The EU advice that never was

The debate about the position of an independent Scotland vis-à-vis membership of the European Union has been a long standing point of contention between the parties.

The First Minister and his supporters have continually stated that, because Scotland is already within the EU, if Scotland were to become a separate nation, it would have automatic entry. Opponents claim that this is incorrect, and that as a newly formed nation it would have to reapply for membership, which would include a requirement to join the Euro.

Up until now both sides have highlighted various pieces of legal and political opinions, but official legal advice has not been forthcoming. Opposition parties have previously called on the Scottish Government to publish what guidance (if any) it has received, and recently the Information Commissioner was critical of the Scottish Government’s attempts to prevent the advice (if any) being published. The Government previously stated that to release the information would be to go against the ministerial code. This impasse resulted in a battle in the courts between the Government and the Commissioner.   

With yesterday’s announcement that the Scottish Government had not previously asked for legal advice on EU membership (but is going to now), Ministers have come under heavy criticism. Scottish Labour highlighted a BBC interview with Alex Salmond in which, they argue, he claimed that legal advice had been given, and which led the party to call the First Minister a “barefaced liar”.  The First Minister refuted this accusation in Parliament. 

The Scottish Government has enjoyed a strong record of competence, and if this was an isolated incident, this matter could have been contained. However, as it follows the Donald Trump documentary on Sunday, and the NATO MSP resignations,  it is not hard to describe this as being the worst couple of days for the SNP in some time.

While debate continues about the wording of Ministers comments with regard to the legal advice, the certainty with which the Yes Scotland supporters have stated that EU membership would be automatic has now been called into question. Without the backbone of cast iron legal advice, there will always be doubt, irrespective of the weighing of legal opinion. Furthermore the general public will likely query the sense in the Scottish Government spending public money in the courts to keep private the fact that it had requested no information.

By Rob

MSP’s quit over Nato policy

To many, a politician resigning on principal rather than as a result of scandal was thought to be a thing of the past. However, today two Highland List MSP’s have done just that. Step forward John Finnie MSP and Jean Urquhart MSP.

In a move that will incense the SNP’s leadership (though they vigorously deny it), the two former councillors sited their now former party’s decision to end its long-standing anti-NATO stance. For many rank and file SNP members, the party’s anti-nuclear stance was an article of faith. Indeed for many, trade unionist Bill Ramsay summed up their feeling during last week’s highly controversial debate when he stated “Let’s consider NATO membership when the last Trident boat sails down the Clyde and not before.”

Though both Urquhart and Finnie gave impassioned speeches that urged the party faithful to reject the leaderships motion, the post-debate fallout focus landed elsewhere only adding to the surprise of today’s announcement. Their announcement has caused a number of fellow descenters to qualify their positions moving forward.

Looking forward, and stating the obvious, today’s news is the exact opposite of what the SNP would have wanted to focus on. Having just come out of a widely praised conference and the signing of the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’, the SNP would have sought to capitalise on this momentum by drilling home its core messages of competence in government and independence. Instead they find themselves dealing with an internal and arguably preventable news story, while seeing the parliamentary majority reduced to just one.

Precedent means that Finnie and Urquhart will now join the growing ranks of independent MSP’s on the backbenches. In practise though, Finnie and Urquhart will continue to vote with their former colleagues and business as usual will return following a series of uncomfortable headlines in tomorrow’s papers.

The Liberal Democrats and the Case of Federalism in Scotland

Mere days after what some are describing as a historic meeting between the Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland to set the course for the independence vote, it is perhaps poor timing on the part of the Liberal Democrats to publish their vision of a federal Scotland.

Nevertheless the paper, produced by former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, makes the case that Scotland should have greater powers, but remain part of the United Kingdom.

Titled “Federalism: the best future for Scotland” the report argues that the future for the UK is through the federal system, whereby each of the four states would have responsibility over tax raising and spending, with defence, foreign affairs and welfare remaining with the UK Parliament.  Under the proposals the Treaty of Union would be abolished and replaced with a new declaration of federal union, leaving the Scottish Parliament (and the other devolved administrations) responsibility for the setting of tax rates, and subsequent expenditure. They would also be given increased borrowing powers.

The Lib Dems also make the case for further devolved powers to local government, including stopping the ability of Ministers to overrule councils, control of council tax and business rates to be handed back along with further financial freedoms.

This “home rule” proposal is broad in nature, but includes a recommended that the Liberal Democrats carry a commitment to this policy in their 2015 manifesto. That is of course, based on the presumption that the people of Scotland reject outright independence.

