Defence in an Independent Scotland

The Scottish Government has published the latest policy paper in its Building a New Scotland series, An Independent Scotland’s Place in the World. This paper sets out its vision for an independent Scotland's foreign, defence, and security policy. If you don’t fancy reading the whole paper, SPICe has done a good job of summarising the key points.

In the defence section defence, the key proposals include:

• Joining NATO and keeping defence spending at 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Working with neighbouring members in defence of the North Atlantic and High North region, with a likely focus on the strategically important Greenland–Iceland–UK (GIUK) Gap.
• Provide conventional forces to NATO operations in support of Treaty objectives and participate in joint exercises. However, these would need to be in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
• Scotland’s Joint Forces Headquarters would be based at Faslane. 
• Working with the UK for a transitional period and a timetable for UK forces to gradually draw down their presence in Scotland.
• Nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence.

The media headlines predictably focused on removing nuclear weapons and the impact this might have on joining NATO. The Scottish Government reasonably points out that “only a minority of NATO members host nuclear weapons.” I doubt the so-called British independent deterrent worries Putin much, given that it relies on US missiles and has anyway failed its last two tests. However, the timetable for removing nuclear weapons looks optimistic. NATO partners must cooperate, and there is some evidence that the US, in particular, might veto Scotland's application if we disagreed on a reasonable timetable. NATO is, after all, a nuclear alliance, and even non-nuclear armed states can carry battlefield nuclear weapons. 

While I think NATO would eventually welcome Scotland, the idea that we would be essential to protecting the northern flank is fanciful. NATO can do everything from bases in Norway and Iceland. Scotland would add to that, but it's not vital.

My problem with the paper is more with the conventional defence plans, or the lack of them, and the absence of any costings. The paper ignores the practical challenges Scotland would face when establishing a conventional army, navy and air force. These challenges include:

• I have previously highlighted the absence of any recognition of the defence industry in the First Minister's speech on industrial policy. UK ships and other defence equipment will be built in UK sites (the paper is frankly delusional to argue otherwise), and Scotland cannot provide a similar pipeline of work. There is also the issue of access to sensitive electronic equipment, which is crucial to modern armed forces. Some people, opposed to the defence industry in principle, may not regard the loss of a defence industry as a big loss. However, it certainly will be to the 33,500 workers and their families at a time when the post-Indy Scottish economy will face many other challenges. The defence sector contributes £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy.
• The infrastructure and support contracts that keep defence equipment running are linked to the defence sector. Ships need regular refits, aircraft need specialists to keep them running, and a substantial Ministry of Defence to pull all of this together. Scotland will also need munitions stores and specialists to maintain them.
• Ensuring Scotland retains the skilled personnel required to run modern defence forces. At best, Scotland will inherit a random collection of transferring service personnel rather than a coherent military force. 
• Those gaps would need to be filled by a training programme. That would be a long and complex process with new officer and technical training establishments to be established with none of the economies of scale the UK brings.
• The UK will be unlikely to share intelligence with an independent Scotland. Given the approvals required for the most sensitive equipment and software, it will take many years to build up the necessary systems, if at all.  

None of the above are impossible to deliver, albeit with costly investment. My concern is that there is no evidence from this paper that any serious thought has been given to the detail. As others have pointed out, it reads like “some of the pro-Brexit material at the time of the referendum – trying to reassure people that nothing will really change, all will be well and frankly we’re better off without that lot anyway.”

This paper is a political gloss that has rightly not impressed those who understand the defence sector. If the Scottish Government is serious about defending an independent Scotland, it needs to get serious about planning for it.

Tough political decisions

 It could be a long political year if today's election pitches are anything to go by. 

Anas Sarwar was making a pitch to Yes voters in Rutherglen. It is a smart move given that despite the SNP's woes, the dial has barely moved on support for independence. However, a call for change alone may not be enough to firm up these voters for Labour. Anas needs to think further about what a serious offer on the constitution might look like to shift these voters at the UK General Election and, equally important, for the next Holyrood election if he wants to be First Minister. Lending votes to get rid of the Tories is only a short-term strategy.

