The trouble with devolution
is it doesn't stop...
Back in the 1990s, when the Scots and the Welsh were getting restless, the UK government came up with the idea of devolved parliaments.
That was after a decade of shambles like the Falklands War and Zeebrugge - there are others but it's too depressing to make a list here.
It's unlikely Westminster thought these Scottish and Welsh parliaments would ever turn into legislatures, setting laws and - for heaven's sake - trying to change things.
I'll come clean. In 1975, I was opposed to the UK joining the Common Market. I just couldn't see the English agreeing to be part of a larger body. Their history doesn't fit them to be partners with anyone. They can only be top dog, boss cat, even if they end up making an arse of things. As they're now doing.
I didn't want a Scottish Parliament in 1999 either. It struck me this would be a block stopping us gaining independence - and by then I'd travelled around the world enough to know independence was the normal position for any nation - and I suspected a devolved parliament wouldn't lead to independence. I still believe in independence and I still think I was right about the Scottish parliament.
So the current situation is this: the Scots - quite brainy, natural legislators and very good at admin (who do you think ran the British Empire for the English?) - would always have wanted to change stuff once we got a parliament. It's what we do: we see self-satisfied politicians failing to do what we think should be done (and what they promised to do), so we dump them and move on to another party. And the voting system in the new parliament made that possible.
That doesn't mean we're always going to be loyal to the new party. It depends on how they shape up.
The current government is handicapped by being bright, being lied to by the media and facing a Westminster legislature that doesn't really understand the game we're playing here. They are all about power. The Scots are all about making things better.
I suspect some Westminster bright spark way back in 1999 looked at the proposed 'powers' for Holyrood and decided to fling a few spanner in the works. So the Scots could have control over health issues, but not enough to deal with major problems like drug addiction and AIDS. That's Westminster's responsibility - and yes, they'll make an arse of it. The Scots could change tax laws so they could raise money - just not enough to make much difference to the daily lives of Scots.
And all the big issues - environment (we're not having any more offshore power), defence (all those nuclear subs still based in Scotland) - they'll remain in the hands of Westminster.
Most of the time, the Scottish parliament could spend shuffling budgets around in an attempt to combat the negative effects of a Tory government in London. (Which the Scots didn't vote for, of course). And any time the Scottish parliament had left over, they could spend defending themselves against London-based parties that voted against everything they tried to do, wasted time in the parliament and then accused the government in power of not 'doing the day job.'
It's also very much in the Scottish mindset to have a whole political grouping sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to go wrong. It's like we love failure but just never think ahead to what will happen
after we fail. Having seen how inept Boris Johnson is (to the point of not even turning up at Westminster), is that who you want running your country? And having watched the Labour Party yet again tied in knots over its leadership, not to mention Willie Rennie defending a former party leader who protected a paedophile - is this really what you want?
Okay, so you hate 'wee Jimmy Crankie', as Johnson called her recently. You may even think the SNP is some sort of cult - though the Scots tend not to go for cults since we mostly gave up on Presbyterianism in the last century. You may be doubtful about the SNP's position on most things (as I am) and you may be a sincere socialist who can't change your position. But give this a wee thought: nobody's asking you to abandon your life principles. Just to be a politician for a wee while.
Independence is the natural position of any nation. Once you've got to that position, you can have any kind of society, any kind of political parties you want. You can chuck out all the useless politicians you don't want.
If you're wise, you'll start making a list. I know I have.
Back in the 1990s, when the Scots and the Welsh were getting restless, the UK government came up with the idea of devolved parliaments.
That was after a decade of shambles like the Falklands War and Zeebrugge - there are others but it's too depressing to make a list here.
It's unlikely Westminster thought these Scottish and Welsh parliaments would ever turn into legislatures, setting laws and - for heaven's sake - trying to change things.
I'll come clean. In 1975, I was opposed to the UK joining the Common Market. I just couldn't see the English agreeing to be part of a larger body. Their history doesn't fit them to be partners with anyone. They can only be top dog, boss cat, even if they end up making an arse of things. As they're now doing.
I didn't want a Scottish Parliament in 1999 either. It struck me this would be a block stopping us gaining independence - and by then I'd travelled around the world enough to know independence was the normal position for any nation - and I suspected a devolved parliament wouldn't lead to independence. I still believe in independence and I still think I was right about the Scottish parliament.
So the current situation is this: the Scots - quite brainy, natural legislators and very good at admin (who do you think ran the British Empire for the English?) - would always have wanted to change stuff once we got a parliament. It's what we do: we see self-satisfied politicians failing to do what we think should be done (and what they promised to do), so we dump them and move on to another party. And the voting system in the new parliament made that possible.
That doesn't mean we're always going to be loyal to the new party. It depends on how they shape up.
The current government is handicapped by being bright, being lied to by the media and facing a Westminster legislature that doesn't really understand the game we're playing here. They are all about power. The Scots are all about making things better.
I suspect some Westminster bright spark way back in 1999 looked at the proposed 'powers' for Holyrood and decided to fling a few spanner in the works. So the Scots could have control over health issues, but not enough to deal with major problems like drug addiction and AIDS. That's Westminster's responsibility - and yes, they'll make an arse of it. The Scots could change tax laws so they could raise money - just not enough to make much difference to the daily lives of Scots.
And all the big issues - environment (we're not having any more offshore power), defence (all those nuclear subs still based in Scotland) - they'll remain in the hands of Westminster.
Most of the time, the Scottish parliament could spend shuffling budgets around in an attempt to combat the negative effects of a Tory government in London. (Which the Scots didn't vote for, of course). And any time the Scottish parliament had left over, they could spend defending themselves against London-based parties that voted against everything they tried to do, wasted time in the parliament and then accused the government in power of not 'doing the day job.'
It's also very much in the Scottish mindset to have a whole political grouping sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to go wrong. It's like we love failure but just never think ahead to what will happen
after we fail. Having seen how inept Boris Johnson is (to the point of not even turning up at Westminster), is that who you want running your country? And having watched the Labour Party yet again tied in knots over its leadership, not to mention Willie Rennie defending a former party leader who protected a paedophile - is this really what you want?
Okay, so you hate 'wee Jimmy Crankie', as Johnson called her recently. You may even think the SNP is some sort of cult - though the Scots tend not to go for cults since we mostly gave up on Presbyterianism in the last century. You may be doubtful about the SNP's position on most things (as I am) and you may be a sincere socialist who can't change your position. But give this a wee thought: nobody's asking you to abandon your life principles. Just to be a politician for a wee while.
Independence is the natural position of any nation. Once you've got to that position, you can have any kind of society, any kind of political parties you want. You can chuck out all the useless politicians you don't want.
If you're wise, you'll start making a list. I know I have.
Comments
Post a Comment