It was a week of few surprises in the Scottish Parliament, with big announcements being made, but little in the way of anything new to talk about.

Unsurprisingly, the independence debate continues to dominate the agenda, with the launch of the Scottish Government’s consultation on what form the independence referendum should take.

The document, entitled Your Scotland, Your Referendum, was given perhaps the most grandiose unveiling of any consultation published in Scotland since devolution, with Alex Salmond outlining its details at Holyrood, before embarking  to Edinburgh Castle to meet the worlds’ media.

It is therefore somewhat surprising that for such a big occasion, the actual document had very little that was new. As expected, the SNP have made a concession to allow the Electoral Commission to oversee the running of the referendum, while issues around the lowering the voting age, and the inclusion of a second question on “devo-max” continue to remain up in the air. Alistair Darling was critical of the proposed phrasing of the question, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” deeming it to be loaded in favour of the SNP. Both he, and anyone else wishing to make a submission, can do so before the deadline of 11^th May 2012. The Scottish Government will now enter a holding pattern until the summer, when the results of the consultation are published.

The lack of anything new to say on the issue became clear on Thursday afternoon, when MSPs allocated the afternoon to a Scottish Government debate on the Claim of Right. The Claim of Right was a document drafted by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989, and affirmed the sovereignty of the Scottish people to decide their own political future. It is widely seen as the precursor to devolution. But with no real substantive document detailing what independence actually means, MSPs were reduced to outlining the history of Scotland’s constitution. It was however interesting to note, that the SNP, who had previously refused to sign the Claim of Right, now endorsed it.

Elsewhere in Parliament, the Government also got its Budget through Stage One. It was promoted as a budget for growth, with an emphasis on increasing the number of apprentices and investing in large scale infrastructure projects. Labour and other opposition parties were critical of the cuts made to college and housing budgets. However, unlike previous years, the SNP no longer requires the support of at least one of the opposition parties to receive Budget approval. While John Swinney has publicly expressed a desire to work with the other parties, and reach a consensus, it is unlikely any major changes will be made between now, and when the Bill reaches the final stage, with SNP MSPs effectively rubber stamping its passage through Parliament.

By Rob

The example chosen by both Lamont and Davidson was that of control over interest rates. Earlier this week, the First Minister confirmed he wished that the Bank of England would remain the lender of last resort for an independent Scotland. Since becoming independent in 1997, thanks to Gordon Brown MP, the Bank sets interests rates that affect everything from mortgages to the price of bread; a point Salmond was only too keen to point out. The question here though is, how independent would Scotland actually be if it retained a currency union and ceded control of all important interest rates to the Bank of England? The answer is we don’t know.

However, the opposition parties need to be careful that they don’t fall into the same trap they did in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.  During that election, the SNP ran a predominantly positive campaign whilst the opposition parties ran more negative campaigns trying to scare people into not voting with the SNP.  If the campaigns follow the same rhetoric, the SNP could enjoy another comfortable victory in an independence referendum.  The opposition parties should be focusing their attention on the benefits of the union rather than on the negative side of being independent.

An interesting subtext to the session was the language deployed by Lamont. During the session, she continually referred to “separation” rather than independence, to the audible annoyance of the SNP benches.  This is a noticeable and subtle change in tactics by the Labour team. Polling has continually shown that the negative connotations linked to “separation” influence how an individual views the possibility of an issue posed, in this instance leaving the Union. In other words, a person is more likely to agree with the positive connotations linked to ‘independence’, rather than the negative of “separation”. So, all in all, the war of words has truly begun.

It was a somewhat muted Stage One debate on the Scottish Government’s Budget for the coming year. This was both as a result of the preceding statement from the First Minister, laying out the programme of consultation on the independence referendum, and a budget which has so far had very few surprises.

The headline policies include;

• More than £750m transferred from resource expenditure into the capital investment programme
• £500 million allocated to preventative spending, through three “change funds”.
• Delivery of 25,000 modern apprenticeships and fund the ‘Opportunities for All’ programme to guarantee training or learning opportunity for every 16-19 year-old.
• Workers whose pay is controlled by the Scottish Government receive the Scottish Living Wage of £7.20 per hour.
• Maintain police and teacher numbers.