I was at the University of Glasgow today, listening to the First Minister set out what an industrial strategy might look like post-independence. The media spin was more about the increase in household income independence might bring. This reinforces the recent soundbite script from SNP MPs, which puts the cost of living crisis before constitutional change. This reflects where the voters are, even if less popular with some activists. He further reminded some of those activists that Yes supporters should not simply shout "independence ever louder" but help set out an "alternative path: one that leads to a renewed sense of possibility”.

I was less interested in the political guff than what he had to say about industrial strategy, something grossly neglected in Scotland and the UK. Other small European countries have successful industrial strategies that have helped raise living standards. However, this didn't magically happen because they are independent; it resulted from a positive strategy.

There was a predictable and essentially correct analysis of the failings of the UK Government over many years. He argues it isn't a short-term crisis but the result of long-term failure, ‘creating a poor society with pockets of rich people’. His challenge to Labour is how they would change this given Keir Starmer’s cautious policy approach to the Green New Deal.

He proposed three pillars to an industrial strategy: joining the EU, a new ministry for industrial policy, joining up action across government, and public investment. He highlighted the success of public investment worldwide to 'crowd-in' private investment, particularly in the USA and China, with an albeit more modest response from the EU. It is less clear how an independent Scotland would develop the fiscal and monetary policy to finance a similar approach. He also highlighted EU strategies on CCS and hydrogen, which Scotland is well placed to contribute.

A crucial industry for Scotland is shipbuilding, although the FM didn't mention it in his long list of successful Scottish industries. Probably because on the civil side, the problems of ferry building have not helped the sector, with ships now being built in Türkiye. There should be opportunities for support ships in the renewables sector, but turning renewable energy prospects into supply chain jobs has been challenging.

Defence spending remains a vital part of the Scottish economy, providing 33,500 jobs and contributing £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy. It also provides high-wage jobs that provide income tax revenue, as Graeme Roy highlighted in the Herald today. Each percentage point of earnings growth in Scotland delivers around £25m more revenue than would be generated by the equivalent UK tax policy. 

For Scotland, a big chunk of defence investment and employment comes from naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and at Rosyth. The FM needs to clarify if an independent Scotland would pursue a Scotland First procurement strategy that considers the social value of procurement. The UK government has drifted away from this by awarding the Fleet Solid Ships contract to an overseas consortium. The more difficult question is how defence spending in an independent Scotland will sustain our defence shipbuilding industry. Some 24 warships will likely be built in Scotland between 2015 and 2035. It is hard to see how a Scottish Navy will need more than a handful of warships. Exports will be challenging given the global move to favour home-built procurement, or at least substantial offset, which Scotland may find challenging to offer.

Few would disagree with the ambition and vision the First Minister set out to achieve an industrial strategy that normal countries follow. However, the transition to a high-growth, low-inequality country is a long-term process that will require actions on a scale that will be challenging. In fairness, the FM didn't claim it would be achieved overnight, but his industrial strategy needs more detail and has to address difficult issues like shipbuilding. He and Anas Sarwar would be more credible if they faced up to the complex political issues.

Nicola Sturgeon departs - opportunity, or more of the same?

Nicola Sturgeon's resignation and subsequent leadership contest are likely to dominate the airwaves for a while at least. Personally, I wish her well - eight years as First Minister is a tough shift for anyone. I have had my disagreements with her over the years, but as the STUC said this morning, she was always willing to engage with trade unions, and there was genuine and mutual respect. I will not be joining any celebration, and those who compare this to Thatcher's resignation have seriously lost the plot.

It will be a real challenge for the SNP to replace her and take forward their independence agenda. But, in an uncertain world, economically and militarily, that will be a big challenge anyway. My main criticism of the Scottish Government is the obsession with process over delivery. If you want to build confidence that Scotland could do better as an independent country, then the various delivery problems, including the ferries, recycling and the National Care Service (NCS), need to be managed better. 

The SNP, since entering government, hasn't been known for developing a debating culture. However, even before Nicola's resignation, there were signs that the culture may be changing. As Stephen Flynn, the SNP's Westminster leader, put it, 'there has to be space for people to disagree and to disagree without being disagreeable'. The SNP Trade Union Group has called on the Scottish Government to be more creative with its powers, and they have joined criticisms of the NCS and Freeports.

