This post is a reproduction of my Op-Ed on Lib Dem Voice.
Alex Salmond’s SNP have a political mandate to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence. With an unprecedented majority in the Scottish Parliament and a manifesto pledge, the question is not if we have to confront this issue, but how.
Leaving aside arguments about the Scottish Parliament’s legal authority to legislate on an independence referendum (this can be resolved amicably through Westminster legislation) the Scottish Liberal Democrats must engage with the merits, not just of independence, but also “devo-max”.
Although Liberal Democrats generally support the Union, not all members are so-minded. Some (myself included) are ambivalent or notionally support Scottish independence, on distinctly liberal rather than “nationalist” grounds. Much of the SNP’s success resulted from attracting our former voters. Many in that party share our liberal instincts. On several issues we should be natural allies: wrestling power away from a London-centric Westminster; seeking reform of the EU’s CFP; and reforming social policy.
Alas the relationship has been fractious and dysfunctional. The tipping point was the last Parliament. Scottish Lib Dems inadequately co-operated with Salmond’s minority administration, in general and specifically on the Referendum Bill.
As democrats, we should have supported that referendum. As liberals we should have grasped that opportunity to articulate a federalist-inspired alternative. Call it “devo max”, “independence lite”; whatever you like. What mattered was it had to give the Scottish Parliament real power, not simply allocate resources from a Westminster hand-out.
The Steel Commission (2006) recognised this. Seeking full devolution of most taxes and the Crown Estate, it offered a real framework from which to articulate our vision for Home Rule. Parliaments responsible for raising every penny they spend have greater power, but greater accountability too.
Instead, we shunned the SNP’s “National Conversation” and referendum, turning to Scotland’s conservative forces: Labour and the Tories. The result? The Calman Commission, itself a damp squib, further diluted by the Scotland Bill. It marginally changes a tax-varying power Scotland has never sought to use and gave the Parliament modest borrowing powers. It ignored corporation tax, alcohol, tobacco and fuel duty and failed to overhaul the arbitrary and universally resented Barnett spending formula. We squandered a chance to shape Scotland’s future in our federal image. The electorate punished our cautious incrementalism. Our disastrous performance in 2011 wasn’t just a Coalition backlash; our unremitting negativity towards a relatively liberal and pragmatic SNP administration compounded it.
We must not throw-away this opportunity again. Our entire conduct towards the referendum has been in lockstep with the so-called “Unionist Bloc”.
Firstly, we’ve had this argument about the “economic uncertainty” businesses feel about the future constitutional set-up. Sure, CBI Scotland sought clarity on some issues, but most of this information is already in the public domain. In a globally integrated economy the notion that this causes mass uncertainty for Scottish business is unfounded.
Boyd Tunnock, prominent confectionery tycoon, wanted clarity on the currency and whether Anglo-Scot trade barriers would exist. These questions have been answered several times! The SNP would keep Sterling (we would be joint-stakeholders of the BOE) in the interim before putting any change (Euro or otherwise) to the people in a referendum. Further, Scotland wouldn’t have trade tariffs with England provided it was an EU/EFTA member, the first being almost certain. Absolutely there are questions that remain to be answered, for example how to separate assets and the national debt and structural EU issues, but they don’t give cause for scaremongering.
These are, anyhow, issues of process not principle. The raison-d’être of self-determination is being able to choose our currency and which international treaties to sign. Certainly the SNP should clarify their preferred and likely transitional arrangements, but advocating independence isn’t a perpetual manifesto of specifics. Trust the Scottish people to make these choices as and when the time comes.
Secondly, sending mixed-signals about the “devo-max” question, harms only us. Willie Rennie has made some positive signals but we need more. By challenging its place on the ballot we again throw away the chance to engage with the SNP and define the woolly term as our own vision. We could argue for: devolving taxes instead of tax rates; devolving powers to deal with Scotland’s drug problem; and devolving localised work visas to attract more people to Scotland and relieve pressure on the densely populated English South-East. We could seek guaranteed Holyrood representation on UK international delegations, particularly CFP negotiations, so Scotland’s fishermen’s concerns are voiced by the politicians closer to them.
