“Why further powers for Scotland won’t happen” or “How Labour sleepwalked into a fatal Tory trap”
In the end it was Mark Ballard who called it right. “With a couple of weeks to go there’ll be a poll putting Yes in front, then Cameron will come to Scotland and offer more powers” he predicted at the beginning of August. I objected: “there’s no way Cameron could offer more powers without ensuring ‘English votes on English matters’, and there was no way Labour could agree to that”. Surely Labour would have to veto this.
English Vote for English Matters is important for several reasons. Firstly, it seems unjust that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that don’t directly affect their constituents. As former West Lothian MP, Tam Dalyell put it: “why should I be able to vote on matters that affect people in Blackburn, Lancashire, while I am unable to vote on matters that affect people in Blackburn, West Lothian.” This has had important impacts. The imposition of £3,000 a year fees for students only passed with votes from Scottish Labour MPs. Had it been an England-only vote, fees would have been defeated.
It’s also important because of the way spending is worked out for Scotland. The Barnett formula, which determines how much money the Scottish Government gets in its block grant is worked out on the basis of spending in England. So if Scottish MPs are barred from voting on English matters, they have no say on the funding coming to Scotland. Which would also be unfair. I can’t think of a single bill passed at Westminster since 2010 that wouldn’t have changed the block grant for Scotland.
Since the Conservatives lost more than half their 21 Scottish Westminster seats in 1987, Conservatives have lost any electoral stake in Scotland. They’ve largely given up on winning significant numbers of Westminster seats. This has become even more marked since the 1997 Conservative wipeout. At the 2001, 2005 and 2010 elections Conservatives won a single seat each time. Meanwhile Labour won 41 of Scotland’s 59 constituencies in 2010, taking them close to the Conservative total. This means they can play with a free hand against Scotland. It has lead to a stoking of tensions about senior Labour ministers from Scotland and the vagaries of the Barnett formula.
The stoking of tensions around Scotland’s deal in the Union creates a huge opportunity for the Conservatives: they can portray Labour as the party of Scotland. Because Labour has made such a play of how important it was to ensure that Scotland vote ‘no’ and to do so acting in ‘solidarity’ with anti-Conservative voters in England, this argument has considerable resonance. Labour relies on Scotland not for majorities, but for working majorities. Scotland is vital for a strong Labour government like those lead by Tony Blair.
I was astonished that, when the 51:49 poll came along, Labour were so blinded by the panic over losing Scotland, they didn’t ensure that English votes on English matters was off the table. Ed Miliband joined with David Cameron to make a ‘vow’ to ensure more powers for the Scottish Parliament. It swung the vote back to a ‘no’. But, as we are now discovering, it was a Conservative trap.
And a trap out of which Labour will find it difficult to get. That’s because the Conservatives have no interest in allowing more powers for Scotland: they have no votes to lose. But they can make huge gains in England by attacking Labour’s desire to hold on to the votes of their Scottish MPs on English matters. Door-to-door Labour will be presented across England as a party of Scotland, not one for English people. So Labour will have to sacrifice either the votes of their Scottish MPs or Labour will have to sacrifice their ‘vow’ on more powers for Scotland. That’s why Cameron’s first demand on Friday morning was English votes on English matters.
Either way Labour loses. Reneging on their ‘vow’ will make the seats of their Scottish MPs very difficult to hold. Allowing English votes on English matters will prevent Labour from governing on a whole range of reserved issues, even if they achieve a UK-wide majority. Labour may even have to concede a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs and a ban on Scottish Ministers serving outside departments where the Scottish Parliament has no power. So much for solidarity.
There is no reason whatsoever for Cameron to honour the ‘vow’. By not doing so he makes Labour’s position untenable. Either untenable in England because they are still insisting on more powers for Scotland while Scottish MPs continue to vote on English matters. Or it will be untenable in Scotland because Labour failed to deliver more powers in exchange for Scotland voting ‘No’. He will be entirely unconcerned by SNP or others taking Labour seats in Scotland. And with a stick to beat Labour with on the doorstep in England, Cameron will fancy his chances of winning the 2015 election.