The Red Paper Collective published the latest edition of their magazine this week in time for the Scottish Labour and STUC conferences. The editorial picks up on these themes, including Stephen Noon's call for a more consensual path for Scotland's constitutional debate. Gordon Brown's Commission at least got the constitutional debate on the UK agenda, even if it offered a limited vision for Scotland. Professor James Mitchell offers a sceptical analysis of the de-facto referendum strategy, which is now up for grabs anyway. As a strategy, it again focuses on the process rather than the case for independence. Beth Winter MP gives us an insight into the different approaches Wales is taking to their constitutional debate.

Alex Rowley MSP, offers some thoughts on how to end Scotland’s constitutional groundhog day. His article is worth reading in full rather than the lurid newspaper headlines. Scottish Labour also needs new thinking on the constitution if it wants to achieve more than simply replacing the Tories as the opposition. He also looks to the Welsh approach for inspiration. He argues that Scottish Labour should make a case for new powers when it is in Scotland's interest.

My contribution to the magazine focuses on one such new power – immigration. This is a crucial issue for Scotland as our population is not projected to increase at the same rate as the rest of the UK. The number of working-age Scots to support our ageing population won’t be available without immigration. Devolved immigration initiatives are not new in Scotland, going back to Labour's Fresh Talent Initiative. However, other countries have gone much further, most notably Canada. Sadly, UK ministers and shadow ministers have not seriously looked at the international evidence and how this can be achieved without the leakage of migrants to other parts of the UK. The Scottish Visa system proposed by the Scottish Government is a good starting point, although it would need more UK cooperation than they may like. On this point, Gordon Brown's duty of cooperation would help.

As Neil Findlay asks in his Red Paper article, 'Where is the mature discussion?' He is critical of Nicola Sturgeon starting a debate that fell far short of what she promised, and the same applies to her unionist opponents. A 51%-49% strategy is never going to deliver a settled position. Nevertheless, he ends on a positive note, hoping that someone in the SNP will recognise that creating a new state based on a polarised, divided community is not a particularly good idea. And that Scottish Labour will equally wake up from its delusions. 

Just maybe, a change in SNP leader is an opportunity to build sustainable change in the same way the case for devolution was made. But again, like Neil, I won't be 12 stone again or achieve a single-figure golf handicap!

P.s. A bit of personal news. I have taken on the role of Interim Director at the Jimmy Reid Foundation this week. I would be pleased to hear from friends of the Foundation who have projects they wish us to take forward.

Rebalancing the UK

 Big-picture reform may not be on everyone's list of priorities, but governments should be able to tackle big long-term projects while also addressing the immediate issues. Unfortunately, the short-termism of so many politicians has undermined the UK for far too long. In this context, we now have the long-awaited report of Gordon Brown's Commission on the UK's Future. 

The report starts with a persuasive case for change. The country was in crisis long before the pandemic and the economic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There are always excuses for not tackling the big issues, and successive governments have ducked them. Yes, we have an incompetent and ideologically driven government that has failed to deliver acceptable levels of investment, economic success and good-paying jobs. But, as the report says, the way our country is run is preventing us from making the changes we need for a better future.

Few could argue with the analysis in the paper of the challenges. These include the scourge of inequality, loss of trust in politics, and centralisation. Britain hasn’t taken back control as promised with Brexit – Westminster and Whitehall have. The same is true in Scotland by the Scottish Government. While there have been global factors, the UK has handled them less well, as this chart shows:

And while economic growth is not all we should be concerned about, at least on current definitions, our relative position has crashed.

This is particularly the case for workers. Pay and living standards for most people in Britain have not improved, and taxes have risen to pay for worse public services, making this a lost decade for British families. 

There are some broad solutions proposed to address these issues. Unsurprisingly, there is an emphasis on shared UK purpose and values while recognising that people in the nations of the UK feel morally and politically abandoned by the present UK government. So, the report argues that powers must be decentralised to the right place - in the nations, regions and communities. While there is more detail about local government in England, because this is devolved, many of the reforms proposed would also be welcomed in Scotland as an antidote to SNP centralisation. They reflect the arguments I made in a Reid Foundation paper a few years ago. My only exception is the obsession with directly elected Mayors. There is nothing democratic about centralising power in the hands of one person.

