Conservative and Unionist Party hoisting the union on a Trans Petard

The full name of the party that is in Government in Westminster is the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, today that took a shocking step that may well rock or even split up that union.

It is being announced that the Scottish Secretary will this evening inform the Scottish First Minister that tomorrow he will take the legal steps to invoke a Section 35 which allows Westminster to overturn a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This is something that has never been done in the 25 years of the Socttish Parliament. 

The piece of legislation that it is seeking to overturn is the Gender Recognition Bill that was passed with an overwhelming vote of 67% of MSPs voting in favour. The breakdown by party was

• All 4 Lib Dem MSPs in favour (100%)
• All 7 Green MSPs in favour (100%)
• 21 out of 22 Labour MSPs in favour (95%)
• 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs in favour (84%)
• 2 out of 31 Conservative MSPs in favour (6%)

So as you can see every party in Scotland bar one was overwhelmingly in favour. The fact that the Westminster Conservative Government is now going to block this going to Royal Assent is a political football being played in an increasingly right wing leaning Conservative party. The language that the party has been using on assylum seekers, Trans peoples, workers rights to strike and protest are all now looking more and more authoritarian. 

However, by invoking section 35 for the first time in history this is also piling up gunpowder under the very Union itself in a way which unlike Guy Fawkes may explode the union. It is such a minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of things, but it opens a flood gate and leads to a slippery slope. At a time when those who want another independence referendum are already heated, the act of stopping a Scottish Act gaining Royal Assent just might push many who were agnostic to Scotland's independence into the independence camp.

The worse thing is that the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Bill has no actual impact on UK-wide equality legislation, this was pointed out in the wording of the Bill itself. It is only impacting the right to change your gender on your birth certificate and only impacts those who wish to do so not anyone else. We in the UK do not currently* need to carry our birth certificates around with us. 

The Secretary of State of Scotland also calls for there to be more consideration of this. However, there was already 6 years of public consultion into this bill it was not rushed, what is rushed in the UK Government's response.

Yet this is the petard upon which the Westminster Government is prepared to hoist the Union.

It is laughable that the West Lothian Question which caused Tam Dalyell great ethical quandry over Scottish devolution will pale into comparison to what today has become the Westminster Question. What is a Secretary of State for Scotland opposes the will of a supermajority of the devolved Scottish Parliament.

By saying currently the more right wing, authoritarian and dare I say facist the Conservative Party are becoming me may well start to single out individuals and groups of individuals may not be far off.

 

Why EVEL is not the West Lothian answer?

Being somewhat associated with West Lothian and having stood in the race to replace the poser of the West Lothian Question. Tam Dalyell, I have on occassion written about said question and the potential answers. David Cameron's latest take on this is English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) at Westminster.

Now the problem posed by the West Lothian Question was that devolution would allow certain aspects of law to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and of course the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies) while their MPs were still able to vote on issues at Westminster affecting people in England but that the English MPs would not have the same say on some of these issues in the devolved powers as they legislators there and not the MPs would have the say. The issue was that devolution was bringing up two types of MPs some who could vote on things that wouldn't directly affect their constituents and others who might find they couldn't bring about change for their constituents if the block who didn't have any direct impact in their area voted against was enough with their English colleagues to block it.

Devolution had in effect brought in two tiers of MPs some were backed up by colleagues (occasionally themselves) who would vote on devolved issues, others who were responsible for all decisions. But EVEL does exactly the same in creating two tiers of MPs, only this time the cut off is less well defined. What exactly is an English Law. In truth as things currently stand only a cost neutral law is truly only English as anything with spending or tax ramifications has because of the Barnett formula got a knock on effect to budgets in the devolved powers.

The result of trying to introduce EVEL in the fall out from the Scottish referendum is a knee jerk reaction to the ;promise of more powers for Scotland (and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland). It ignores however the fundamental difference that devolution has brought to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that is denied to the people of England. Certain aspects of their governance are now decided as a local level below that of Westminster and above that of local authorities. The demands of the North East would not be the same as those in the South West. Yet only London and some other cities with elected mayors seem to have any more control over their own affairs than previously.

Having a elected Mayority is not the sole model for greater devolution, but this appears to be the only one that the Conservatives want to contemplate alongside EVEL, but of course it is not the position used in the three nations with devolution. The First Minister in all three of them is not a directly elected President (the possible exception may have been the 2007 SNP list description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" without mentioning the party name) but are the leader of the largest party. Somehow the conservatives have decided that the American style Mayor led system is better than the European model of Federal Government for the regions.

The only true answer to the West Lothian Question is a more Federal Model of governance as the difference in roles would therefore not exist in the National Government. So until those in Westminster realise that we'll be stuck with the evil of difference that plans like evil or directly elected mayors can inflict unto voters.

Dave's West Lothian Answer Fail

So the prime way that David Cameron sees as giving greater power to the voters in England in a small "f" federal UK is English votes for English laws in Westminster. He is therefore short changing the people of England do not be fooled by him.

