Lesley Riddoch: The question of max importance
There must be more than one option on the ballot paper or we cannot show what we want
Independence or the status quo are not the only options we should be thinking about or debating
DO Scots want to raise all our own taxes? Are we ready to stop taking a share of the tax collected across the UK and rely instead on what we raise solely from our own economic activity? Do we want to reverse the flow of power and pay the UK for “shared services” from our own cash instead of waiting for the annual Westminster handout? Are we ready to assert all rights over North Sea oil and gas in the Scottish sector and pay London for use of the National Grid and an agreed sum for its initial investment? Is the Scottish tail sufficiently active, willing and well-developed to wag the Westminster dog?
These are not just tough questions for Scottish independence – they also apply to the increasingly discussed “third option” of devo plus, devo max and independence lite. Devo max as a middle-ground option has been proposed as a second question for the referendum ballot paper – and for many it will seem cuddlier, safer and easier than “full-blown” independence. Option B always does. But any change to the status quo that’s worth the candle must tackle the central problem of devolution identified by supporters and critics alike – the lack of control and lack of responsibility inherent in the current passive funding arrangements.
Continuing to bite the hand that feeds may be possible but it isn’t viable or desirable – and in this respect alone, the hammer of the Scots, Kelvin McKenzie, is quite right. Scots can’t continue to have our cake and eat it. The Holyrood election result and the referendum stooshie mean the Scottish Government has left the station and embarked on a journey away from the passive “pocket money” model of funding – it’s a bit late now for the Scottish public to decide it wants to get off. Not without a massive loss of self respect and momentum.
So it’s time to start “unpacking” devo max. And if the two political parties who ought to provide leadership continue to resist that challenge, civic society will have to conduct, fund and arrange the process ourselves.
The idea we can discuss Scotland’s future for two and a half years without seriously considering any constitutional arrangements bar the two “extremes” – independence and the status quo – is ludicrous. The very difficulty of finding a suitable form of words for devo max demonstrates exactly why it must appear as a referendum question. Without the forensic scrutiny that inclusion on the ballot paper brings, devo max will remain a tempting but fuzzy alternative and will prompt an epidemic of proxy voting in the “clarity-providing” single question referendum.
Some folk will vote no to independence in the belief a fallback position will be along soon – there’s no evidence it will. Others will vote yes on the basis devo max has evidently not been embraced by any other political party and thus (whilst being their preferred option) has no chance of enactment in their lifetimes. Such an outcome may deliver statistical “clarity”. The collective will of the Scottish people will remain as clear as mud.
Once parked, the debate about Scotland’s future will disappear from the Westminster political scene as completely as AV after referendum failure. Those political parties who haven’t the energy to define their own policy now won’t be racing to tackle it later.
With some political courage it could so easily be otherwise. The core platform of modern Liberalism is the establishment of a federal Britain, a written constitution, Bill of Rights and abolition of the House of Lords. Those objectives come closer for the rest of the UK with Scottish independence or devo max – why then do we hear no consideration of possible benefits from British Lib Dems? Naturally every political party prefers to prosecute their own strategy – but events, dear boy, events. Any political party worth its salt can adapt to changing circumstance to get its policies adopted. Will the UK have to become completely immobilised by the old-fashioned, top-down, London-centric, community-phobic status quo before Lib Dems spell out their vision of a modern, European, fully devolved British state?
Labour’s failure to grasp the thistle is also shameful. They are the architects of devolution. Elsewhere in Europe, Social Democrats have also been the architects of independence. I say that not to suggest Scottish Labour should blindly copy anyone, but simply to suggest that taking the lead in forming federal, independent or highly devolved political structures should not be regarded as beyond Labour’s ken.
There are of course reasons why it’s hard for any party but the SNP to inhabit the political no-man’s land that lies just beyond the current devolution settlement – and not just because they’ve planted a huge Saltire centre stage.
Britain has been such a heavily centralised, top down society for so long that it’s almost unthinkable to turn the funding stream around.
Local government gets the lion’s share of its cash from Holyrood in just such a “there you go, wee man” way as Holyrood is funded by Westminster. Since the Scottish Parliament was partly devised as a large parish council that’s no surprise.
It’s not the norm. Independent, federal or highly devolved neighbours tend also to have extremely powerful and very local government quite unlike the remote, bureaucratic and politically emasculated councils we have had in Britain. In Sweden, for example, no citizen pays any tax to central government unless they earn more than £35k. Their tax is paid exclusively to the local council (average size 12,500 against 165,000 in Scotland) which then pays “upwards” for any central government services. Higher rate tax payers and corporation tax finance central government.
Grassroots or “bottom up” funding from the local to the national level is normal across Europe. But it’s new for us.
That’s precisely why the “local” level functions so badly in British society and precisely why constitutional change for Scotland could offer radical possibilities beyond the single option of independence for Scotland… and Britain.
The big step change for Scots now is to raise and spend from our own tax-base. Do we want to do that? Do we want do that within the UK? Do we want to do that solo? These are the real options facing us. Can we have a referendum that frames up the lot of them, please?