That list isn’t exhaustive. More importantly, devo-max presents a chance to re-establish ourselves as an independent liberal-minded voice on the constitutional debate and in Scottish politics. Laying claim to the consensus option distinguishes us from Labour and the Tories, articulating a vision distinct from independence without attacking it for its own sake. If we do this we should achieve more working with the SNP administration. Moreover, we might just find the Scottish people willing to listen and engage with our ideas again.
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Sunday, 15 January 2012
There's nothing complicated about a two-question referendum
In response to this public statement from the Scottish Lib Dems/Willie Rennie.
I really don't see what all the fuss is about. The SNP have been completely clear about this.
First and foremost they want an independence question on the ballot. That is a question to the effect:
In addition to that, they want to have a question to the effect:
If the poll produces the answer of "yes" to the first question the second question is irrelevant and should be ignored. Given they are two separate questions it isn't as though people are prevented from expressing their preferences. As Liberal Democrats we should trust the electorate to be able to tell the difference as and when it's laid out in front of them.
And the point about "following the 1997 model" is also a little bizarre. There is a similarity to the 1997 situation in that the questions are separate but related. But what Willie doesn't seem to realise is that the nature of the two questions means that the relevance of the second is, quite unambiguously, incumbent on a "No" vote to the first question rather than a "Yes". This is because they are alternatives rather than pre-requisites. If there is a "No" vote for Independence and a "Yes" vote for Devo-Max then the result is NOT the status quo, but Devo-Max. To suggest otherwise is a little like saying in 1997 "but what if they vote for tax powers but against a Scottish Parliament?" Don't be silly.
Whilst I have slight sympathy for the "consensus option" argument, in the context of how Willie and others have framed it I can't accept its validity. It is inconsistent to play the "which majority has the biggest mandate" card (i.e. say Devo-Max gets 70% and Independence 51%) and then also to say, as we appear to be, that a second question should not be on the ballot at all. If it is a straight Yes-No referendum with only one question, and independence wins it, we'll never find out if devo-max is the option offering the greatest degree of consensus because the question won't be asked!
In any case, as federalists and localists we should be working with the SNP on developing a presentable Devo-Max proposition. Get ourselves in the room and define the third option in terms of our own model of Home Rule instead of wrestling it from the ballot paper. As it stands, all we're serving to do is leave ourselves with nothing to say other than that we're the third-wheel of the Unionist "No" vote. That is unacceptable to me and an increasing number of Liberal Democrats. At the very least, I cannot bring myself to vote "No" to independence, as it infers an endorsement of the status quo. If a viable third option isn't on the table, I will be voting "Yes" to any independence question put before me (and not out of some great clamour for rosey notions of nationhood). If the Liberal Democrats won't champion an alternative, no one will.
I really don't see what all the fuss is about. The SNP have been completely clear about this.
First and foremost they want an independence question on the ballot. That is a question to the effect:
"Should Scotland become an independent state, Yes or No?" (legal wording ignored for the time being).
In addition to that, they want to have a question to the effect:
"Should the Scottish Parliament be given the range of powers so-identified as "Devo Max", Yes or No?" (again, the specific legal framing can be bashed out as and when)
If the poll produces the answer of "yes" to the first question the second question is irrelevant and should be ignored. Given they are two separate questions it isn't as though people are prevented from expressing their preferences. As Liberal Democrats we should trust the electorate to be able to tell the difference as and when it's laid out in front of them.