In Scotland the Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish laws in a chamber that is elected via a proportional voting system. Admittedly for the last 3 and a bit years that has been an SNP majority that the majority of voters didn't want but has in the past led to consensus politics.

In Wales the AMs can vote on Welsh laws also in a chamber that is elected via a proportional system, at times Labour have run the administration on its own but it has also often led to consensus politics.

In Northern Ireland while the MLAs are elected on a wholly constituency basis, it is a proportional system so unlike Scotland and Wales it does not have regional top up lists to ensure that people's views are represented as this is done in the six member seats.

If only the 533 English MPs could vote on whatever ends up being deemed to be an English only matter (something that there is actually very little of due to funding impacts for the devolved nations), it would mean that 39.6% of the electorate would end up with 55.9% of the MPs making their decisions. With boundary changes that were brought in since 2010 many of the 92 gains that the Conservatives made are supposedly harder to take away from them. But Labour with 28.1% of the vote and Lib Dems with 24.2% in England last time would have 35.8% and 8.1% of the MPs making such decisions respectively.

It is not proportionate as the other three member states have.

It is as Nick Clegg so rightly pointed out really a case of Tory votes for English laws.

What David Cameron is actually proposing is selling the people of England short and not giving them a true reflection of what the rest of the UK has experienced since devolution. He doesn't get what it is that makes the powers that true devolution can bring, he is seeing it as a way of regaining some control in some part of the UK, but to do so absolutely as only when the SNP had a majority from 2007-11 did they have any real say in any of the devolved powers.

In the cold light of a post referendum day

When it comes to matters of self determination I am what I would call an economic realist. You may well ask what do I mean by that? Well let me explain.

My degree is in economics so I know to look at the bigger picture for the nation, how that affects individuals and how the ability of a nation to look after its individual is best served. Therefore it does not make be either a nationalist nor a unionist when such matters are discussed.

Therefore in the 80s, 90s and early in the 2000s if there had of been a border poll in Northern Ireland I would likely have voted for a united Ireland. Especially during the 80s and 90s Northern Ireland seemed to be overlooked by Westminster and the economies of scale that being one quarter of a booming Ireland as opposed to one fiftieth or so of the United Kingdom meant that we probably would have had a better deal.

The situation with the Scottish Referendum is that I as an internationalist who studied European Economics for two years as a part of my degree did not only believe that the question were not being answered, but that the Yes side didn't fully understand the questions. Yes there was currency, there was Scotland's place in Europe, there was financial institutions that cross borders. I know how these things work in Ireland, but they are compartmentalised. There were too many grey areas and to be honest there wasn't honesty on the part of Alex Salmond a fellow economist in how to deal with many, many such questions.

However, to be called a fool who has been taken in is something I find insulting. Just because I did not come to the same conclusion as someone else does not make me a fool, that would lead to a very insulting image of our political system where there are so many parties not any of which I agree with 100% of the time. I am a member of the party that most closely reflects what I believe. As decisions within that party are mostly decided by as democratic vote I will be able to back those to the hilt, where some decisions are made that ignores the will of conference then I will continue to speak up and speak out. Indeed up until March of this year I was still on the register to vote in Scotland (due to 6 month residency requirement to transfer back unto the Northern Ireland register of electors)

The constant complaints about a fixed ballot when I have seen tweets from Yes groups, and blog posts from them and people who were there either as count agents of staff is beyond disrespectful to fellow Scots (and yes as I have spent more than 10 years there in the white paper I'd qualify for a passport). I have been to many, many counts across Scotland, I know that the election staff both in polling stations and at the count are second to none. That those of us who on a regular basis spend a long day getting out the vote following by long hours at the count are always impressed by how they handle themselves and we know that if there is something that we think has not been done right it will be investigated when we raise that.

The fact that on my 45th birthday many people started to put the 45 image on their profile pics is a cause for concern. That 45 is diverse, that 45 comes from all the main political parties and on many issues that 45 disagree. They are not homogenous. The same applies to the other 55% we are not all the same.

I'm proud that many people wanted to get involved in politics many for the first time, I know that many of them have joined one of the parties of the Yes side, that is loud and clear as they are all shouting about it. I also know that Scottish people have over the past two years joined the parties on the side of No as well. Is it good that they want to carry on the political conversation it is just that they need to know that the conversation in politics often moves on. Yes there are times that all of us in politics miss out on getting something and have to regroup,but they we have to make the best of what we can do.

That is where we are now. I've seen some say that the No side of the debate were triumphant. If I were an alien looking in I would be hard pressed to see that. Most of my friends who had No banners on their pages had taken them down within  24 hours of the result, the same is not true of my friends from Yes and yes they are still friends.

We need political leaders on both sides to speak sanely and calmly, change always takes time. It cannot be achieved in a weekend, a week, or even a month it will take time to make a change and make it correctly. There was a timetable laid out for presenting the additional powers, just as the SNP has laid out a timetable for delivering the referendum.