The Council Tax freeze will also continue for another year. While being promoted in the Chamber by John Swinney as a budget for growth, it is by and large a case of business as usual. This point was accentuated by Ken Mcintosh who faced his first major policy speech under his new brief as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Finance. In a considered speech, he expressed support for moving to preventative spending, the increased apprenticeships on offer, early intervention programmes and spending on the health service.

However, along with the other opposition parties, he rounded on the Scottish Government for cuts to housing and colleges budgets of 40% and 20% respectively. Last week’s unemployment figures were also used to argue that Ministers were not doing enough to create growth and jobs.

The Scottish Government of course countered these points, and argued that their hands continued to be tied by the UK Government and the on-going spending restrictions.

Budgets in previous years have had an element of surprise due to the SNP needing to negotiate with the other parties in order to get the Bill through Parliament. This is now no longer the case, and while John Swinney stated that it was his intention to create a Budget that could be supported by as many of the opposition parties as possible, it is unlikely that any changes made in the next month will be more than tinkering around the edges.

By Robert

In a dignified and statesmanlike speech, Salmond outlined his referendum proposals. However, in doing so, we learned little we did not already know.

On the issue of the referendum question, Salmond confirmed that he favoured a straightforward Yes/No question, even going as far as to quote the preferred wording – “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” However, importantly, he refused to rule out the possibility of a third “devo-max” option if there was sufficient support for such a move. The Scottish Government has consistently promoted the “devo-max” option as a viable alternative due in much to its ambiguity.

In relation to the legality of any referendum, the consultation document and Salmond goes to great lengths to stress that the Scottish Parliament is entirely within its legislative competence to call a referendum without the need for further transfers of power.  This was delivered with a veiled warning that it will be the Scottish people, not Westminster, which will dictate terms of the referendum. However, to ensure that the referendum meets the highest standards of fairness, transparency, propriety and delivers a decisive result (which is beyond legal challenge), the Scottish Government is willing to work with the UK Government and allow the Electoral Commission’s oversight. A position which has been well trailed in the press.

Salmond confirmed that the franchise would be based on residency even though the Scottish Government is in favour of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. Again nothing new. This position does, however, create complications for Opposition parties who have previously supported an extension (Lib Dems and Labour), but oppose an extension for the purpose of this referendum.

While we gained some clarification on the timetable for the referendum, the actual date remained limited to autumn 2014. This prolonged timetable is to ensure that the referendum is conducted with the highest standards of accountability and transparency. Under the proposals outlined today, the consultation period will end 11 May 2012. This will then be followed by analysis of responses in the summer, before practical preparations commencing in the winter, with a Referendum Bill being introduced in early 2013.

Unfortunately, the statesmanlike tone taken during the announcement was quickly replaced by cheap political point scoring on commencement of the question and answer session. While Lamont and Davidson delivered strong responses espousing the importance of engagement and clarity, an outside observer would have had little difficulty in recognising Salmond’s dominance in the Chamber. This is both Salmond and the Unionist’s strength and weakness.

Overall, despite the billing as an “historic” occasion, this afternoon’s proceedings failed to live up to the hype and will be quickly forgotten as the debate moves forwards.

This week Alex Salmond revealed for the first time the SNPs defence plans for an independent Scotland. In short the SNP would follow the UK Government’s Defence Review plan of one naval base, one air base, and one mobile armed brigade, while maintaining the same personnel levels as outlined by the UK Government. This has led Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to brand the plans as demonstrating “complete hypocrisy”, as the SNP previously campaigned against all Scottish-based defence cuts. The First Minister’s vision for a Scottish Defence Force (SDF) were then branded “laughable” and compared to breaking pieces off a chocolate bar by UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond. Hammond’s comments come as Salmond confirmed the three current Scottish regiments – Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards – would make up the core of any future SDF. Unsurprisingly, the UK Government has different ideas. The announcement also raises questions over whether an independent Scotland could afford to maintain current levels of personnel and equipment, after the Royal United Services Institute estimated a £2.2bn price tag for an SDF.

On the issue of defence money, the SNP reopen the argument over the future of UKs nuclear deterrent. An independent Scotland would see the removal of the Trident submarines from Faslane. However, any removal would have an immense cost associated with it, which the UK Government believes an independent Scotland would have to contribute to. The SNP has been quick to rubbish such a claim.

