Ewan Crawford: You can only judge a voice if it speaks the truth

THE upcoming vote on independence can make for some strange bedfellows in the world of politics

Reading the article by the former Liberal leader, Lord Steel, in yesterday’s Scotsman the new BBC talent show, The Voice, came to my mind.

In the show, singers are assessed purely on their vocal talent. The big gimmick is that Sir Tom Jones and his fellow judges do not see the performers until after they’ve made a judgment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In The Voice (Scottish Politics Version) the twist would be to read most of the content of an article and work out which side of the independence debate the author was likely to lean towards, without knowing party affiliation.

The piece by Lord Steel yesterday included references to the need for the Scottish Parliament to raise most of its money. Indeed, he referred wistfully to Chancellor George Osborne’s recent budget statement as an example of the vibrant atmosphere required of the legislature here.

He went on to bemoan (accurately) the culture of grievance between Edinburgh and Westminster because the Scottish Parliament’s money is decided by politicians in London.

The former presiding officer directed his remarks at those of us “seeking a stable, long-term, mature relationship between Holyrood and Westminster”.

The judges at this point, unaware of the writer’s identity, would surely be in no doubt – here was someone at the very least sympathetic towards the independence position.

Except that I’ve missed three crucial words from the quote above. Lord Steel was talking about a relationship “within the UK”.

But these words are only important if the apocalyptic language of “separation” and “tearing Scotland out of Britain” ring true.

Clearly an independent Scottish government would have a very close relationship with the government of the remaining UK. The links between the peoples of the British Isles would endure and hopefully be strengthened if the grievance culture was removed.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

So it is difficult to see why there should be such hostility from supporters of Devo Plus (like Lord Steel) towards independence, unless they believe their own over-blown rhetoric about the non-existent barriers that would exist in the event of a Yes vote.

Certainly it seems odd to say the least, that supporters of transferring most tax powers to Holyrood should see Conservatives such as Ruth Davidson, who has declared a line in the sand against any further devolution of powers, as their natural partners in the constitutional debate.

There is, of course, one major difference between the emphasis placed by Lord Steel in his references to Devo Plus and the reality of independence. Lord Steel stressed the importance of accountability and he is surely correct to argue that MSPs should be responsible for the way money is raised and not just spent.

However, what was missing from the article was any sense of the wider purpose of securing that responsibility. For supporters of independence it is not just accountability but economic growth and the means to create a better (and more equal) society that is important.

This week we have seen further evidence of just how urgent securing the means to boost growth now is with the release of figures showing, once again, poor research and development spending in Scotland.

In economic terms, independence is about giving Scotland the ability to compete, not just making politicians more accountable. But surely this is not such a huge leap for supporters of further devolution to take.

Unwittingly, perhaps, the Labour MP, Willie Bain, gave the game away this week on the social networking site Twitter.

Twitter allows people to engage directly with elected representatives, which is why participants should behave courteously rather than with abuse on that forum. Indeed Mr Bain should be congratulated on his willingness to debate with opponents online.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

On Monday evening, during the course of one of these debates, he revealed that it was a long-standing convention of the Parliamentary Labour Party that “we do not support SNP motions”.

Very few Labour politicians have been quite so open in admitting to the tribal nature of the party’s opposition to the SNP. Rather than discussing the merits of a proposal it seems that for Labour, it is where the idea comes from that is the most important factor.

In this context, the continued opposition of Labour in Scotland to minimum alcohol pricing starts to make sense. The fact that both the SNP and Labour are broadly centre-left social democratic parties chasing many of the same voters has long been seen as a reason for antagonism between the two.

The recent lurch of the Conservatives to the right signalled by Mr Osborne in his budget will only intensify the contest between Scotland’s two main parties as to which is best placed to protect the country from the Tories.

But this traditional battle makes little sense when it comes to the constitution. On this issue Labour is willing to stand just shoulder to shoulder with the Conservatives. The anti-SNP convention seems to carry more weight than concerns about being touched by Tory toxicity.

Political parties like to project clear dividing lines even when these mask positions that are not that far apart.

It is puzzling though that the Liberal Democrats and progressive thinkers in the Labour Party who appear to have more in common with the SNP in terms of further devolution of powers have chosen to side with the no-change Conservatives.

At times it seems as if intense, irrational personal dislike of First Minister Alex Salmond is driving much of this agenda.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But among most politicians, and certainly among most Scots, there is now a broad consensus for change. There will certainly be disagreements but only those who favour the status quo will benefit from a polarised debate.