Scottish Devolution / British Federalism

[Fuzzly Bear]

what you fuckers think

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...s-reinvent

The river Ness flows deep, wide and irresistible through the town where the Scottish National party is gathered in conference this week. It's hard not to see Inverness's fast-flowing river as a metaphor for the party's cause. The SNP currently carries all Scotland before it. It is a political force of nature. Like the river, it seems unstoppable.

Scotland's political wiseacres have learned to button their mouths rather than try to predict how or when the SNP ascendancy will end. Most of them called it wrong in 2007 when the SNP squeaked home to form devolved Scotland's first minority nationalist government. Many got it wrong this year too, when the SNP destroyed the other parties to become the single-party majority administration that devolution was supposed to make impossible.

Taken by surprise twice, pundits naturally hedge their bets now on the question that looms behind everything the SNP does. In the past, Scottish polls have consistently shown a decisive majority against independence, the cause for which the party exists. Indeed the newly published Scottish Social Attitudes survey, conducted late last year, has support for independence at only 23%, a figure which the detailed polling briefing which the SNP handed out to journalists in Inverness on Thursday somehow omitted to mention. There remains no evidence of a big shift of opinion towards independence. But the SNP's successes have intimidated their opponents and observers into believing that anything is possible.

This suspension of rational judgment does not extend to the SNP leader himself, however. Opening the conference, Alex Salmond insisted on Thursday that his party has "all the momentum in Scottish politics as we build towards the independence referendum". But the building process is very slow. If Salmond thought he could win the vote, he would call it. The fact that he doesn't, in spite of his party's momentum, is proof that he does not think he can win it. Indeed Salmond may well choose to wait until 2016, in the despairing hope that an outright Conservative win at Westminster in 2015 might tempt more Scots to abandon the union.

So claims that the UK is about to fall apart because of a fundamental shift in Scottish opinion make exciting copy but are still very premature. A lot of water will flow under the Ness bridge before that happens. That's precisely why Salmond has again hedged his bets by suggesting to the Guardian last week that Scots could face a two-part referendum when the time comes – one part on independence and the other part on the so-called "devo max" or "independence lite" option, devolving all tax and spending powers to Edinburgh, and leaving the UK in charge of foreign affairs and defence. Polls show this option would have a real chance of winning a majority – paradoxically, SNP government seems to increase voter support for devolution rather than independence – enabling Salmond to snatch a substantial victory out of the jaws of defeat.

By any standards, this is an audacious move. Underlying it is the belief that in the current torpid state of Scottish party politics, the SNP can be not only the party of separation but also the party of federalism, with the other three main parties all cast as either the unionist parties, defending the past, or the minimalist parties, defending the cautious incrementalism of the Calman report and the government's current Scotland bill.

The big question, therefore, is not whether Scotland would vote for independence. It is whether the SNP can also become the principal standard-bearer of the more thoroughly devolved Scotland that a majority of Scots actually want. If this happens, the SNP will have cornered the market. But will their rivals allow it to happen? One or more of the SNP's opponents need to reinvent and modernise themselves to mount an effective challenge to the SNP's heads-we-win, tails-you-lose strategy. There is ample space for a counter-attack to prosper. Whether it does is another matter.

The key here is the Labour party. For all its weakness, only Labour retains the potential to contest the SNP's ownership of devo max. There are some signs this may be happening. Scottish Labour is about to complete its own quiet and long overdue devolution from the UK party, while respected figures like Henry McLeish and Malcolm Chisholm have pressed for a positive Labour response to devo max. But the most substantial move of all was made by Douglas Alexander in his Williamson lecture last week. Speaking in Stirling, the shadow foreign secretary called on his party to refocus on "the future possibilities for Scotland not the past wrongs done to Scotland". There may have been no explicit mention of a Labour devo max strategy in the speech, but this nevertheless was its implication.

All these stirrings may enable Labour to become an electorally viable alternative to the SNP. But this is not a given. It is extraordinary that the party of independence is also seeking to trade as the party of devolution. But as long as this remains the case, the SNP will be able to play both sides against one another, making the argument – as Salmond did again in Inverness on energy policy yesterday – that devolved Scotland is constantly held back by London, where most of Labour's focus still remains.

