Goldie’s devolutionist shift belies Cameron’s unionist talk

Comments

8 responses to “Goldie’s devolutionist shift belies Cameron’s unionist talk”

1. 

   Anonymous

   December 10, 2007

   Cameron comes north of the Border for a one day whistlestop tour and tells everyone that the English like being British. As Harry Hill would say, “What’s it all about eh?”
   As I said before in, “Brown’s three stooges at Holyrood”, Annabel Goldie made a serious error in giving Wendy Alexander a vote of confidence in the Scottish Parliament.
   Annabel Goldie had several options to deal with the Labour motion for a commission to examine more powers for devolution.
   1. The Conservatives could have voted against it as the independence option should also be considered by any parliamentary commission in the interests of fairness. (Not a very likely scenario…)
   2. The Conservatives could have voted against it as devolution had gone far enough.
   4. The Conservatives could also have simply abstained, the vote would have gone through anyway with Labour and Lib-Dem support but the Conservatives would not have given Ms. Alexander a vote of confidence.
   But Annabel Goldie chose to support the motion for more powers and give Labour and Wendy Alexander a vote of confidence.
   This has pulled the Conservatives firmly into a tri-partite anti-SNP alliance and given a major boost to the scandal beset Labour party. The item on tonight’s Scottish News about David Cameron’s visit had a reference to the commission vote and a shot of Alexander, Goldie and Stephen chatting cosily round a table, exactly the image that David Cameron hoped his visit would allay.
   There seems to be a misunderstanding in England about the true purpose of devolution. Devolution is all about saving the Union, not trying to break it. “Goldie’s devolutionist shift” does not contradict, “Cameron’s unionist talk”. The Conservative blunder was not that they supported devolution and by definition the Union, it’s that they are now seen as a Labour ally and have turned a blind eye to the dodgy donations and sleaze in the Labour party.
   The speech and the visit had a hurried air about them and it was more of a firefighting exercise than a planned campaign. David Cameron’s visit was to show support to Annabel Goldie and to shore up her support in Scotland after her vote of confidence blunder.
   There are two ways in which this blunder will play itself out.
   One will be that the Parliamentary commission participants will work well together and reinforce the idea that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are in an alliance. This will force David Cameron to make repeated cross border forays to try and separate the Conservatives from Labour in Scotland.
   The other will be watching as the commission falls apart as Goldie causes trouble or pulls out in an effort to demonstrate that the Conservatives are not really in an alliance with Labour and the Lib-Dems.
   And what about the Lib-Dems? The only party that the Lib-Dems will form a coalition with is Labour so Junior Labour will do anything to save their beloved Union and spite the SNP in the hope that Labour gets back into power in Scotland

   Reply
2. 

   DougtheDug

   December 10, 2007

   1,2,3
   If I could count I’d be dangerous.
   The perils of cutting and pasting.

   Reply
3. 

   M Anderson

   December 11, 2007

   “My Unionism goes very deep.”
   Oh for god’s sake, the idiot sounds just like moron Brown! How deep does it go then Cameron? To the scottish blood in your veins no doubt! I dont know who is worse, the new labour bullshitter or the tory one.
   Perhaps Cameron’s most significant comment was on English votes for English laws:
   “It is not one of my top five issues. But this is something I would like to sort out. It would help add to constitutional stability and it needs to be done in a careful way. We haven’t decided what path to go down, but the Rifkind plan does not create two classes of MP. It is no good saying that the answer to the West Lothian Question is to stop asking it. We will at the next election be putting forward a plan for dealing with this issue.”
   Just like I thought. More stalling, stalling, stalling by stooge bastard cameron! The idiots are obviously all in it together.
   “We will at the next election be putting forward a plan for dealing with this issue.”
   So how come it isnt getting dealt with NOW mr stalling stooge? It’s because stooge bastard cameron has no intention of dealing with the issue that’s why. If he thinks he’s going to be uk pm without the votes of the English he’s fuckin’ potty, but than maybe that’s the whole point. I suppose he’ll use those bent voting machines!

   Reply
4. 