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 24 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
derekafarmer
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 07:14 AMPost 19 Get your facts right. Federalism works in Canada and the US under a single controlling government, with local control of individual states. I know, because I have lived there. In fact the example you quote is exactly what we have at the moment in UK. !!! If salmondella wants to try for more fiscal power for Scotland, then he should try for it on the basis of bilateral debate at Westminster. A referendum isn't needed
derekafarmer
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 07:07 AMWhy does "Irish-Les" not simply admit her biased agenda and stop hiding behind any semblance of balanced comment ? It would be good, also, if she could contribute to the debate by researching some facts instead of, like Ms Sturgeon, pushing her own mad opinions backed up by nothing more than supposition and wild emotion. Sorry, Leslie. But your biased outpourings are unhelpful. By the way, can you tell us please if you are a member of the SNP ?
Kobi
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM"The idea we can discuss Scotland’s future for two and a half years without seriously considering any constitutional arrangements bar the two “extremes” – independence and the status quo – is ludicrous." Good. So Riddoch is now in favour of having the option of abolishing the Scottish Parliament on the referendum ballot paper. Many Scots would vote for that. Or (more likely) is Riddoch saying that only the options that she personally likes should be on the ballot paper?
florian albert
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 09:23 PMLesley Riddoch has no right to set herself up as a spokesperson for 'civic society.' To presume to do so is the height of arrogance. She demands that a third option 'must appear' on the ballot paper, so that we can be offered 'radical possibilities.' More arrogance. I do not find much to admire in Scotland's politicians but they do put themselves up for election.
Faceless_bureaucrat
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 06:50 PM"DO Scots want to raise all our own taxes? " - stop,stop,stop. Wrong in the first sentence. This woman was born in Wolverhampton, went to school in northern ireland and went to university in Wales. So ms Riddoch , you are not a Scot, stop pretending.
Anagach
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM16 Scotorum Malleus Cameron should make it plain that Devo Max is not on the table. If you want a divorce from the rest of the UK, that's fair enough - but any partner who would let you carry on living under the same roof in some sort of "open relationship" would want hisher head testing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, federalism doesn't work, except in the USA, and Germany, and also Australia, and I guess Canada, and...
Biscuit McVittie
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 05:23 PMCan anyone produce a proper definition of devo-max? It’s clear that Riddoch can’t. Is it federalism by another name? If so, does that not involve all the constituent components of the UK and not just Scotland? So far I’ve learnt that devo-max is a term used simply to confuse the people of Scotland, it’s like that tinfoil they used to throw out of planes to confound the enemy radar.
Yet Another Party Sockpuppet
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 04:20 PMWardog, do you think the "No" side came down with the last shower of rain? Salmond is a chancer.
Scotorum Malleus
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 04:06 PMCameron should make it plain that Devo Max is not on the table. If you want a divorce from the rest of the UK, that's fair enough - but any partner who would let you carry on living under the same roof in some sort of "open relationship" would want hisher head testing.
Soixante-neuf
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 03:31 PM"It's time for the Devo-Max supporters to get together and push for that option to be on the ballot paper. It's what the majority of people in Scotland want." ================================================== That's all very well, and you have my sympathy, but how do you get what you want if the people in power don't want to give it to you? You can vote for sun in July all you want, but how do you plan on delivering it? You guys seem to think that all you have to do is to get a 70% vote for something in a referendum, and Westminster is duty bound to give it to you. ================================================== Wake up and smell the coffee. There is NO WAY either a Tory or a Labour government at Westminster is going to pass legislation to allow Scotland full fiscal autonomy. Look at what happened to the Calman commission proposals. You can vote for it all you like, but it isn't going to happen. ================================================== It's likely that we have more or less all the devolution Westminster is going to allow. In fact, if independence loses in the referendum, Westminster may well try seriously to remove some devolved powers it finds inconvenient. You have to decide, are you willing to settle for this, or do you want to vote for independence? Because that's the real choice. Other offers not backed up by signed promises from the Westminster parties are an intentional distraction.
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 03:28 PMSo Ms Riddoch would it not be beneficial to the reader if you explained your media company has contracts with marine renewable interests and NHS24. Of course any connection with your tub thumping article, the nationalist incumbents and your business interests are merely coincidence.
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 03:12 PM10 well informed ==================================================== Britain has a mixture of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to refer to Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one.
Ron Greer
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:47 PM1 Salmond is indeed very cunning---swapping Devo-max for retention of the Trident Berth and a windfarm colony ( maybe strategic water supply too) might be his actual goal.
peter58
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:30 PMWardog, you makes I larf! Begging and pleading for Labour to come to your assistance makes you very silly. I listened intently to Lesley Riddoch and Joyce McMillan push this line yesterday - forgetting to add that the referendum is essentially to decide if Scotland remains in the Union or not. The terms of Union - which is what you are desperate to get onto the agenda - are a secondary issue solved esasily by the passing of the current Scotland Bill in its present form to provide you with a definitive answer and thus making redundant a second question.
well informed
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:19 PM6 So in your spare time you write constitutional law on blogs?
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.