We know that the SNP took 7 years from first entering Government to bring about the referendum they had promised all their political lives, so a few extra months and a shorter timescale to make further changes isn't too great a time to wait, but everyone needs to take ownership of the process, get behind it and now that not all your dreams will come true, but you can make it the best package that you can.

Please Sir, do Northern Ireland have to take more? Part 2

I wrote yesterday about some of the powers that Northern Ireland wanted to have added to Stormont. It may have been because I was lacking sleep, or maybe because I didn't think anybody really realistically wanted to bring either of these two into our control that I left them off that piece. However, yesterday  I was reminded that my piece was lacking a couple of things.

Firstly in light of the referendum Sinn Féin have called for a similar choice here in Northern Ireland, only for it to be should Northern Ireland become part of united Irish state rather than a question of independence. There is provision and regulation for this set out in the Northern Ireland Act. It is in the gift of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and another "border poll" cannot be called for at least seven years. Of course unlike Scotland the Northern Ireland First Minister says such a poll is not needed.

However, Peter Robinson better be careful of not falling into a trap of assuming something that isn't necessarily the case as some of the Westminster leaders failed to do so. Labour and Conservatives while being part of the Calman Commission in Scotland didn't really take the issue further. The Liberal Democrats of course with their previous Steel Commission and subsequent study by Ming Campbell had discussing such issues in their party DNA and have had debates about further devolution elsewhere as well in recent years.

The option is there to have a poll and it may be worth considering as part of sorting out the long term nature of the UK before you start to work out or agree upon the devolutionary package for all the constituent parts. If Robinson is so confident of winning, especially if more powers are on the way, then what does he have to fear? Apart from seeing how close unionism is to losing, instead of how far nationalism is from uniting Ireland. This of course would not be a question of better alone or better together but rather one of better in one nation or another.

The other thing that I do not believe Northern Ireland politicians seriously think we are ready to have devolved to us is welfare payments. The reason I cannot believe this one is being talked about is the fact that over the last year and more they have been unable to come to a settlement on the little control they have of this themselves to fit into the budget that is being set for them from Westminster. To then even hand over the complex nature of the budgeting of such payments would lead to a quagmire into which the most needy in our society will see the reforms to the payments they relay on disappearing into the indecisiveness of our political "elite".

As I said yesterday if the MLAs at Stormont want to be given more power they must also accept some radical adjustments to the way that they currently work or else the whole thing will grind to an almighty halt. The question still is are they ready to give up some of that unequal power that currently exists to allow us to have more power that is the way with normal procedures across these islands.

Please Sir, do Northern Ireland have to take more?

So the only land border in these British Isles will remain the one that starts on the western shore of Lough Foyle just south of Muff and stretches around the six most north easterly counties of the second largest isle and into Carlingford Lough beside Newry.

The talk of course, in light of the result in Scotland's independence referendum last night, is that there will be a deal deal on devolution to not just them but England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. So what does it mean to those six counties surrounded by than only land boundary with the Eurozone.

The first is that one major power that that part of the UK wants is the power to adjust their Corporation Tax levels to be able to compete with their new neighbours. But what about the powers that they already have? There is already too much of a them and us mentality on various matters, petitions of concern are constantly being used to secure a veto by one community of another. So maybe to allow them to work with more power is a chance to make Stormont work together in a different way.

Maybe one of the powers that is taken away from Northern Ireland to enable policy to be carried is the requirement for a cross community vote at the moment the largest party on either side can stifle the vote, and those that designate as others say it voided. Maybe there is leverage there to maintain the weighted majority of 60% for an area of concern but do away with the need for 40% of each community to also agree. This would led to the ability of cross community agreement but also give the smaller parties and those that designate as other at present to have an equal say in legislation. It might also be a good idea to set up some sort of ombudsman to lay out guidelines and judge if they are met for such a new petition of concern being tabled, one of those areas that it should be done away with is when the competency of a Minister is being debated.

If we can do away with the designations of unionist or nationalist we may well have politics that instead of concentration on them uns and us uns will actually look at the needs of all the people. It may even led to people voting for parties because of what they stand for rather that who they stand with as then you wouldn't necessarily want a party that is conservative standing to block things that benefit others but voting for a party whose policies benefit you and your vision of Northern Ireland.

I think if we are looking at giving more power to Northern Ireland we have to give that power to the people irrespective of who they vote for doing away with the sectarianism is one step. The other might be to create an official opposition. There would need to be a way of looking at this. It would do away with the d'Hondt system of appointing ministers, who would then be only within the hands of the partied of Government, but the danger then is that the Unionists would form that Government between them, so it could be back to the bad old days of the 60s carving up the plum positions only within unionism which would be a retrograde step. This may well be a step too far for Northern Irish politicians and indeed their voters at this time and have to return to the back burner.