   Alex Buchan

   December 12, 2007

   “One will be that the Parliamentary commission participants will work well together and reinforce the idea that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are in an alliance. This will force David Cameron to make repeated cross border forays to try and separate the Conservatives from Labour in Scotland.”
   Doug
   Cameron’s speech and interview for the Telegraph didn’t sound to me as if he was putting distance between himself and Brown. I think when the Tories shoot themselves in the foot by supporting a lame duck Wendy Alexander, saying its all part of a long-term strategy, we need to take that statement a little more seriously. What they are clearly about is building a unionist consensus around how best to stop the SNP. This initiative was preceded by consultations between Wendy Alexander and ministers in London. This is not some maverick move on the part of panicking Scottish politicians but the start of a fight back by the British State.
   It doesn’t take much intelligence to realise that it looks much better, in the present climate, if the Scots look as if they are in the driving seat on this rather than it being perceived as something dictated by London. Make no mistake none of those involved in Scotland are acting independently of the party leadership in London, if only because any recommendations will need to legislated through Westminster.
   I would not be surprised if this Scottish initiative led eventually to consensus between the Tories and NuLabour on changes at Westminster on dealing with English legislation. It seems they have all finally realised how dangerous the situation has became. I think Cameron’s words in this speech should be taken as paving the way for a new approach to this issue by the Tories.
   I would expect the London end of this long term strategy will manifest in renewed efforts to reach consensus on a way forward that, as well as some English only votes, could involve a new role for the House of Lords and even a written constitution. All, as different means of binding Scotland constitutionally into the UK, just as Catalonia and the Basque Country are constitutionally bound into an indissoluble Spain.
   What Cameron is in essence saying is that the constitution is not going to be where he defines the Tories against NuLabour, because the union is too important to the British establishment. See this link, for instance, on why it is very difficult, if not impossible, for Trident to be relocated from Faslane.
   http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol09/91/91walk.pdf
   Its not difficult to see why there is this sudden shyness on the part of the main parties in picking fights over devolution.

   Reply
5. 

   Tom Griffin

   December 12, 2007

   I agree that the both Labour and the Tories are embracing further devolution in the hope of strengthening the union, but it is a very high-risk approach in that risks playing into the hands of the SNP. I’m not sure there’s an obvious alternative though.
   Alex,
   that link is very interesting. Trident also has implications for Ireland because of the issue of control of the North Channel.

   Reply
6. 

   Alex Buchan

   December 12, 2007

   I don’t know if the commision will come up with a scheme that will embrace meaningful further devolution, it may be more of a tidying up exercise, given that it will have to consider Scotland’s place within the union. If the new powers are over raising taxes, as an alternative to the Barnett Formula, this could be presented as more powers. But its quite easy to see a senario where the SNP government couldn’t accept these, because it would almost certainly stop short of Scotland varying corporation tax or having access to oil revenues. Wendy Alexander has also spoken of some powers going back to London and this could be very controversial if it included powers linked to policing and combating terrorism.
   The bottom line is that the unionist parties form a majority at Westminster and at Holyrood. The SNP can huff and puff, but, if it hasn’t built up enough support with the wider Scottish public for its vision it will lose control of the agenda. The unionist parties, backed by the unionist press in Scotland, will accuse it of being doctrinaire and of being an obstacle to progress. This shows the difference with Ireland where nationalist support was diffuse and overwhelming. Ultimately the unionist know that in confusing the issue and dragging things out, with time things might move in their direction
   Rereading Cameron’s speech in Edinburgh, its possible to read into it a attempt to seize the initiative on saving the union from Brown in order to gain credit amongst those in the electorate who support the union. The problem with this is that unlike the 1992 general election, where Major is seen to have done well in championing the union, English sentiments have changes. With England no longer quietly dominating the union, many now see it as a conspiracy against English interests. This is the real revelation of the last few years. That which seemed imperturbable was only so as long as it was able to act as a vehicle for English ideas of political and cultural greatness. With England now perceived as the under dog it can no longer fulfil that function.
   Cameron and Brown’s attempts to build support for their parties through appealing to latent unionism may prove to be out of step with the times.

   Reply
7. 

   Alex Buchan

   December 14, 2007

   I don’t know if the Prime Minister gets time to read this blog but you would think he had from this clip from the Glasgow Herald today:
   “At his first appearance before the Commons liaison committee, made up of senior MPs, the Prime Minister was asked by Frank Doran, Labour MP for Aberdeen North, about his view on the calls for more powers for the Scottish Parliament in light of the constitutional convention proposed by Wendy Alexander, leader of the Labour group in Edinburgh.
   No-one, Mr Doran pointed out, seemed to be arguing for the “status quo”. Mr Brown appeared to sidestep the issue, declaring that while the debate on extra powers was “inevitable”, it all depended on what was meant, stressing that it was possible to “tidy up” matters in different ways.
   However, his most telling comment came when he felt the need to remind colleagues: “Sometimes people have forgotten this is devolution, this is not a form of federalism.””

   Reply
8. 

   Keith McBurney

   December 20, 2007

   Would not Confederation still tick all boxes? As the antithesis of de-facto federal power devolved being power retained to divide and rule, Confederation accommodates both pro-Independence and pro-Union preferences. And that is the difference that could make all the difference following the outcomes of the next round of parliamentary/assembly elections.

   Reply