There is much work to do before Labour, let alone the Lib Dems or the Conservatives, can make a pro-union, devo-max strategy sing as Alexander seems to want. For one thing, the content of devo max urgently needs clarifying on major issues such as fiscal policy and welfare entitlements. And if devo max works for Scotland, should it not be promoted for Wales and England too – with major federalist implications for the UK? There is plenty of heat on the subject in the Scottish blogs. The Institute for Public Policy Research is starting to explore these matters more dispassionately and in depth too. It is all urgent.

Looked at from the perspective of the SNP in Inverness, all this can easily be dismissed as flailing and unavailing efforts to catch up. The SNP commands the field. It is fascinatingly vibrant. But devo max is on the agenda because, in the end, voters don't really want the breakup of the UK that the SNP exists to achieve. That's a huge opening for the SNP's opponents, if they can get their minds out of neutral and decide what kind of new power relationships they want in these islands and how they want to get them. Until they do this, the nationalist tide will run as strongly as the river outside the conference hall.






GIVE THESE FUCKERS SOMETHING NEW!

[1871]

The only mystery to everyone is why the Scots, unlike the Irish, have not chosen independence already. The money argument? Scots independence is still THE most important issue in British politics. Regardless of the left/right issue - and I anticipate some usual insults to follow esp. from the Scots - Alex Salmond is still the shrewdest British politicianabout. Predictable moans of 'tories in kilts' are TRUE for sure - but just consider the 'old firm' divisions between catholic and protestant and Salmond gets both votes by his friendship with Prince Charles. Yes -to hell with em both, but merely from a pragmatic , strategic view of getting the right to vote SNP - its pretty damn smart.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

So I don't get it, is Scotland like the Puerto Rico of Britain?

[1871]

England has a massive, ethnically mixed population - perhaps more mixed than any in the world, people live side by side - its quite densely populated.

Scotland is more sparsely populated though it also has urban connabations too - like Glasgow, Edinburgh. Aberdeen etc eyc. Scotland is supported by English taxpayers - though the Scots wont like me sayong that - its true. Scotland has quite a bit of advanced economic service sectors - the financial sector in Scotland has a lot of top people- but Scotland is smaller I suppose - nowhere near as small as Puerto Rico.
Scotland has strong ties to the monarchy so its not just a case of Braveheart - since although they dont like the Tories they are still quite a conservative (with a small 'c' people}.

Scots settled Ulster (Northern Ireland) so the two peoples are closely related and have ORANGE hair.

The Scots are good at fighting and drinking. They have also traditionally been excellent engineers, architects, artists, writers and scientists -historically leading the world in all these areas.

Despite this, or more accurately BECAUSE of it, their strongest export to date has been Glenfiddich whisky and Rab C Nesbitt - who should have been their Prime Minister yyears ago except the Scots were too mean to give him the necessary mandate politically.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

So why isn't Scotland just considered Britain? Like, why is there even still a Scotland, why don't they just merge.

[1871]

Scotland is considered Britain but historically the Scots werent really Britons.

When the Romans invaded they built two walls right across the country caleld the ANTONINE WALL and HADRIANS WALL.


Within this there was a kind of walled state with the Highland?Caledonian tribes to the north and the lowland tribes (who also populated Wales) such as the VOTADINI to the south. So although they were initially related they were seperate and developed seperately.

constantine who created the Roman Catholic church fought in that walled state region against the Scots.

When the Romans keft to defend Rome they took most of the British men also As Rome was declining tad employed in the Roman federation army who were stationed in Britain took advantage of the situation.

They were initially employed by a King called Vortigern to defend against Scots who breached the wall and fought the lowland tribes. The foederati (federation) soldiers were from Scandinavia and Germany angles d brought their relatives over to settle in Britain - they were Angles and Saxons and from them the English descended. These soldiers initially employed by King Vortigern then started demanduing payments - it was a typical protection money situation. Vortigerns son Vortimer fought the Saxons. Vortigern and his leaders met the Saxons for a peace treaty but were betrayed and slaughtered by the Saxons.

The Highland Scots moved south to conquer lands of lowland Scotland
and hence the nation of Scotland came into being.