But the one thing is that if Northern Ireland is to be given more powers I suspect that we need to look at how better to operate the powers that they currently have to enable progression rather than stagnation.

Robinson takes "Them and Us" on Tour

Oh dear! What can the matter be?
Peter Robinson might be starting a calamity.

At the weekend Peter Robinson called for an end of "them and us" in Northern Ireland politics only it didn't seem present from his party in the chamber of Education Training Colleges yesterday. Now it seems he wants to step into Scottish Politics, or does he?

Of course the big question for Northern Irish Unionists over the SNP's call for separation is that once the Union starts to break up in one part what is to stop it happening elsewhere. Look at recent history.

The USSR  in 1990 the Russian Federation started to pass laws that superseded the USSR declaring sovereignty over its territory the largest of the Soviet Republics. In March of 1991 a referendum on the preservation of the Union only carried a majority in 9 of the 15 Republics though passed overwhlemingly as a whole. The seeds of separatism were watered as a result. The coup d'état against the USSR President Gorbachev that August further strengthened the position of the Russian President Yeltsin. On 8 December the three largest republics Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had signed Belavezha Accords which declared the Soviet Union dissolved and the Commonwealth in Independent States in its place. On 21st all the Republics but Georgia had signed the Alma-Ata Protocol confirming the accords. It led to the Christmas Day announcement that Gorbachev was declaring his position extinct and the following day the Supreme Soviet followed suit.
Yugoslavia coming out of the first world war the Kingdom of Serbia, and the States of Croatia and Slovenes were united. They became known as Yugoslavia in 1928. The ethnic tension of the various groups started to grow after the death of Tito in 1980. In 1986 Slobodan Milošević tried to restored the sovereignty of the Serb majority, the Croatians and Slovenes objected. In January 1990 an extraordinary congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was convened. Milošević insisted on one person, one vote to ensure the plurality of the Serb voice was dominant. The Slovenes backed by the Croats wanted more power devolved to the republics, they were voted down. Their delegations then left the congress effectively dissolving the all-Yugoslavia Communist Party. In 1990 the Republics decided to hold multi-party elections following the collapse of communism elsewhere. However, there was ethnic unrest in a number of the republics throughout 1990 and eventually on 25 June 1991 to the declaration of Independence of Slovenia and Croatia  but due to communication in Slovenia the transition of power from the Yugoslav led to some light skirmishes. Of course that wasn't the case with Croatia or later with Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In both the above cases there was a domino effect as each of the constitute parts wanted independence from the Union. Is what Peter Robinson fears that a Scottish secession going to lead to a Welsh pursuit of the same and then a why are we united to just England from Northern Ireland leading either to independence or a united Ireland?

Is he saying there is an end of them and us, but  we don't want us to become them by stealth `because the United Kingdom ends up breaking up. There are many good federalist arguments to be put forward for a high level of devolution across the UK as reasons to safe the Union but give power to the local people (not just disproportionately to Scotland). Having Peter Robinson using such overtly Northern Ireland needs this without addressing issues across the UK as a whole is not the way to do it. Peter really needs to get out the us mentality himself on this one, realise that his small world's eye outlook needs to see what can be of a benefit to all in the UK if he wants to keep the Union not just what he can keep for himself.

She's Going to Vote Tory.....Cause Neither Have Got Devolution

Hat tip to Miserable Old Fart



Only at the weekend in Scotland David Cameron was saying how he and the Conservatives got devolution. Yet new poster girl Julie Fallon lives in Llandudno, Wales. She's voting Conservative at the General Election because of:

• schooling DEVOLVED ISSUE
  
• community development DEVOLVED ISSUE
  
• support for children DEVOLVED ISSUE

So maybe she's only going to be voting for them in 2011 at the Assembly elections.

But then we didn't really expect the Tories to get devolution. Did we?

I mean their snuggling up in bed with the Ulster Unionists has upset some of their Catholic candidates in Northern Ireland. Annabel Goldie has said that David Cameron can effectively have sway over Scotland even if there is no representation in Scotland for the Tories at Westminster. The other week in Westminster they clearly didn't get proportional voting systems.

Ello, Ello, Bout Ye

Yes they almost were talking about it until the 12th....

....April that is, not July. It certainly feels like it, and reading some of my friends' Facebook updates from Hillsborough Castle of the last couple of years, err, I mean weeks, they certainly say it felt like it.

But responsibility for the Police in Northern Ireland will be transferred from Westminster to Stormont on 12th April.

The PSNI go from ello, ello, ello to bout ye in just over 2 months times.

Can Northern Irish Devolution Survive Last Week?

Of course currently all eyes are on just one Northern Irish political family. Of course at the start of last month that family consisted of 2 MPs, 2 MLAs and 2 Castlereagh Borough Councillors (yeah Gareth Robinson also represents the East Ward), not forgetting the post of First Minister.