There are reforms proposed for Westminster, cleaning up the corruption that undermines trust in politics and Britain’s voice in the world. A long overdue plan to replace the House of Lords with a new second chamber of Parliament: an Assembly of the Nations and Regions. We should ignore the Lords who oppose this on spurious grounds, acting like Turkeys who don’t want to vote for Christmas. 

On Scottish devolution, the focus is on embedding the constitutional settlement, strengthening the Sewel Convention and introducing mechanisms to improve cooperation across the UK. While devolving powers is not the only way to enhance devolution, the principle of subsidiarity demands that powers be devolved to the lowest practical level. It is here that the report is weakest. Gordon's Treasury orthodoxy screams out of the pages, with the resistance to prudential borrowing powers that apply to local authorities but not the devolved administrations. New taxes can only be introduced by agreement with the UK government, which jars with the principles the paper claims to espouse. Today's STUC paper is much better on public finance issues.

On specific powers, devolving job centres is fine, but employment law is only to be shared. And what about drug policy and immigration? The Red Paper Collective has set out the case for devolving these powers clearly. Of course, all these should be exercised in cooperation when they can have implications for the rest of the UK. But the starting point is to recognise that not all parts of the UK have similar problems or require the same solutions. 

This report does offer a new approach that should appeal to the 40% of those living in Scotland who are not entrenched in either side of the national obsession. However, it could have been bolder in key areas, which also fall some way short of Scottish Labour’s policy positions on further devolution. Electoral reform is another issue that has been ducked, despite the recent UK conference decision.

Overall, we should thank Gordon Brown for embarking on this process because it takes someone of his stature to ensure this debate gets a hearing. While the report has weaknesses, the proposals would at least help rebalance the UK politically and economically.

New thinking on constitutional options for Scotland

With immaculate timing, Boris Johnson blunders into the devolution debate on the eve of the Scottish Conservative conference describing devolution as a "disaster north of the border". Fortunately, we have several more considered contributions to the debate in recent weeks.

 

The Prime Minister’s comments are, even by his own standards, bizarre. Even the UK Government's own website says, "devolution has made a real difference to the lives of people in Scotland - and recognises the wishes of the people to have more say over matters that affect them". As one veteran Scottish Tory told the BBC: "This is dire - it's totally out of touch and reflects a Westminster-centric view of 1992, not 2020”. Another said: "The anger tonight is palpable and the worst I've ever seen towards a Tory PM."

 

For a considered view of the constitutional question, I would recommend a paper the Jimmy Reid Foundation commissioned from Professor James Mitchell to outline and assess the constitutional options for society in Scotland from a left perspective. He argues that Scotland’s constitutional question has become stuck in a rut and the primary focus should be on the impact of proposed changes on citizens’ wellbeing. His broad international analysis points out that states and nations are artificial concepts which change and evolve; just as the UK has with its series of unions.  

The UK’s diversity has still resulted in a highly centralised state, despite Johnson’s, and in fairness some previous prime ministers’ frustrations, at not being able to direct everything from London. James Mitchell goes on to set out the need for rules on any future referendums and the need for a new constitutional convention on how they are triggered. He argues that having more options would empower voters by increasing possibilities, encourage constructive voting allowing people to vote for first preference option rather than a least disliked option; signal views across a wider range of options; and potentially identify an underlying, and otherwise hidden consensus.

 

This is not the same as John Major’s recent suggestion that Westminster could agree to another referendum based on two linked votes, the first to vote on the principle of negotiations, and the second on the outcome of them. Although it does indicate some moderate Tory thinking in the light of the Brexit referendum.

 

As someone who is neither a unionist nor a nationalist, I am naturally attracted to James Mitchell’s argument, ever hopeful (God loves an optimist!) that a consensus could be achieved. While nationalists may be buoyed by recent opinion polls, I would argue that reflects the political case for independence. An actual referendum would also highlight the economic case, which as Laurie Macfarlane has recently argued is much weaker.