And the point about "following the 1997 model" is also a little bizarre. There is a similarity to the 1997 situation in that the questions are separate but related. But what Willie doesn't seem to realise is that the nature of the two questions means that the relevance of the second is, quite unambiguously, incumbent on a "No" vote to the first question rather than a "Yes". This is because they are alternatives rather than pre-requisites. If there is a "No" vote for Independence and a "Yes" vote for Devo-Max then the result is NOT the status quo, but Devo-Max. To suggest otherwise is a little like saying in 1997 "but what if they vote for tax powers but against a Scottish Parliament?" Don't be silly.
Whilst I have slight sympathy for the "consensus option" argument, in the context of how Willie and others have framed it I can't accept its validity. It is inconsistent to play the "which majority has the biggest mandate" card (i.e. say Devo-Max gets 70% and Independence 51%) and then also to say, as we appear to be, that a second question should not be on the ballot at all. If it is a straight Yes-No referendum with only one question, and independence wins it, we'll never find out if devo-max is the option offering the greatest degree of consensus because the question won't be asked!
In any case, as federalists and localists we should be working with the SNP on developing a presentable Devo-Max proposition. Get ourselves in the room and define the third option in terms of our own model of Home Rule instead of wrestling it from the ballot paper. As it stands, all we're serving to do is leave ourselves with nothing to say other than that we're the third-wheel of the Unionist "No" vote. That is unacceptable to me and an increasing number of Liberal Democrats. At the very least, I cannot bring myself to vote "No" to independence, as it infers an endorsement of the status quo. If a viable third option isn't on the table, I will be voting "Yes" to any independence question put before me (and not out of some great clamour for rosey notions of nationhood). If the Liberal Democrats won't champion an alternative, no one will.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Cut the referendum strings. Let Holyrood be a real Parliament!
You can put strings on a puppet and make it dance to your tune. You can't put strings on a real boy and expect the same to happen. So says the tale of Pinocchio.
First let's clear something up. All this talk of Westminster legislating for a "binding referendum" on Scottish independence is total nonsense. There is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK constitution. All referendums are advisory. Their force is only political and not legal. Westminster could legislate for a Referendum bill which gave specific instructions to begin a process to settle independence in the event of a "yes" vote but it could just as easily repeal that Act of Parliament and not honour the result. Their ability to lock-in a result is no greater than that of the Scottish Parliament.
The real legal issue here is whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for ANY sort of referendum pertaining to independence because of the reservation under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, which makes the "Union" between Scotland and England a "reserved matter" to Westminster. I have expressed my own view on the legal position, that Holyrood lacks the legal power, on numerous occasions and that has not changed.
But let's not pretend that the real legal issue is the real political one. On a political level it must be acknowledged that the SNP have a mandate to ask the Scottish people if they want to become independent from the UK on the terms specified in their manifesto. That includes when it is to be held. It is nothing short of disgraceful politicking on the part of the other parties if they try to place a sunset clause on the holding of a referendum. Westminster should amend the Scotland Act to empower the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum, with access to all of the usual bodies, without ANY strings attached.
A real respect agenda towards the Scottish Parliament and those it represents requires that a basic democratic legitimacy threshold is met, and attempts to manipulate the result by forcing the SNP to hold a referendum before they said they would (in 2014 or 2015) is just crass and the Scottish people won't tolerate it. If David Cameron et al can't see that this is suicidal politicking as well as stupid then frankly they deserve to lose the referendum on that basis alone.
If those ambivalent or against independence want to remain relevant in the discussion of Scotland's constitutional future it must respect the democratic legitimacy of its institutions and let that debate take place. The Scottish people are capable of determining their own future. If independence is such a bad idea, trust them to vote accordingly as and when they asked. They aren't Pinocchio in construction. They're the real boy and strings won't hold them down.
It would, however, be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to use a separate body from the Electoral Commission to oversee the administration of the poll. Whilst I support the principle of the freedom of a separate commission (for example allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote) there must surely be concerns as to the independence and impartiality of a body set-up purely for the purposes of the referendum which alters basic fundamentals from the constitutional norms like suffrage. If Westminster is prepared to make the concessions they should, the SNP should be constructive on that side of the mechanics.