On the issue of independence, the Advocate General Lord Wallace caused ripples this week by declaring the Scottish Parliament lacked the powers to oversee and call a referendum.  Meanwhile, the SNP has dismissed calls to give Scots living outside of Scotland a vote in the independence referendum. Under current proposals, non-resident Scots will be unable to vote.

Finally, according to the ONS, Scotland now has a higher rate of unemployment than the UK average. Official figures indicate that Scotland’s unemployment rate hit 8.6% – higher than the UK average of 8.4% – during Q4 2011 (Sept-Dec). As a result, the Scottish unemployment rate now totals 231,000, an increase of 19,000 over the three month period. This means that the number of unemployed Scots has more than doubled in the three years since pre-recession mid-2008 when the official rate was 105,000. ONS figures also indicate that the number of unemployed 18-24 year olds in Scotland accounted for more than a third – 88,000 – of the jobless total after an 8,000 increase. As ever, when gloomy economic figures are published, the Opposition Parties have been quick to brand the Scottish Government as “complacent” and not doing enough. The Scottish Government’s response has been that it is doing all it can within the confines of the current constitutional settlement.

The latest unemployment figures for Scotland were published this week, showing that the jobless total had risen by 19,000 to 231,000 between September and November 2011. The Scottish unemployment rate is now 8.6%, higher than the UK average of 8.4%.

It is therefore no surprise that Johann Lamont pursued the First Minister on the subject. The argument between them boiled down to the Scottish Government wanting to increase demand in the economy, but being constrained by Westminster, and continuing accusations that Salmond is unwilling to take responsibility for the rising unemployment figures. However, the change in economic policy announced by Ed Miliband this week to support the UK Government’s pay freeze for public sector workers provided the First Minister with an opportunity to attack Labour, and demonstrated the challenge that the party North of the border has in setting out a distinctly Scottish message on the subject.

Ruth Davidson went on the theme of an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU. Expert opinion was batted back and forth across the Chamber, over whether Scotland would need to reapply for membership, and join the Euro.  The continuing lack of clarity in this area showed once again that Europe could be a potential weakness for the SNP going into the referendum.

Willie Rennie was critical of the savings that the Scottish Government claimed would be gained from the amalgamation of police services, as well as highlighting the officers being taken off frontline duties to work on the reorganisation. The Scottish Liberal Democrats remain the only opposition party wholly opposed to the Scottish Government’s plans, published on Monday to merge Scotland’s 8 police and fire services into 1 in an attempt to remove duplication and increase efficiency. However, the First Minister swept aside Rennie’s criticism and instead rounded on him for the comments of Lord Wallace earlier in week that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to hold a referendum on independence.

While each of the Opposition Leaders brought detailed questions to the Chamber, none of them appeared to faze the First Minister to any great extent.

By Rob

At the beginning of the 2011, the Scottish Government launched a consultation into the Future of Scotland’s Police Force outlining three potential structural options – the status quo, reforming structures on a regional basis, and creating a single police force and fire & rescue service for Scotland. The Scottish Government’s desired option, as outlined in the Bill, is for a single police force. This position has received support from both Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives, though the latter wish to see elected police commissioners to ensure local accountability. Indeed, all three parties made commitments to introducing a single police force during last year’s Scottish Election. Only the Liberal Democrats have opposed the plans on the grounds that it is anti-localism.

In brief, the main changes for a single police force are that the reforms would streamline and modernise the current model would ensure: police numbers are maintained; the best efficiency savings at a time of austerity by removing duplication; consistency would be found across Scotland; and it would mean that Scotland would be better placed to tackle and react to globalised crime. The main arguments against are the perceived removal of local accountability; cost; the mantra that “one size does not fit all;” and the police are performing well under the current system. To counter the anti-localism charges, the Bill includes provisions ensuring that Local Authorities will be able to approve plans for their area and the creation of designated local senior officers responsible for maintaining relationships between local stakeholders.

At the heart of the debate is the need to provide an effective, efficient and accountable police force while driving forward efficiency. With the two of the main Opposition Parties having stated their support already, the Bill should pass relatively smoothly.