It is hard to gauge how much of an effect this report will have. With the second question in the referendum on further powers now in the waste basket, and all the parties gearing up for 2014, the debate about “devo max”, “devo-plus” and “home rule” are likely to take a back seat for the time being.

David Cameron has indicated that he would be minded to support further powers, but the context of what exactly that means has yet to be determined. In that sense today’s paper is firing the starting gun for the post referendum constitutional debate. But until 2014 comes and goes we are unlikely to see any major commitments from the national parties over what powers should be transferred to Holyrood.

By Rob

The Edinburgh Agreement

Don’t be fooled by this afternoon’s warm smiles and handshakes. The Scottish independence debate just got serious. After months of meetings and bland statements hailing on-going negotiations as “constructive”, David Cameron and Alex Salmond have just signed the so-called ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ that transfers the necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable them to legally hold a referendum on Scottish independence.

Both sides have claimed victory in the negotiations. The nationalists have persuaded the unionists to agree to it being ‘made in Scotland’ and extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. On the other side of the coin, the unionists have persuaded the nationalists to accept the oversight of the Electoral Commission and that the referendum should consist of a single question.

So what has been agreed?

• Westminster will legislate to temporarily devolve power, through a Section 30 Order, to Holyrood for a single-question independence referendum to be held by the end of 2014.
• The Scottish Parliament will have control over the wording, timing and franchise of the referendum,
• Both Governments agree that the rules and standards set out in Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act provide the basis for setting the limits for campaign funding in the regulated period
• The Electoral Commission will be given a significant advisory role including over the wording of the question, the running of the referendum and areas including campaign finance

What is notably missing from today’s agreement is the apparent preferred option of the majority of Scots. Opinion polls have continually shown that the majority of Scots wish further devolution but within the UK. Today’s agreement does nothing to match these ambitions.

Looking forward, the key for both sides now becomes how well they communicate their vision for a future Scotland. If the Unionist hint at further devolution post a potential No vote, and fail to deliver, an unwritten contract with the Scots electorate will be broken with potentially far reaching consequences. On the other hand, if the nationalists paint a picture too similar to the status quo (keeping the pound, keeping the Queen, BoE as the lender of last resort etc.) many will ask what’s the point in independence?

While the above clauses of the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ will dominate tomorrow’s headlines, the finality of this should not be lost on anyone. By signing on the dotted line this afternoon, Cameron and Salmond have agreed to respect the result come what may. No legal challenges, no differing interpretations of the result, no confusion. At the end of the day, albeit in two years’ time, Cameron will go down in history as the man who lost/saved the Union, while Salmond the man who succeeded/failed to deliver independence.

This Week in Scotland

Deal or no deal? That is the question that has dominated this week.

Listening to David Mundell MP and the Prime Minster at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham this week, you would believe that a final agreement on the Scottish independence referendum had been reached. The T’s crossed and the I’s dotted. To this end, Cameron is traveling to Scotland on Monday to sign a deal that will see the UK Government transfer the necessary powers to enable the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum that is fair and above legal challenge. Simple.

Not quite. Alex Salmond has said hold your horses. There is no final deal in place and there are still some significant stumbling blocks, notably over campaign spending to overcome. Salmond has even suggested that the Prime Minister’s and Mr Mundell’s announcement was based more on the fact that party conferences are “excitable places” rather than in truth.

Whether all the T’s have been crossed or not, Cameron and Salmond are meeting on Monday to finalise and/or sign a deal. The deal will hand the Scottish Parliament the power to decide the referendum’s franchise, but only within limits of the existing register. This will mean that only teenagers currently over 16 years and 10 months will be eligible to vote. In return for this concession by the UK Government, the referendum will offer people a straight Yes/No choice.

The signing of a deal on Monday does however raise the question of what was the point of the Scottish Government’s consultation. With a deal being signed on Monday, Salmond is under increasing pressure to publish the results, which the Scottish Government, on publication, made great noise about intending to listening to the findings of. However, to date the Scottish Government has only committed itself to publishing the 24,000 responses by the “end of the month” – well after a deal has been signed.

Creative Scotland, the quangos established to promote Scotland’s arts, screen and creative industries, has come under intense criticism from a hundred leading Scottish artists this week. In an open letter to Sir Sandy Crombie, Chairman of Creative Scotland, the artists’ are highly critical of the management and running of the funding body in the latest restatement of what is increasingly looking like an unbreachable rift between the arts community and the national funding body. The criticism stems back to the summer when 49 arts organisations saw their funding downgraded from regular to one-year, project-based grants.