First let's clear something up. All this talk of Westminster legislating for a "binding referendum" on Scottish independence is total nonsense. There is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK constitution. All referendums are advisory. Their force is only political and not legal. Westminster could legislate for a Referendum bill which gave specific instructions to begin a process to settle independence in the event of a "yes" vote but it could just as easily repeal that Act of Parliament and not honour the result. Their ability to lock-in a result is no greater than that of the Scottish Parliament.
The real legal issue here is whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for ANY sort of referendum pertaining to independence because of the reservation under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, which makes the "Union" between Scotland and England a "reserved matter" to Westminster. I have expressed my own view on the legal position, that Holyrood lacks the legal power, on numerous occasions and that has not changed.
But let's not pretend that the real legal issue is the real political one. On a political level it must be acknowledged that the SNP have a mandate to ask the Scottish people if they want to become independent from the UK on the terms specified in their manifesto. That includes when it is to be held. It is nothing short of disgraceful politicking on the part of the other parties if they try to place a sunset clause on the holding of a referendum. Westminster should amend the Scotland Act to empower the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum, with access to all of the usual bodies, without ANY strings attached.
A real respect agenda towards the Scottish Parliament and those it represents requires that a basic democratic legitimacy threshold is met, and attempts to manipulate the result by forcing the SNP to hold a referendum before they said they would (in 2014 or 2015) is just crass and the Scottish people won't tolerate it. If David Cameron et al can't see that this is suicidal politicking as well as stupid then frankly they deserve to lose the referendum on that basis alone.
If those ambivalent or against independence want to remain relevant in the discussion of Scotland's constitutional future it must respect the democratic legitimacy of its institutions and let that debate take place. The Scottish people are capable of determining their own future. If independence is such a bad idea, trust them to vote accordingly as and when they asked. They aren't Pinocchio in construction. They're the real boy and strings won't hold them down.
It would, however, be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to use a separate body from the Electoral Commission to oversee the administration of the poll. Whilst I support the principle of the freedom of a separate commission (for example allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote) there must surely be concerns as to the independence and impartiality of a body set-up purely for the purposes of the referendum which alters basic fundamentals from the constitutional norms like suffrage. If Westminster is prepared to make the concessions they should, the SNP should be constructive on that side of the mechanics.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Thought for the Day - Common Law
If, as Einstein once said, common sense is the aggregate of prejudices an individual has acquired by the age of 18, it begs the question whether the common law is simply the aggregate of prejudices acquired over centuries.
Monday, 17 October 2011
Everything is Arbitrary
Well, okay, not quite. But this post was prompted by a Twitter discussion with Kevin McNamara (@WoolyMindedLib) in relation to the changes to constituency boundaries overseen by the Boundary Commission. The aim was firstly to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons to 600 from 650 or so and secondly to equalise constituencies (that is, to make the number of eligible voters in each single-member constituency as consistent as possible).
The main bone of contention Kevin seemed to have was that whilst he agreed with equalising constituencies the 600 figure was "arbitrary". He agrees that there's scope to reduce the overall number of MPs, but he argued that it was better to equalise the constituencies first.
There are a few issues with this. First of all, 600 is no more or less "arbitrary" than any other number of constituencies. They could have picked 100 if they really wanted to, although most would argue that single-member constituencies that large would not be appropriate for a body wielding so much power. It may be that you think the number of seats is greater than is necessary to represent adequately whilst maintaining efficient decision-making But anyway, the main point is that 600 is no more "arbitrary" than 601, 623, 646 or 19.
The second issue is that you should equalise the constituencies before reducing the number of MPs. The problem with this is that you sort of, well, can't! By reducing the number of constituencies, you definitionally have to divide up existing constituencies into new ones or, well, disenfranchise all of those in the abolished constituencies! You can only change the number of MPs by changing the boundaries so that they represent a larger or smaller proportion of the electorate.