 

Another interesting contribution to the debate comes from Ben Thomson in his book ‘Scottish Home Rule’. He defines Home Rule as “a bilateral arrangement between one area within a nation state and the rest of that nation state. This is distinct from federalism, which represents an equal relationship between all constituent parts of a country”. This makes Home Rule a more practical option for the asymmetric UK, although he argues that it could provide a template for the UK to move towards federalism. The difference between Home Rule and devolution is that people in Scotland would know control over domestic matters is decided solely by them, and that this cannot be unilaterally overruled by Westminster and its Prime Minister.

As the secretary of the Keir Hardie Society, I have to regularly explain that Hardie’s support for Home Rule is not the same as independence. He came from the Liberal tradition of Home Rule, largely focused on Ireland during his lifetime. So, I welcome a modern exposition of the concept in Thomson’s book. 

 

Finally, Neil Findlay MSP reminds us in the media last weekend that constitutional powers have to be for a purpose – a society with social justice at its core. He makes a case for Devo-Max, the devolution of powers to the lowest possible level unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. This means that powers do not stop at Holyrood – we need to devolve power to councils, workplaces and communities.

 

Getting past the entrenched positions that many people take in Scotland over these issues is not easy. However, at least there is some constructive thinking on what the alternatives are. 

The Scottish Parliament - 20 years on

On this day (1^stJuly) in 1999, Westminster transferred powers to the new Scottish Parliament in the most significant act of devolution the UK has ever seen. 20 years on it is worth considering if the Scottish Parliament has achieved the hopes and aspirations that drove the devolution campaign and what more needs to be done. 

Articles on the 20^thAnniversary tend to fall into a rose-tinted or overly cynical commentary on the past 20 years.  For those of us used to dealing with Westminster pre-devolution, it is hard to imagine how little attention was given to Scottish issues compared with today. I, therefore, have no regrets about campaigning for devolution and I generally think it has been positive for politics and society.

However, yes you knew there would be a 'but', that doesn't put me in the rose-tinted school. A lot of attention has been given to the powers a Scottish Parliament should have, and too little on what we could do with the powers we have. Many of Scotland’s enduring challenges have been analysed, commissioned and consulted to near death, but most remain because successive governments have been too timid. 

Nearly a decade of austerity has contributed to a bunker mentality in our public services, which has thankfully been spared the marketisation and fragmentation that has caused such chaos south of the border. The notable exception has been social care, where a marketised race to the bottom has created a crisis, which the Scottish Government is only applying sticking tape solutions. 

This bunker means that there is a reluctance to look at radical solutions and meaningful change. An excellent example of this is the failure to implement key recommendations of the Christie Commission. In particular a shift to preventative spending and more localised public services. Instead, we have more centralisation coupled with a command and control model of public sector management.

The endless constitutional debate has not helped. A discussion that rarely considers where power rests in our society. Of course, London sucks in power and resources since Thatcher destroyed the UK’s manufacturing and primary industries, replacing them with trading financial instruments. However, even if Scotland were an independent country, London would continue to exert a massive influence on our economy. Ask the Danes about Germany.

There has been little effort to rebalance the Scottish economy. No industrial strategy worthy of the name and little concern about ownership. Even iconic and vital industries like whisky are controlled by boardrooms far from Scotland. Replacing the London establishment with the Edinburgh establishment isn’t going to achieve a fundamental shift in power and wealth. The Scottish Government’s progressive policies come to a grinding halt when the Scottish establishment feels threatened. Look at the response to proposed changes in Freedom of Information or lobbying legislation.

While political debate focuses on Brexit or Independence referenda, the real world problems mount up. Most of these relate to poverty and inequality. Over 6,000 children will need food parcels during the school holidays, many more are homeless living in temporary accommodation at best. More than 36,000 Scots are looking for somewhere to live. 

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the suicide rate rose 15% last year - a rate that is three times higher in disadvantaged areas. I had the odd disagreement with Kenny MacAskill when he was a minister, but he hit the nail on the head when he recently said the SNP was too focused on “identity inequality rather than wealth and land disparity”.