This Week in Scotland

Away from the Ryder Cup landing at Gleneagles, the debate surrounding public spending continues to dominate the news cycle this week. On the back of last week’s speech that Scottish Labour are to establish a commission to examine the future affordability and sustainability of Scotland’s public services and freebie culture; Johann Lamont in her Labour Conference speech likened the SNP’s management of Scotland’s finances to putting the gas bill in the draw and hoping the problem will go away. Her speech was firmly focused on attacking the SNP and dismissing the accusation levelled at her by the SNP that she is a “Tory”.

Picking up on this theme, former Auditor General for Scotland, Bob Black has warned that Scotland’s public services are facing “there most challenging period in living memory” due to the combination of spending costs and rocketing costs. Writing in the Scotsman, Black questions the affordability of freebies, such as free personal care and university fees in the face of spiralling costs. Calling for Scottish Ministers to set up a new powerful independent watchdog to root our waste and poor performance within the public sector, he also warned that the public service “cash crisis” must not be side-lined until after the independence referendum even if it is political expedient to do so.

David Cameron is set to back the creation of a body to investigate the possibilities for a new constitutional settlement across the UK. The body will examine whether further powers should be devolved from Westminster to the devolved governments, English regions and may see an answer to the West Lothian Question. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader has given her support to the body on the basis that it is a UK-wide examination and is seen as the Prime Minister honouring his pledge, made in February, to investigate further devolution post-2014. The Liberal Democrats are understood to be in favour of the commission, whereas Labour is more sceptical.

FMQs Review

Choices. The debate that Johann Lamont sparked last week over the choices of expenditure by the Scottish Government, and their long term viability, has continued into this week.

Labour are still trying to articulate their vision of the debate between universal benefits and a targeted approach, but by opening the door, the party has presented a debate which others are taking up. Do universal policies such as free personal care, tuition fees and the council tax freeze, really help the poorest in society or in fact reduce the quality of service provision?

In what was actually (to a point) a very good debate, the First Minister argued that universal benefits are what hold societies together, and that the solution to budget cuts was not to reverse these benefits (the inference being that independence was the solution).

While Lamont has yet to actually make any commitments on policy, it is clear that Labour is moving towards a more targeted approach to benefits. Indeed the Scottish Government uses a similar idea when providing free boilers to households that are most in need. Sadly the Labour leader went on a personal attack, labelling Salmond a fantasist in believing that Scotland could continue to support all these policies. It wasn’t needed, and allowed the First Minister to retort that Labour did not want a “quality debate”.

Ruth Davidson attacked the Government’s record on university funding following the publication of a new Times survey which showed Scottish institutions falling down the global league tables. Salmond attacked the Conservatives for their cuts to education in England and Wales, and that in Scotland, provision was being protected.

It seems likely the choices debate is here to stay. For those wanting a reprieve from the independence debate, this will be welcome news.

By Rob

This Week in Scotland

In a refreshing change of pace, the big story this week was not independence, but a debate about the future provision of public services in Scotland. Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont announced the launch of a Commission looking into the cost of current Scottish Government policies. She assured the assorted press and attendees that nothing would be off the tables.

Tuition fees, free prescription charges, police numbers, free personal care and council tax reform will each be considered, with recommendations about what the country can and cannot afford. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, these areas have been considered as off limits for political parties. However, in this age of austerity, and with the Scottish Government increasingly limited in its spending priorities, as demonstrated in the recent draft budget, it is clear that something will have to give.

Lamont’s speech drew a lot of criticism from not only the SNP but also the National Union of Students and other organisations (not to mention from party members). While she may be correct that spending does need to be reviewed with perhaps service provision becoming more directed rather than universal, Lamont opened up a number of fronts which the Party was later forced to backtrack on including issues related to police numbers and concessionary bus passes. That the Commission will not report back until after the independence referendum has also raised eyebrows and it will be interesting to see how the speech goes down at the Labour’s autumn conference.

Elsewhere, reports in the media have suggested that the Scottish Government may be running into trouble with Europe over its minimum pricing legislation. Spain, Italy, Portugal and France have joined Bulgaria (large wine producing nations) in lodging objections based on belief that the policy will trespass on free trade rules for Member States. The European Commission has also acknowledged that it has concerns about minimum pricing.

The Scottish Government believes that it can convince the EC that its policies are legal within current frameworks.

By Rob

FMQs Review

Maybe it was asking the impossible, but Johann Lamont was hammered in today’s exchange with her own bat.