But as Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said "devolution is bigger than one man", so with the fallout of Northern Ireland's first family can devolution survive? I would say yes.

My reason for this stems from the fact that a few years ago even my jaw scraped the floor. It was the occasion of TV coverage of Ian Paisley sitting down laughing with Gerry Adams, with Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson in attendance at the start of the current partnership. This was for anyone used to Northern Irish politics the sign that the will of the people could overcome the will of the individuals concerned. To have the DUP and Sinn Fein sitting down in the one room, promising to sit together in power was something that many of us only dreamed off and turned off in our waking moments.

Therefore whether Peter is still ensconced office of the First Minister at the end of this week, or the DUP are preparing to select a successor the process will carry on. As I blogged earlier the most talked about alternative is Sammy Wilson which may not be everyone's ideal as a successor, and certainly isn't mine, but other options are of a somewhat similar ilk. The fact is that if the DUP do appoint a replacement First Minister or keep Robinson the politics of Northern Ireland will keep on moving, because the people want it to.

The biggest obstacle, that with hindsight it now appears that Robinson hasn't been 100% focused on, is the devolution of policing and justice. The current diversion may have been putting this on the back burner, but it is indeed one area (after many such) that Northern Ireland parties used to stare across a big divide over. The distance has been cut down somewhat but there are still, as ever, some of the biggest obstacles still outstanding.

Sinn Fein are wanting immediate transfer of these powers but the DUP have been stalling claiming it could only happen on the condition of community confidence. As recently as Thursday the DUP chief whip Maurice Morrow said he didn't expect them to the transferred in the lifetime of this assembly. Sinn Fein are calling for the Secretary of State to act as Guarantor of the St. Andrews' Agreement on this issue.

So whatever the outcome of this week I see Northern Irish devolution carrying on, though we need to see some joint up government starting in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The fact that Peter Robinson wasn't willing on Friday to meet with Martin McGuinness while this crisis was developing shows that the relationship is still only one of political convenience. It needs to become one of political expediency for the good of the people that the Northern Irish politicians have been elected to serve.

David Through the Looking Glass

The Mad Hatter was heading to city hall. The Cheshire Cat had been and left the stage for the Duchess to take over the most prestigious address in Wonderland trying to agree with everyone and find a moral in everything.

It was surprising therefore that young David having found himself in this position wanted a bit of every one of them. He wanted the power that the Mad Hatter, a school boy acquaintance, had achieved only more so. He wanted to smile for everyone like the Cheshire Cat yet to know that there was also a time for sincerity. As for the Duchess, well he wanted that house, he thought he had to be nice to everyone to do so. He'd enjoy the view from the inside if he succeeded of Tweedledum and Tweedledee working out which of them was the Duchess, or indeed the Cheshire Cat's, natural successor.

"I don't think we should invent differences where there aren't differences," said David.

But then he went on to invent similarities when they were tenuous, "A hung Parliament would be bad for Britain, would be bad for the sort of strong united determined leadership that we need, but we shouldn't invent differences where they don't exist."

Yes as you tell this isn't from the pen of Lewis Carroll but a look at the wonderland, befundleland more like, of the Conservative leadership. They really think:

"There are many more areas where Liberal Democrats and Conservatives agree and that's a good thing but we need to have a decisive election."

Now I'm all for agreeing with my political opponents when we do agree but Dave, on this one I must protest. Senior Tories have apparently saying the the Cameron 'love bomb' is aimed at Lib Dem voters not our MPs, candidates etc. Hence the comment about a hung parliament being a bad thing. You see the Tories are talking about change but don't want to have to move to accommodate some of another parties agenda if there was a hung parliament. As they are aiming that statement at Lib Dems it should be apparent that Dave doesn't want the change that we behind Nick Clegg are offering. If he was prepared to do the things the Lib Dems wanted a hung parliament would be good for Britain if that were the case.

Indeed lets look at the three key areas that they say they are targeting: green issues, decentralisation, and less state interference.

Green Issues: Looking around at Conservative councils and activists around the country I've yet to be convinced that there really is a green heart beating behind a blue Rosette. Iain Dale their uberblogger led a denial-lite blogging strand that stretched across a number of Tory blogs recently over Copenhagen. Indeed did anyone spot an activist led Tory presence at the Wave recently. I know I didn't see one in Glasgow (where the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems were out at activist level) and I've heard the same in absentia approach to the climate happened in London. More likely to see Tory activist marching with the Countryside or Tax(non)Payers Alliance that an alliance of environmental concerned groups.

I remember the struggles we had getting better environmental provision through when the Tories controlled Kingston council. From what I see beneath the rhetoric even their own shadow cabinet are fully on board the green agenda. The Lib Dems have a few exceptions, but by in large are on board. We don't deny climate change, but will heartily debate how best to go about it.

