its time, well, governing. And the Trade Unions are, of course, affiliated to Labour in the main. And getting universities involved is risky: at an institutional level, the Chancellor of Glasgow University is chairing the Unionists’ Commission while the NUS is seen as too close to Labour to be likely to support independence on behalf of students, so the group most likely to engage with this is the Federation of Student Nationalists.

However, regardless of what public bodies get involved, the Conversation has a strong presence online: supporters argue that the online presence, and the net traffic, is proof that people are interested and engaging with the debate. However, critics suggest that there haven’t been many actual submissions to the website, and point to some of the comments left on the site that it’s a trojan horse for SNP activists with anti-English sentiments. However, the mentality of posts isn’t all that dissimilar to the sentiments you’d find in the comments section of newspaper websites or the ‘Have Your Say’ section of the BBC site. Probably because it’s the same people commenting.

The Scottish Constitutional Commission

One day after the Conversation was launched, the leaders of the three Unionist parties responded with a joint press statement, damning the initiative:

The SNP have spoken about a national conversation but tomorrow’s publication is about their nationalist crusade. We will listen, but we fear this will be less of a conversation than a one-way megaphone.

As time progressed, proposals came together to launch a Scottish Constitutionl Commission - designed to evoke the spirit of (though mark a distinction from) the Constitutional Convention of the 1990s. Eventually, this came to the floor of the Scottish Parliament, which ultimated decided:

That the Parliament, recognising mainstream public opinion in Scotland, supports the establishment of an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland; encourages UK Parliamentarians and parties to support this commission also and proposes that the remit of this commission should be:

“To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament and that would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”,

and further instructs the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to allocate appropriate resources and funding for this review.

So how does this compare with what we have now? Well, Gordon Brown keeps referring to the body not as a Commission but as a review or working group. Even the appointment of the Chairman, Sir Kenneth Calman, was approved by the UK Cabinet. Some critics they shouldn’t have done that: this is the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s baby, and the most recent sets of SPCB minutes make no reference to the Commission at all, let alone the selection of a Chairman. However, check the motion again: it discusses an independent Chairman, and tasks the SPCB with finding money and resources for the Commission. It does not say that MSPs will appoint the Chairman! That means that the body has a source of cash but nothing more; it has support from MPs, but officially, nothing more. The Commission appears to have no actual management behind it according to the motion establishing it and there is a vacuum there for the UK Government to fill. But they are not going against the letter of the motion, so this is all grist to the SNP’s mill.

Meanwhile, arguments are flying around about the Commission’s precise remit: the Liberal Democrats view this as simple: the body’s purpose should be to determine what new powers Holyrood needs. Labour, however, envisage a two-way process with some powers possibly handed back to Whitehall. The argument finally blew into the public domain on Sunday, when Labour Leader Wendy Alexander published her pamphlet “Change is What We Do”:

It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats seem to have set their face against the principle of looking at movement in both directions. Clearly in a fast changing world it is no more than woolly thinking to assume that within devolved or federal arrangements movement will always only be in one direction. The right approach is to acknowledge that this is first and foremost a review of devolution in light of almost ten years experience and we should not seek to tie the hands of those involved.

This suggests that there are tensions at the heart of this body, and Sir Kenneth will have a job on his hands.

When the two bodies collide

Of course, just as opponents of the Conversation say that it is a one-sided affair, a chance for the SNP to sell independence - and that as a result, the Conversation’s outcome will be a foregone conclusion.

Conversely, opponents of the Commission say that it is definitely a foregone conclusion, as whatever it proposes, it definitely won’t be supporting independence.

So we have one body that the SNP will engage with and the other major parties won’t, preferring a different group which the SNP feel frozen out of. Both are moving forward, and eventually, the two will collide.

Alex Salmond is already preparing the ground: he has suggested a multi-option referendum, with independence and whatever the Commission comes up with (if anything) on offer. But this may not be enough: it’s doubtful that any of the Unionist parties will support any ballot paper that includes independence, and SNP efforts to tempt the LibDems into Coalition included just that very same idea: the choice between independence, the status quo and something in between. The LibDems still rebuffed that, and unless there is radical change in the party - or unless the Tories take heed of Michael Forsyth’s plea to hold a vote and “shoot the Nationalist fox” - then we will, after much talking, end the Parliamentary session in 2011 exactly where it began.

Tags: holyrood herald, scottish parliament, scottish government, alex salmond[tags]holyrood herald, scottish parliament, scottish government, alex salmond[/tags]