Dont fall into the dog-whistle trap of Tories crying foul about English votes. Tuition fees were part of a large education bill which included non-English elements, ie a UK-wide bill. So of course Scottish MPs voted on it – we’d be unhappy if they hadn’t. Many of the decisions about the English NHS have implications, intended or otherwise, on the Scottish NHS and so of course our MPs should have their say. I’ve heard Tories in the Shires complain about Scottish MPs being allowed to vote on HS2 – yet they saying nothing about London MPs having a say on the matter (transport in London being devolved). And in any case it’s uk money being spent on it, ours too, so of course we have a stake. And nobody seems to have mentioned that if Scotland gets more tax powers, it would be constitutionally difficult for a Scottish MP to ever become chancellor of the exchequer so long as that post continues with its current functions. The more it’s analysed, the more anomalies there are – with only 2 solutions: independence or a properly federal state with a limited central government. I wonder which is more likely?
We are all going to have to do further thinking and debating on how we are interlinked and how to bring back government accountability to its citizens and any ethical grounding. Talking to no voters, I heard them locked into a model of events that meant they dismissed anything outside it. Jane seems to be reiterating that in an insistence that a case had to be made within the model she is working within. I would prefer if a negotiation on currency was underway in which both sides would have to confront our interdependency. How far would Cameron have gone to cut off our continued mutual interests to spite Scotland? We will never know. The negotiations we see instead have fewer positive possibilities though I am very interested in what Louise proposes. What I am angered and saddened to read in these comments is a continued refusal to acknowledge the huge role media bias played particularly among those over 60 who have least access to social media. Those on the left who think they can woo yes supporters back without addressing this need to do some soul searching and read prof john Robertson’s research.
Jane is quite correct.
The YouGov 51 percent Yes poll was on 6 September.
On 11 Sept Metro reported a Survation poll with 53 percent Yes.
On 12 Sept Metro apologised for getting the Survation numbers the wrong way round. It was No that had got 53 percent.
On 16 Sept the Cameron – Miliband – Clegg vow pledging more Scottish powers was published.
Also on 16 Sept 3 new polls were published, all giving No 52 percent.
On referendum day, 18 Sept, a final opinion poll was announced, with 53 percent No.
On 19 Sept the referendum result was 55 percent No.
Jane, I think I may have better phrased that as “secured the vote for no”. I’m not suggesting that the Yes campaign was perfect. But it’s clear that an offer was made that couldn’t possibly be kept. While Labour kept to the line that the Scotland Act powers were all Scotland could expect they were fine. But there was undoubtedly a panic from Labour which facilitated the position above.
As far as I’m concerned independence is an issue that’s off the agenda unless there’s an overwhelming demand to bring it back.
We need to focus on stopping all the awful things the Westminster government is about to do to us, which we could have avoided with independence.
I don’t believe most No voters wanted cuts to child benefit a rise in the pension age or whatever else, or that they expected these things to happen.
Jane – the point I was making to Peter weeks ago was that the swing vote in the referendum included a lot of people who wanted more powers for the Parliament but weren’t necessarily sold on independence (for some of the reasons you mention). When it didn’t look like the unionist parties were going to deliver significant change they started moving towards Yes – but their preferred option was still more powers. The danger for the Yes campaign was that they would swing towards No if No started to make a convincing case that it would actually deliver more powers. That doesn’t mean they were ‘duped’, it just means that a group of voters made a rational choice about what option came closest to delivering what they actually wanted.
Jane Carnall – it may not be possible to prove that it swung the vote back to a No but it certainly swung it away from Yes. It undoubtedly influenced the percentages.
(This may seem picky, but I really believe that you can’t possibly move on and do better next time unless you properly understand that Yes lost because Yes failed to make the case for independence.
Not because 55% of voters were duped by Labour / LibDems / Tories / BBC.
But because 55% of voters were not convinced by the Yes campaign.
They didn’t ensure that English votes on English matters was off the table. Ed Miliband joined with David Cameron to make a ‘vow’ to ensure more powers for the Scottish Parliament. It swung the vote back to a ‘no’.
No, it didn’t.
No had the majority throughout the pre-referendum period. A very, very few polls showed a close vote *but* with a very large percentage still saying “undecided”.
Do the English want a parliament? If they do, then the weakening of Westminster is surely underway? Would it not establish itself with the same democratic set-up as Holyrood and therefore win more popularity than Westminster over a few years and press to lever as many powers as possible from Westminster? And in doing so would it not force the issue over more powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is this not a re-shaping that will eventually work in everyone’s favour? … if not in the timescale we hoped for…
Cameron has de-linked English votes from the ‘vowed’ new powers for the Scottish Parliament. It looks like he is aiming to put clear English water between the Tories and LibLab though.
https://twitter.com/naebD/status/514084926182793216