If you start a review with a view to equalising constituencies, you need a number in mind for roughly how many constituents you want in each constituency. The thing is, this is directly related to the number of MPs you're going to end up with. If A is the total eligible voting population, B is the target standard number of eligible voters in each constituency, and C is the number of seats available, then C=A/B. We have to assume that A is relatively constant, because we can't just invent new people! So the size of a constituency is inversely proportional to the total number of seats.
It is therefore no more arbitrary to decide the size of equalised constituencies than it is to decide the total number of seats. You are setting exactly the same thing. If you equalised constituencies first, then reduced the number of MPs later, you'd just have to completely redraw the boundaries again. It would be a redundant exercise.
Another arm of Kevin's argument is that we should be able to make constituencies more equal by setting the number of constituencies afterwards. Except you can equalise constituencies without changing the total number of seats at all! All you do is don't eliminate any constituencies, but shift the boundaries about according to population distribution. If anything, making special cases for smaller "communities" like the Highlands, as many try to argue in favour of, harms not the arbitrariness of the number of seats, but the very premise of equal constituencies itself.
And that sort of leads on to my more general point about this boundary review. Making substantial special cases of communities in representation fundamentally misunderstands the notion of an electoral system where individuals vote for electors. Members of Parliament represent constituents, not communities per se; their community representation exists only insofar as a community happens to be partly or wholly contained within their constituency. In truth, constituencies themselves are relatively arbitrary. Attempts are made not to create absurd situations where bits of a constituency are landlocked from the rest, or to prevent the drawing of boundaries so as to create an inherent advantage for one party or group. Gerrymandering can still happen even when the size of constituencies is relatively equal. For example, you could ringfence seats with predictable voting patterns so that they become uncompetitive even if the overall numbers are roughly the same.
What we observe about the current system is that the old boundaries created an inherent bias towards Labour, and that not all of that was itself down to unequal sized constituencies. This explains why Labour won a handsome majority (66 seats) off 35% of the vote in 2005 whilst the Tories fell considerably short (by 20 seats) with 36% in 2010. Equalising constituencies does not, in and of itself, eliminate this gerrymandering, although the actual act of redrawing the seats has the practical effect of reducing its effects. Whether that has served simply to gerrymander in reverse rather than undo that which already exists is a legitimate point of discussion. I think there is a case, from a Lib Dem perspective, to argue that this is the case, although I do not find this terribly convincing. The new boundaries can only really be judged by some actual elections to see how they operate in practice, and even then there are other variables at play there. I'm rather more convinced that the problems people are pointing to are rather more fundamental, and pertain to the necessary effects of single-member constituencies.
It would be a lot easier to end gerrymandering and to equalise voter influence if we adopted some form of proportional representation. Larger multi-member constituencies, chosen by preferential method, are much more flexible to deal with large variations in population density. If a natural region does not comfortably correlate with a fixed "number" in mind, you have more options to maintain a constant voter value. Not only can you increase or decrease boundary sizes, but you can also increase or decrease the number of representatives without inherently prejudicing any particular party.
Distribution and number of seats can absolutely affect to a greater extent the outcome of an election than a relatively modest change in the system by which our representatives are elected from FPTP to AV. But it is procedural in character and a question of administration of the existing system rather than an overhaul of the way we elect our members of parliament. The idea that we need a referendum every time the boundaries and number of seats are tweaked by the Electoral Commission is, I think both impractical and misguided. It is an administrative and not a substantive concern.
The main bone of contention Kevin seemed to have was that whilst he agreed with equalising constituencies the 600 figure was "arbitrary". He agrees that there's scope to reduce the overall number of MPs, but he argued that it was better to equalise the constituencies first.
There are a few issues with this. First of all, 600 is no more or less "arbitrary" than any other number of constituencies. They could have picked 100 if they really wanted to, although most would argue that single-member constituencies that large would not be appropriate for a body wielding so much power. It may be that you think the number of seats is greater than is necessary to represent adequately whilst maintaining efficient decision-making But anyway, the main point is that 600 is no more "arbitrary" than 601, 623, 646 or 19.