So, 20 years on we should celebrate the genuine achievements of the Scottish Parliament. However, we should also recognise that it has only tinkered around the edges of Scotland's enduring problems. We need to focus the powers we have to address these issues while looking at long term reform that shifts power and wealth from the few to the many. 

Defending devolution in the Brexit Bill

The Tories and SNP may well be playing with the EU Withdrawal Bill for political reasons, but there are important reasons why those who support devolution should be concerned.

The EU Withdrawal Bill heads back to the House of Commons after some serious mauling in the House of Lords. UK headlines focus on the EEA and customs union amendments, but the Clause 11 issues, relating to devolved powers, remain unresolved. This means that Holyrood is likely to withhold consent for the Bill, leaving the UK Supreme Court to rule on the competency of the Scottish Parliament's Continuity Bill.

The dispute revolves around consent for UK frameworks on powers that come back to the UK from the EU in areas of competence that are devolved. The UK government wants to retain control over 24 areas to create UK frameworks that they claim are necessary to maintain a single UK internal market. The Scottish Government doesn't dispute the need for frameworks, but argues that these must be agreed by consent because a UK veto would undermine the principles of devolution.

The original Clause 11 was opposed by almost everyone, including the Scottish Conservatives. However, they, and others, now argue that the new clause is a reasonable compromise creating a set of procedural hoops the UK government must jump through before it gets the powers it needs to make frameworks. This also means that repatriated powers in devolved areas will go to Holyrood automatically, unless Westminster specifically reserves some for a few years through regulations.

The Welsh government has signed up to this compromise and Lord Hope, who tabled, but didn't push to a vote, some helpful amendments supported by the Scottish Government, appears to partly agree. He argues that the Scotland Act was not designed for a Brexit situation, so a more subtle, pragmatic solution is required. 

The Scottish Government argues that this is a matter of principle, while the UK government argues that the Scottish Parliament cannot have a veto on UK legislation.

I think there is an important principle at stake. This includes a defence of the hugely important Dewar amendment, which embodied the principle that all powers are devolved unless they are specifically reserved. This was not the position in Wales until the 2017 Act, so I appreciate that they may not view this matter in the same way as we do in Scotland.

However, it goes wider than that. The 24 areas that the UK government wants to have its own veto over are already clearly devolved areas. The current Clause 11 would give them the power to interfere, not just with new powers coming from the EU, but existing legislation. A particular concern for me is procurement. Scottish legislation and statutory guidance may be more timid than I would wish, but it's a lot a better than anything the UK government would support. 

If this debate appears to be a bit arcane, let me give a practical example. A care worker in Scotland should receive the Scottish Living Wage thanks to our procurement rules. This could be ended by the UK Government, using Clause 11. A pay cut is not in the slightest bit arcane! 

Then there is the 'veto' argument of the Tories which claims the Scottish Government wants to extend the powers of the Scotland Act to block UK legislation. A line reinforced by the usually more sensible Tory MSP Adam Tompkins in Scotland on Sunday. This is highly misleading. Of course it is the case that s28 of the Scotland Act 1998 gives Westminster the power to legislate on Scottish matters, but the principle in the Sewell Convention, incorporated into the 2016 Act, was that they would not normally do that. 

This is not a veto on UK legislation. It just means that UK legislation would not apply in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That leaves the UK government with the option of amending their legislation to get the Scottish Parliament's consent, or excluding Scotland from the geographical scope of the Bill. 

As a consequence of devolution, we don't have a single market in many areas. If you are a UK firm trading in Scotland, you already have to deal with different rules between England and the devolved administrations. Procurement is again a good example, but there are many others. In fact, some of these pre-date devolution in Scotland. New EU powers may add to these, but it isn't a new challenge. 

So, the nationalists and the unionists may pose on constitutional principles and use the dispute to further their politcal strategies. Those who support a devolved or federal model for the UK should focus on defending the devolution settlement. There is a pragmatic solution to be found that resolves differences over UK frameworks, while respecting both parliaments. What's missing is the political will.

Batten down the hatches - it's Indyref2

There is a certain irony in the Tories arguing that demands for another independence referendum will create ‘uncertainty and division’ - when to resolve internal party squabbling they started this division with the EU referendum. To complain that the SNP has ‘tunnel vision’ about independence, is like moaning that water flows downhill – it’s what that party exists for.