Following her announcement yesterday that Scottish Labour are to establish a group to examine whether Scotland’s free public services are affordable, Lamont, in the words of Sir Humphrey, “bravely” asked Nicola Sturgeon (standing in for Alex Salmond whose in the USA) whether the Scottish Government was willing to have an honest and transparent debate over the future of universal benefits. Lamont’s argument is that during tough economic times, so called “freebies” such as free prescriptions, university fees and the council tax freeze should be re-examined within the framework of delivering social justice.

Quoting from Campbell Christie and Crawford Beveridge, Lamont introduced the issue of ‘fairness’ into the universal benefits debate. She invited listeners to ask whether it was fair that the Sturgeon household on over £200,000 should receive free prescriptions when young Scots are struggling to find jobs?  While introducing the debate is commendable, Lamont went too far too fast resulting in the substantive issue of sustainability and fairness being ignored and at best drowned out by accusations of Labour moving to the right.

In responding Sturgeon berated the Scottish Labour leader for suggesting that a time of economic hardship, working families should have extra financial pressure placed upon them. She continually referenced the fact the Scottish Government had delivered balanced budgets despite the cuts from Westminster as an example of the Scottish Government delivering for families. Sturgeon also relished in the opportunity to further link the Scottish Labour party to the Scottish Conservatives by pointing out that the Tories ran at the 2011 Scottish Parliament Elections on a ticket offering cuts to these policies. A road Lamont now appears to be taking Scottish Labour down.

The problem for Lamont is that since devolution the Scottish electorate has been raised on a diet of freebies courtesy of both Scottish Labour and the SNP. Suggesting that these “freebies” should now be ended at a time of economic hardship is a worthy debate to have, but also risky given their popular support and the fact it offers opponents the political equivalent of an open goal any time Scottish Labour wish to talk about anything and everything.

In other questions, Ruth Davidson led on the unravelling of last week’s Scottish Budget.

An answer to the question of 1 or 2 questions?

In an interview with an LA newspaper Alex Salmond has given his strongest indication yet that there will only be one question on the 2014 independence ballot paper.

Depending on your political affiliation you will either view this as a “humiliating defeat” or part of a clever strategic long game that will ultimately deliver independence. In reality the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

To the opponents of independence, Alex Salmond pushed for a ‘third-option’ and failed. The SNP case was hindered by there being no single coherent body relentlessly pushing a case for the inclusion of a third-option, but ultimately his olive branch wilted through lack of vocal support.

Unionists have portrayed Salmond and the SNP as wanting a consolation prize. To Unionist’s this has always been seen as recognition of the supposed weakness of the independence argument. Not confident in delivering independence in a straight Yes/No, Salmond wanted a third face saving option. This is now off the table. The result being that Salmond has opened the SNP and other pro-independence bodies up to the possibility of a devastating defeat in 2014 (if current polling is too be believed).

To supporters of independence, Salmond has been strategically very astute. By pushing for an option he knew would be unacceptable to the Unionists, he has painted Scottish Labour, his only real Scottish rivals, as anti-devolution. Opinion polls consistently show Scots want more powers.  Scottish Labour has chosen to ignore this and instead ganged up with the Tories to deny ordinary Scots their reasonable demand. This in turn feeds into the message that only the SNP stands up for, and listens to, Scots and gives the party a platform for 2015.

He has also managed to successfully fan the flames of internal party disputes. It is no secret that large parts of Scottish Labour want further devolution and some are increasingly vocal in opposing the leadership’s decision to work with the Tories and not support a third-option (Red Paper Collective). Additionally, one can argue that having had the third-option denied, the natural home for Devo-Max supporting voters now becomes the Yes camp; as only the Yes camp is offering change, rather than the flawed status quo. Evidence of this can already be seen by the stance taken by Clyde Blowers tycoon Jim McColl.

Arguably the real losers to this settlement are the general electorate. None of the Unionist parties have a clear vision let alone a timetable for delivering further powers to Holyrood despite the evident public support for the move. There are vague promises and commitments but nothing more substantial.

In having just the one question the UK Government will see this as an opportunity to settle the independence question for a generation and more. The SNP will of course continue to push for independence (in the event of a No vote) but a more gradualist approach would need to be adopted; support for further devolution now rather than full blown independence now. 

To this order there are no readymade bed-fellows to deliver further devolution. Faced with the prospect of independence, Scotland’s other political parties are focused on the immediate threat (independence) rather than discussing and determining future transfers of power. The result being that further devolution risks being pushed into the long grass again.