Decentralisation: Actually seeing Annabel Goldie reverse over the horizon about Calman and hearing all the cutting of Westminster powers promised from the Tories, what they are doing is just that. They are not decentralising power they are cutting the public's ability of have it accountable to them. The Tories rather than moving power from the centre to publicly elected bodies are looking to sell parts of it off to commercial interests. Therefore not for profit will not be an incentive to take over certain aspects but it will another way to make money of those who are poorest, to line the pockets of Dave and Gideon's friends, whether resident or non-domiciled in the UK.

Less state interference: See the above whereas the Tories actually want less state period, the Lib Dems want certain powers devolved down to a more local level areas of health, policing, education being prime examples. The Lib Dems also recognise that there are some issues that need to have more co-ordination, even outwith our borders. Yes that does mean some decisions being made at European level. But the Tories wanted to pull us out of the European Convention on Human Rights, out of the international policing arrangements, don't want us to join the Euro ever. So don't want to protect you rights, your security or your shopping prices in a sensible way all in the cause of less 'interference'. Yes there is a time and a place for freedom but with that freedom there is also a need for responsibility, the Tories are prepared to negate as much responsibility as they can get away with. You don't think so, you may be too young to remember the last Conservative period of power then.

So David Cameron may well be thinking he is looking though a looking glass when he looks at Lib Dem policies compared to his own. He's actually just standing on the street looking through the window at the real change that is on over in the shop window, but he's so vain all he sees is his own reflection and the door to number 10 over his shoulder. Indeed he is already taking the voters and his victory for granted, thinking that those who vote Lib Dem can't see through what he says about difference and similarity.

Now Sinn Fein are Threatening the SNP Tactic

Yesterday I blogged about the bankers at RBS using the SNP tactic of not just taking the ball away, but themselves out of the game if their bonuses of £1.5 bn (25% of profits) are turned down by Government. Today I see that Martin McGuinness the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland is threatening, in coded language, that the same may happen in Northern Ireland over the timing of devolution and justice to Stormont.

I say coded message so let me decipher, McGuinness says that the institutions are unsustainable without a date for devolution of policing by Christmas. You may think so what if you are not Northern Irish, but that is code for all the institutions of devolution, not just cross-border agencies but also the Assembly and the dual mandate of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Devolution of policing has always been one of the major stumbling blocks in fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement. After all Sinn Féin and their military were never going to be likely to be on friendly terms with the force that was arrayed against them throughout the Troubles. So this has been the longest, hardest and most painstaking march towards a peaceful, settled Northern Ireland there has been.

However, it is one of those rare occasions that I agree with the DUP Jeffrey Donaldson. I quite often have found the man objectionable in the past, but he is correct when on the BBC this morning I heard him say that setting deadlines in stone was something that should never be done in Northern Ireland politics, but that the best settlement for all sides should be worked out. If that is done by Christmas then that is fine, however if it is not Sinn Féin should not arbitrarily walk away from all the progress that has been made.

There are signs that a consensus is almost settled on the first Justice Minister under this period of devolution. David Ford the Alliance party leader looks set to gain the cross-community support to take on that role. Now the politicians need to reach agreement over policing and McGuinness is right in that it has to cover equality issues. But with only three weeks to Christmas and probably less that two of those productive setting a Christmas deadline for a resolution is ludicrous so close to that date. Even Tony Blair over ran on his deadline to get the Agreement signed off initially.

Would Iain Gray Please Define Elite

The following is the Press Association release made about comments from the leader of the Labour MSPs Iain Gray:

Devolution may have benefited "elite" groups more than the general Scottish population, Labour leader Iain Gray has said.

His comment came as he prepared to deliver a lecture on 10 years of devolution at Edinburgh University.

Mr Gray warned that politics must shift from "identity to values" - and hit out at the SNP's "obsession" with independence as a solution.

Now that makes interesting reading for a number of scores. One just under 80% of the time spent under devolution, Scotland has benefited from a Labour First Minister and many of the ministerial roles being held by his Labour colleagues. So while I think he is trying to be disparaging about the SNP he is also being very disparaging about his Labour colleagues and indeed the Lib Dems who shared power with them.

Secondly I wonder if the elderly who gained free personal care count as elite? Or those who get their eyes tests free? What about the various students from all walks of live who do not have to pay tuition fees in Scotland? OK I can see them ending up being part of the elite but not all of them started there and without than many of them would not have started a degree.

What about the whole population who will benefit from the targets and actions taken to make Scotland a greener place, a knowledge based economy and other such actions which benefit many not just the elite. There is also the smoking ban which was brought in to help those that had no option but to work in some of the lowest paid jobs from the effects of passive smoking.

Just what does the Gray man of Holyrood mean by elite, you have to ask oneself when so many benefits have come to Scots that Labour in England have yet to deliver or trailed behind with.

An Evolution of Devolution #ldconf

This morning I was in the hall bright and breezy for the Future of Devolution debate which was moved by Alistair Carmichael MP. When I say bright and breezy not quite early enough to hear Alistair moving the motion, after all it isn't every day one turns forty, but present for the rest of it.