Opinion polls consistently show that people living in Scotland don’t want another referendum. As John Curtice puts it:

“It is the apparent lack of enthusiasm for a second referendum amongst some supporters that is the main reason why opponents of an early second ballot are apparently in the majority.”


So it is perfectly reasonable for parties to vote against this next week. The difference, lost some Labour politicians, is that it is not appropriate for Westminster to block it - as Jeremy Corbyn has made clear.

That still leaves the issue of timing and the question or questions. On timing it seems to be a matter of either 18 months or 2 years plus of purgatory for those of us not signed up to either of the flag waving hard core groups. Like many in the centre ground of this debate, I had naively hoped that the absence of elections for a few years was an opportunity to tackle some long-term issues in Scotland.


There is a legitimate debate to be had about the question. The Scottish Government wants to go for a re-run of 2014, which gives them the positive ‘Yes’ ground. This may be the environmentally friendly recycling option for all those badges, but Westminster might have other ideas – ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ anyone?


And perhaps a second question? Last time both Alex Salmond and trade unions made the case for a second question on greater devolution. The Scottish Labour Party has recently adopted a more federal position and UK Labour is about to start its Peoples Constitutional Convention. This is much broader than just structures, addressing the redistribution of power and wealth.


I am not convinced a number of options on the ballot paper would work, but an either/or second question might. It would need a properly worked up proposal, which is pretty challenging in the available timeframe. It also needs to be truly radical – Calman, Smith etc were all missed opportunities, so another of these wont work.


After the Brexit vote, I argued that there might be two game changers for the Indyref swing voters – Scotland as the continuing EU state and a right-wing hard EU exit.


The first of those is unlikely and I suspect there will be some in the SNP who might want to fudge EU membership, to keep the many 2014 Yes voters who voted to leave the EU on board. The latter is still a possibility - Singapore on the Channel might stretch the solidarity case too far for many left wing 2014 No voters – particularly if the Labour right wing continues to undermine any chance of winning a UK election.


A big problem for the Yes/Leave camp is that largely middle-class EU Remainers are going to be more susceptible to the economic case against Independence. The economy remains a key issue and the SNP is going to have to answer these points a lot better than they did in 2014. This chart illustrates the point:

However, this could work both ways. As Jan Eichhorn from the University of Edinburgh argues:


“If leaving the EU became clearly associated with expectations of an economic downturn, the economic risks about Scottish independence might be re-evaluated by some. Conversely, if Brexit came to be seen as an opportunity for future economic prospects, Scottish views could shift in favour of the union.”


So, batten down the hatches for months of process haggling, followed by many more of ‘Project Fear’ v ‘Project Pollyanna’. Hold me back!

Scotland needs economic as well as political power

While political structures are important, what really matters is the distribution of wealth and power.

The Scottish Labour Party conference tomorrow will debate a motion on federalism that takes Labour much further than it has ever gone before in devolving political power away from London. The Scottish Government may soon fire the starting pistol for another referendum on independence. Both of these developments are obviously important, but they mean little if we don't also address economic structures.

The UK constitutional convention called for in the motion to the Scottish Labour Party conference is the brain child of Jon Trickett MP. He was in Glasgow last Friday, addressing trade unions on how he wants to take the convention forward, drawing his inspiration from the constitutional convention that drove the devolution agenda in Scotland, rather the more usual government commission. 

He said:

"In my mind, our socialism requires three things:

1. a federal solution for Britain which breaks up the centralised power of the British Westminster elite and hands decision making about local matters to local people;
2. redistribution of wealth and power so that we can rebuild a socially just country based on a strong economy in every region and nation and not just in a few affluent areas;
3. the cooperation and solidarity between all the parts of the country which will mean the pooling of common resources to make sure that there is more equity.

So this is why the Labour Party is committed to a constitutional convention. It’s because the political structures aren’t working any more. Instead, they have been a primary factor in the long-term decline of areas outside of London and the South."

However, his key point comes in this paragraph:

"Political reform is necessary. But it is not sufficient to solve our problems. As I’ve said, it does not change the economic structures which have allowed our regions and nations to be left behind.