The Saxons in ever increasing numbers inaded from the East slaughtering their way eastward.

The Britons (mainly women,children,old people) fled from the lowland areas and the east. westward towards what is today Wales. They were either slaughtered or hid in caves and woods and fled into stronghollds that had initially been created many years before by the Romans as a military strategy (which proved useful) in the stronghold of the mountains of Snowdonia in north Wales where Vortigern had fled.

Vortigern gave the kingship to a young boy who prophesied that the Saxons would be defeated by a red dragon.

There was a boy called Ambrosius - described as 'the last of the Romans' whose family had been massacred by the Saxons.

The British rallied under his leadership the flag of the red dragon (a Roman battle standard) which today is the national flag of Wales - 'Waelas' means 'foriegner' in English/Saxon. Over the years and decades intermittent war occured. Ambrosiuses younger protoge is said by accounts of the monk Nennius was ualled Arthur - defeated the Saxon advance at the battle of Badon






This settled the border at least between Wales and England but gradually the Saxons conquered most of the lands up to Wales.

King Alfred the Great - 871-899 a Saxon was an elightened man and a peace developed.

In 1066 the Normans from France invaded - they defeated the Saxons at the battle of Hastings In what is known as the 'harrowing of the north' the Normans killed 100,000 Anglo Saxons. Most of the upper class in Britain can trace their ancestry back to the Normans who further defined the class system even more than their predecessors. Tthere was a long process of colonisation and attempted genoicide which was resisted in warfare through the centuries. The English never captured
the Welsh resistance leader Owain Glyndywr for instance but did their best to dominate the culture and colonise where they could - but obviously not entirely.


As for Scotland - see the film Braveheart - people can moan about little details like the battle of Stirling bridge but its fairly good on history.

I;m sure Hamish and Sean can describe events such as Robert the Bruce, Culloden the Act of Union (UK) better than myself (?).

Over the years there were English Kings of Britain, Scots kings of Britain, Welsh Kings of Britain (the Tudors / Henry 8th were Welsh).
and d King George never spoke a word of English he was German I think.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

Wait a second, so the British all more or less descended from Germans and Norweigens?

[ClichéGuevara]

We don't want independence. Salmond's a twat. The bargaining power he gains over Westminster from going on about independence is the only reason why Scotland remains relatively untouched by cuts.

Only advantage is no more tories. Lets face it, no sane Scot would vote conservative.

It's weird, when I was at Abertay Uni there was a debate about Scottish independence. 56% voted against it, which was the majority. Then after some discussion we voted again and 58% didn't want independence. The 2% rise confused me because those who debated for independence made a much better case than those who voted against it.

And yes, Britons, excluding the Welsh, are descendants of Germanic settlers.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

Well why is it that most Scottish don't want independence? It would seem to me the most sensible thing and in their benefit, unless Scotland would be poor and destitute without the aid of Britain which i'm not too sure is the case.

[ClichéGuevara]

None of us care tbh. We have the most devolved parliament out of the 4 nations in Britain, we have our own sterling, our quality of life is decent enough. There's really no reason for us to care enough (except silly patriots who think Braveheart was an outstanding movie)

[1871]

(10-21-2011 10:23 PM)Sean Wrote:  None of us care tbh. We have the most devolved parliament out of the 4 nations in Britain, we have our own sterling, our quality of life is decent enough. There's really no reason for us to care enough (except silly patriots who think Braveheart was an outstanding movie)

If that had any validity at all as an opinion the SNP would not have made the electoral gains it has.#

The 'none of us care' are gutless Scots too cowardly to get their oswn independence - as a result you as Scots are ruled.

People like that are pissed on.

---

(10-21-2011 10:23 PM)Sean Wrote:  None of us care tbh. We have the most devolved parliament out of the 4 nations in Britain, we have our own sterling, our quality of life is decent enough. There's really no reason for us to care enough (except silly patriots who think Braveheart was an outstanding movie)

If that had any validity at all as an opinion the SNP would not have made the electoral gains it has.#

The 'none of us care' are gutless Scots too cowardly to get their oswn independence - as a result you as Scots are ruled.

People like that are pissed on.

[ClichéGuevara]

Yup, the English dude who knows more. Can't say I'm surprised.