It started with Simon Hughes moving an Amendment calling for:

"Urgent initiatives to address the democratic for England, and the replacement of the Barnett formula for allocation funding to the countries of the UK with a needs-based formula."

This was accepted by the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems who were the movers of the motion. But as the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, there is a desire for more power in England. It may end up with a devolution to a 4th larger nation, but that is an issue the details of which need to be addressed. If we as Lib Dems with our Federal nature don’t deal with it, it will play up to the cause of English Nationalism, rather than the reverse case as put by some of our opponents.

There then followed a stream of familiar Scottish faces, some excellent Welsh ones and a few English ones. First up for Bev Hope who pointed out quite correctly that "Scotland doesn't need independence, doesn't want independence, and wouldn't benefit from independence". She also said we have to set out our stall clearly as we are up against as very clear and concise message, we need to lose the jargon and tell the people in accessible terms what we want for them, and for them to have.

She was followed by another first time speaker at Federal Conference who bookmarked his speech in Welsh, as he said the language of heaven. He called for the need for respect for Wales, so that people would stay or come home to Wales rather than being lost to jobs in London. Urging us all to chose a different devolution for a better future.

Kevin Lang the PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith was the next to speak. He said that now was the time to have the debate on independence because under a proper debate (i.e. not the national soliloquy) with proper and true analysis we would win the argument of what Scotland wants and needs. We should therefore support a referendum so that we can put this issue to bed for a generation.

Frank Kindel from the NE of England, welcomed Simon's amendment but stated that the people of NE England didn't want to have one form of government from Westminster replaced with another. If there was to be a move to devolution in England it had to address those issues. Roger Roberts of Abercowry then rose to speak of the need that even with devolution we have to address the issue of borders. The people of North Wales rely on the hospitals of Liverpool, also tend to use Manchester and Chester. The net result is that although they have their own provisions given by the Welsh Assembly they have to work with the neighbouring region which is in a different country for some of their provision. The issue of devolution doesn't merely end at the borders, something that those that want independence often overlook. He also pointed out that we should trust the Tories especially on powers for the devolved bodies, nor for that matter on anything else. He called for us to embrace an evolution of devolution.

George Lyon MEP for Scotland then pointed out that Donald Dewar had said that devolution was a process not an event. But what was a shame in Scotland was that the minsters on both side of the border were no longer talking to one another, things were being dealt with in isolation which wasn't in the best interests of Scotland. If the SNP were prepared to work with the UK Parliament they could have a booming voice in Europe but they don't and only have their three voices. The SNP are wanting the UK to fail in Europe and Scotland to fail in the UK for their own selfish ends.

Mark Hunter MP for Cheadle pointed out that the opening lines of the motion:

"Conference believes that Scotland and Wales are distinct nations with distinct identities and longstanding political, cultural and social identities."

Applied to England too and must not be overlooked.

Kirsty Williams AM summating welcomed the amendment bringing the English devolution question to the motion. But added it would be presumptuous for the Welsh and Scottish parties to tell the English party how to best go about doing that. She called on them to get it together for next time and bring the debate to the floor. Now there is a challenge if ever I heard one, and one that fits into our Federalist nature.

Power for a Purpose

It's not all negative, Tavish Scott tells it as it is, Lib Dem proposes are about tacking the tough issues facing us all. More power to enable Scotland to face difficult financial times.

The latest from Tavish TV.

News of Calman Death Throes Premature

A couple of weeks ago Malc was all for rushing the Calman Commission into intensive care. If not to remove the Liberal Democrat life support. However, news that Labour's submission also calls for greater financial powers for the devolved Parliament would mean there is life in the Commission yet.

Labour are now calling for borrowing powers for the Parliament which brings it in line with both the SNP and Liberal Democrats. They may have mocked when Tavish Scott got an agreement out of Alex Salmod to present to Calman on this, as one of the conditions for backing the budget. But now it seems to have persuaded Labour to also get on board on this one so maybe a stronger devolved Scotland is still on the cards. Indeed the Labour MSP with responsibility for the Calman Commission Pauline McNeill said:

"I am also convinced that Holyrood should have prudential borrowing powers, which would allow us to develop a more coherent strategy for fighting the recession. Labour's submission supports the conclusion of (economist] Anton Muscatelli that borrowing powers are closely allied to revenue-raising powers."

So there you have it. A future budget to help us through the recession may well be more easily paved if such working together on these issues may well grease the road to consensus.

It does not however throw the doors open for all five of John Swinney's steps to independence.

• Current framework Scottish Parliament can vary tax by 3p
• Assigned Revenues Budget determined by amount of revenue collected in Scotland. No power to alter taxes and no block grant
• Enhanced devolution powers Holyrood able to set some taxes. Limited borrowing powers
• Full fiscal autonomy Taxes set in Scotland. Percentage of revenue paid to Westminster for defence and foreign affairs
• Independence All revenues collected in Scotland. Holyrood able to borrow and determine monetary policy

While the Lib Dems have agreed to fiscal autonomy Labour are currently just announcing their move to enhanced powers. Plans to push either further may well backfire on the Finance and First Minister's face.