We cannot solve this problem with just more devolution of political power on its own because we also need fundamental change to the way our economy works."

The Red Paper Collective has expanded on these themes in their latest publication on Progressive Federalism. Jon's introductory chapter builds on his theme of addressing economic power. My chapter 'Scotland is not our local' makes the case for double devolution of power from Westminster to local communities, something Jon Trickett reinforced in his Glasgow speech. John Foster shows just how little economic power resides in Scotland. Even the small foothold we had has largely disappeared since 2005 as the table below shows.

Other authors show how much more we could achieve if we focused on taking democratic control of our economy, developing a real industrial strategy, including energy and renewables.  Using taxation powers to build a better education system and other public services. And finally, using the powers that should be devolved post-Brexit as an opportunity for radical reform.

The bottom line is when we focus simply on political structures, we are missing the bigger picture. Unless we challenge the economic structures that control Scotland's economy - political structures; independence, federalism or unionism, will count for very little. That's why a wider look at power through a constitutional convention is a meaningful initiative.

You can discuss these issues at the Revitalise/Red Paper conference fringe meeting on Saturday 25th February at The Royal George Hotel, Perth, starting at 12:30pm.

Taking the case for federalism forward

A few months ago I wrote that federalism, a bit like my wardrobe, was coming back into fashion. Well, my wardrobe is still struggling, but yesterday Kez Dugdale took the journey towards federalism a step closer with her speech to the IPPR.

Labour, at both Scottish and UK levels, faces a potential squeeze as voters take a binary position on constitutional issues - nationalist v unionist and/or Brexit v Remain. Complicated in Scotland by the significant cross over between these camps. Neither should be the focus of a socialist party, but the choice is to ignore it and hope politics as normal will return, or face up to reality and adopt a credible position.

It is tempting just to say that the Scottish Government should get on with the day job, as Bill Jamieson does in a classic rant in today’s Scotsman. I could add that it is quite extraordinary that only one Bill has been introduced to the Scottish Parliament in the six months since the election. Nonetheless, we have to accept that voters are viewing issues through the prism of constitutional issues and as Labour’s own research shows, there is an appetite for a distinctive Labour position that is neither unionist nor nationalist.

In Scotland, there has been some criticism that Scottish Labour hasn't articulated a position after the Scottish Parliament election strategy of ignoring the constitution failed. The Deputy Leader, Alex Rowley, has been promoting a discussion, but this is often wrongly branded as some sort of leadership challenge to Kez Dugdale. Anyone who knows Alex knows full well that this is absurd. Others such as the Red Paper Collective have also been articulating the case for progressive federalism.

Yesterday, Kez attempted to set out the beginnings of a Scottish Labour response. This was deliberately done in London, which puts the initiative in the context of the U.K. Labour initiative, led by John Trickett MP, looking at power across the UK. This hasn't made the progress many of us would have wished, due to the entirely unnecessary and damaging distraction of the UK leadership contest this summer.

This is important because whichever way we cut the constitutional powers, we have to address other power relationships. The power of corporations, the City of London, the growing wages gap and broader inequality. Scotland is not immune from these power structures, even under independence.

A new Act of Union is a clever presentational way of addressing the issue, even if I can hear the groans from our law school professors! It also recognises that federalism in England, has to be a matter for those living in England. The UK is an asymmetric state which makes true federalism challenging. It’s why I personally prefer Home Rule, using its proper historical meaning.

Brexit is an opportunity to rethink devolved powers. The Smith Commission focused on fiscal arrangements, but it was too timid on other powers. I was therefore particularly pleased to see the commitment to devolving employment rights, something that has broad trade union support in Scotland.

I am personally open to a range of constitutional options in response to Brexit and the wider political crisis. Home Rule or federalism is certainly one of those and deserves to be properly articulated. It might also encourage those who support other solutions to up their game.

Yesterday, Kez signposted a way forward for that debate and the initiative should be welcomed as part of new political strategy. For those who point to gaps, I would say it was a speech, not a policy document. This approach also leaves room for a detailed discussion in the run up to next year’s party conference.