This week was dominated by all things independence. In summary, on Tuesday evening, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed the legal status of any referendum. In short, under the current constitutional settlement the Scottish Government has no legal foundation, and thus any result would be open to legal challenge. As such, the UK Government launched its own consultation on the matter. Shortly after this announcement, Alex Salmond announced that the referendum would be held in autumn 2014 and that the Scottish Government believes it has the legal and moral mandate to determine all things referendum related. In short, butt out UK Government. The Scottish Government will publish their own consultation in two weeks. Finally, in a symbolic vote on Thursday, the Scottish Parliament supported an amended Labour motion backing calls for the terms of the referendum to be decided by Holyrood.

We now enter a prolonged period of brinkmanship as both sides fight over the process of any referendum. Despite the posturing, both sides have indicated that they are prepared to negotiate to reach a settlement. The UK Government appears willing to drop any time limit, while the Scottish Government is likely to drop its opposition to the Electoral Commission’s involvement and the extension of the franchise. The issue of real concern, however, remains the wording and the number of options on the ballot paper.

On Thursday, Twitter, and ‘inappropriate’ tweets, ruffled Unionist feathers. Nationalist MSP and PLO to the First Minister, Joan McAlpine caused offense by suggesting that being anti-independence was equal to being “anti-Scottish”. Her tweet, lead Deputy Leader of the Scottish Tories to brand her comments as a form of “political racism” and Scottish Labour MSP Neil Findlay, to call on her to be sacked. This episode though, highlights a wider narrative that has been developing over recent months, that to be anti-independence is somehow being anti-Scottish. As the battle for hearts and minds develops, this is a contest neither side wishes to lose.

Finally, last night, George Osborne issued a warning over currency domination in an independent Scotland. While accepting that the Treasury could not block an independent Scotland from continuing to use Sterling, he did raise the possibility of Scottish banks being barred from printing their own Sterling notes. The SNPs long held policy towards currency is that an independent Scotland would continue to use Sterling until a referendum on the Euro could be conducted at an economically viable time. Osborne’s announcement is deliberately designed to undermine one of the comfortable certainties the SNP have been saying for a long time. To some degree this is the UK Government playing to an English audience – though I don’t doubt Cameron’s convictions – as focusing on Scotland has little electoral advantage. What it does do is play well with his backbenchers, Unionists more generally, and distracts from the economic gloom. Therefore, while we can expect more similarly targeted statements as 2014 approaches, the UK Government’s interventions are likely to ebb and flow with time

The consultation on the proposed referendum powers will run for eight weeks. The UK Government’s position can be summarised as the referendum should be held sooner rather than later; the Electoral Commission should be the referee, not a newly created body answerable to Holyrood; the questions should be a straightforward Yes/No; and that the franchise should not be extended to 16 and 17 year olds. All of which is counter to the SNPs plans. Moore’s statement also hinted that the UK Government would only be flexible on the timing.

Just over an hour later, and arguably in response to Moore’s statement, Salmond announced the season and year, if not the exact date, of the independence referendum. However, while its announcement is important, it changes very little as autumn 2014 has been the openly speculated preferred date for some time.

Many important questions surrounding the referendum remain unanswered. For instance, who will oversee the referendum or how many questions will be on the ballot paper. While the Scottish Government also announced a consultation will begin in two weeks, yesterday’s announcement moves the game forward, without actually changing much.

While Unionists have been quick to promote the idea that Salmond’s hand was somehow forced as a result of Cameron et al’s intervention in the debate, they should be careful what they wish for. Salmond is a very canny politician who didn’t pause for breath between announcing the date of the referendum and denouncing Westminster’s intervention as “Thatcher-esque” and trampling on Scottish democracy and the Scottish Parliament. Salmond’s open dismissal of Moore’s viewpoint clearly demonstrates his willingness to ignore the UK Government and go it alone safe in the knowledge that any legal challenge – most likely from a Unionist – would only result in a higher wave of support for independence. Also working in his favour is the fact that the UKs constitution is famously unwritten. Therefore, any attempt to link his plans to the constitution is a grey area to say the least.

We now enter a stage of brinkmanship – whether the UK Government likes it or not, there is now even more uncertainty about the constitutional question. The last thing anyone wants is a referendum result that is contentious. We now face the daunting prospect of further wrangling over the referendum, which can only be to the SNP’s advantage, so a change of tact by the UK Government (e.g. refocus on the ‘benefits’ of the Scotland Bill) will probably come about sooner rather than later. Whether the Unionists can deploy this as an effective counter argument to independence is yet to be discovered.