The second issue is that you should equalise the constituencies before reducing the number of MPs. The problem with this is that you sort of, well, can't! By reducing the number of constituencies, you definitionally have to divide up existing constituencies into new ones or, well, disenfranchise all of those in the abolished constituencies! You can only change the number of MPs by changing the boundaries so that they represent a larger or smaller proportion of the electorate.
If you start a review with a view to equalising constituencies, you need a number in mind for roughly how many constituents you want in each constituency. The thing is, this is directly related to the number of MPs you're going to end up with. If A is the total eligible voting population, B is the target standard number of eligible voters in each constituency, and C is the number of seats available, then C=A/B. We have to assume that A is relatively constant, because we can't just invent new people! So the size of a constituency is inversely proportional to the total number of seats.
It is therefore no more arbitrary to decide the size of equalised constituencies than it is to decide the total number of seats. You are setting exactly the same thing. If you equalised constituencies first, then reduced the number of MPs later, you'd just have to completely redraw the boundaries again. It would be a redundant exercise.
Another arm of Kevin's argument is that we should be able to make constituencies more equal by setting the number of constituencies afterwards. Except you can equalise constituencies without changing the total number of seats at all! All you do is don't eliminate any constituencies, but shift the boundaries about according to population distribution. If anything, making special cases for smaller "communities" like the Highlands, as many try to argue in favour of, harms not the arbitrariness of the number of seats, but the very premise of equal constituencies itself.
And that sort of leads on to my more general point about this boundary review. Making substantial special cases of communities in representation fundamentally misunderstands the notion of an electoral system where individuals vote for electors. Members of Parliament represent constituents, not communities per se; their community representation exists only insofar as a community happens to be partly or wholly contained within their constituency. In truth, constituencies themselves are relatively arbitrary. Attempts are made not to create absurd situations where bits of a constituency are landlocked from the rest, or to prevent the drawing of boundaries so as to create an inherent advantage for one party or group. Gerrymandering can still happen even when the size of constituencies is relatively equal. For example, you could ringfence seats with predictable voting patterns so that they become uncompetitive even if the overall numbers are roughly the same.
What we observe about the current system is that the old boundaries created an inherent bias towards Labour, and that not all of that was itself down to unequal sized constituencies. This explains why Labour won a handsome majority (66 seats) off 35% of the vote in 2005 whilst the Tories fell considerably short (by 20 seats) with 36% in 2010. Equalising constituencies does not, in and of itself, eliminate this gerrymandering, although the actual act of redrawing the seats has the practical effect of reducing its effects. Whether that has served simply to gerrymander in reverse rather than undo that which already exists is a legitimate point of discussion. I think there is a case, from a Lib Dem perspective, to argue that this is the case, although I do not find this terribly convincing. The new boundaries can only really be judged by some actual elections to see how they operate in practice, and even then there are other variables at play there. I'm rather more convinced that the problems people are pointing to are rather more fundamental, and pertain to the necessary effects of single-member constituencies.
It would be a lot easier to end gerrymandering and to equalise voter influence if we adopted some form of proportional representation. Larger multi-member constituencies, chosen by preferential method, are much more flexible to deal with large variations in population density. If a natural region does not comfortably correlate with a fixed "number" in mind, you have more options to maintain a constant voter value. Not only can you increase or decrease boundary sizes, but you can also increase or decrease the number of representatives without inherently prejudicing any particular party.
Distribution and number of seats can absolutely affect to a greater extent the outcome of an election than a relatively modest change in the system by which our representatives are elected from FPTP to AV. But it is procedural in character and a question of administration of the existing system rather than an overhaul of the way we elect our members of parliament. The idea that we need a referendum every time the boundaries and number of seats are tweaked by the Electoral Commission is, I think both impractical and misguided. It is an administrative and not a substantive concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)