Justice and Policing Stormont Breakthrough

One hundred and fifty two days, not the longest stand off in Northern Irish politics but possibly one of the most crucial with one of the greatest outcomes at the end. Many said it could never be done but the DUP and Sinn Fein have actually come to an agreement over moving forward the devolving of powers for justice and policing from Westminster to Stormont.

Announcing the programme of "modalities" that will lead to the eventual transfer of these powers appears to have finally removed the major stumbling block that was outstanding between the two parties. With the logjam about to be removed in the next few months.

The steps include appointing the Senior QC as the new Attorney General. A cross-community consensus vote in the Assembly would elect the Chairperson of the Justice Committee until May 2012.

There is also a sunset clause to review the arrangements in time to put in place a more permanent settlement on these issues.

So it's back to work for the folks on the hill.

Has 42 Days Extended 40 Years Without Abortion?

Remember back in June when the DUP backed Labour in able for the flailing government to secure 42 day detention without trail in the commons? Remember the DUP denying that there were any deals done over upcoming legislation? This despite historically the DUP being a defender of civil liberties in the area of detention without trial even in the tough times of the 70s and 80s.

When just what are we to make of the decision of Labour to totally shelf the amendment to the human fertilisation and embryology bill scheduled for today which was to relook at Northern Ireland's exemption from the bill. All the abortion amendments including the need for two doctors approval have been slipped to the end, with no time to debate them. A recent survey showing 62% of people in Northern Ireland being in favour of allowing abortion as a choice to be taken up locally. Despite this Labour have put off the chance to discuss it for how long? Another 40 years maybe? Many protested both for and against the idea on Saturday so it is a debate that Northern Ireland wants, no needs to have.

Northern Irish politician's claimed that they should have a say in such legislation at the assembly. But if they are given the option will they listen to the majority of the people on this? Or will they listen to the vocal minority? who sadly make up the core vote of most of the main parties.

Just what role did the 42 day vote have in making Harriet Harman basically dump these amendments en masse?

Two Knights. So What?

We're Knights of the Round Table,
We dance when ere we're able,
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.*

From Monty Phyton and the Holy Grail and Spamalot

Well it really takes the biscuit when Nats Jeff have to compare the knights heading up the respective Commission/Futures Trust on either side of the debate.

Jeff goes out of his way to disparage the achievement of Sir Kenneth Calman. Yes unlike Sir Angus Grossart he is not involved in the world of business or economics but that hardly means he is not qualified to pass a dispassionate eye over the future of our country. Sir Kenneth has been Chair of Cancer Research in Scotland, Chief Medical Officer both for the UK Dept of Health and here in Scotland as well as holding senior posts at both Durham and now Glasgow Universities. He's also currently President of the Boys Brigade.

Sir Angus is a lawyer turned merchant banker, now Vice Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Has been Chairman of the National Gallaries of Scotland, as well as being Chairman of the Fine Arts Society and Lyon and Turnbill auctioneers.

Both seem able to carry out carry out cognitive function at the highest level, both have experience of leadership, both have shown a diversity in interests. I don't think it does anyone justice to accuse someone appointed to chair a review that they may not agree with of being an inferior product to the one that they do. Not when the evidence is there that both have strengths.

*I have to admit before writing and researching this piece fully I'd used this quote before reading here "[Sir Angus's] interest in architecture has taken him far afield, from Crusader castles in Syria to the Inca ruins at Machu Picchu in Peru" pure coincidence I assure you.

Have DUP Paved Way for Nationalists Future?

Iain Dale, that'll be the Tory one rather than my Scottish colleague and friend, raised an interesting quandary over the Democratic Unionist Party's support of Labour in the lobbies on Wednesday night.

If the as yet unsubstantiated rumours that some deal has been done, no matter how surreptitiously, could it help the nationalists? No, not the SDLP or Sinn Fein but the Scottish variety.

Like the DUP the SNP lead a devolved executive within the UK. Like the DUP the Scottish Nats are seeking leverage over financial packages for their part of the union. So what happens if at some point in the future Gordon Brown needs more than the 9/10 Unionist votes to secure a crunch vote? What if Alex Salmond makes an approach to Gordon to shore up what he needs and names his price?

If Gordon has as he said yesterday not made a deal with the DUP he can stand up to Alex, however if it comes to light that some preferential treatment is heading the way of Northern Ireland how can he turn down some quid pro quo concession to Scotland.

Could it be after years of defending the Union and standing up to Nationalism that in one moment of seized opportunism the DUP have manged to aid the process that may unravel the Union that they hold so dear? We live in interesting times, and will look out for developments.