The leader of the Tories in Scotland, Annabel Goldie, faces a grassroots' rebellion over her backing for moves to transfer more powers to the Scottish Parliament, with at least one leading senior Conservative complaining to David Cameron about her plans.
They are also concerned that the Tory group of MSPs at Holyrood is poised to back plans for full fiscal autonomy, which would give the Parliament the right to raise and spend all its tax revenue. This, some fear, would be a major step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.
No need to overdramatise, but the key question is does the granting of more fiscal (or any other kind of) independence for any part of the Union, strengthen the Union as a single entity?
And the answer to that is a resounding “no”.
One former senior office bearer in the Scottish party, with over 30 years of service to numerous leaders, has written a personal letter to Mr Cameron describing Miss Goldie's plans as both a "blunder'' and "nonsense'' and suggesting that, taken together, they represent a threat to the Union. Thus far, Mr Cameron has backed Miss Goldie to the hilt.
Perhaps that's because Cameron is himself preparing to instigate his own limited legislative "autonomy" plan, for England later on this year?
Scottish Conservatives pledging themselves to more independence from Westminster would provide the perfect cover for their English counterparts to start edging away from the "U.K., One Nation, One Parliament" concept and set up some some form of separate legislative or voting system, solely for English MPs.
Not for the first time, whilst the "British" Establishment dabble in separatist realpolitik, it is the Unionist grassroots who're the ones ringing the alarm bells.
2 comments:
No wonder as Alan Taylor of the Sunday Herald calls the Scottish Tories the "Scottish Doh-Doh Party". They are not the most popular bunch in Scottish politics despite it has to be said Annabel and Murdo's best efforts.
The Scottish Tories are always say "we are a unionist party". But like Labour, they tended to always flipflop on the home rule issue. This traditional flipflop was "in opposition - for some sort of Scottish autonomy - once in government against it".
For example when the Tories were doing better than Labour in the immediate inter-war years no less than Churchill himself posited the idea of a "Scottish Stormont" at a major rally at Hampden Park. Once the Tories were back in office, the idea was dropped.
Then Edward Heath resurrected it at his "Declaration of Perth". He dropped it once he was in Downing Street.
Margaret Thathcer talked of need for a "Scottish Assembly" when she was leader of the opposition. She dumped the idea a few months before the general election leading to the resignation in disgust of the Shadow Scottish Secretary Alick Buchannan-Smith and his deputy - a certain Malcolm Rifkind.
With reference to an earlier post in your contention you want a centralised unitary state because you are British. Are not the Manx and the Channel Islanders not British but enjoy (for no good linguistic, geographic or historical reason) considerable autonomy from the UK?
Do you think the parliaments and governments of these islands should be shut down? I actually posited this question (via his wife arch-anti home ruler Jenny Hjul) to the author of the article Alan Cochrane on this issue. Why is it relevant? Well because the Daily Telegraph recently launched a campaign called "Say you are British". The Telegraph is of course owned by the Barclay Brothers who are hardened anti-devolutionists. They of course live in Sark which is British but not part of the UK. I am sure they live there for the bracing sea air which helps their physical health - not the tax conditions that help their financial health. And they bleat about Connery!
Received no reply about my query by the way from Ms Hjul or Mr Cochrane!
Seriously, what you could do is campaign to have sanctions against these "island monkeys". You and me cannot live on those islands without permits but these people can live in the UK without permits? Is that fair - considering they pay a lot less tax than we do. Indeed VAT has only recently been introduced on either Jersey or Guernsey - cannot remember which.
So should the governments, parliaments, post offices, customs services, legal systems, prison services etc be closed down and these islands integrated into the UK?
Concerning taxation (very important for those aforementioned "British" islands), probably the most likely outcome in the long term would be tax system like Germany. In Germany the federal government has sole control on customs dues, VAT, transport tax (such as air passenger duty), supplimentary levies on personal and corporate income (read national insurance) and excises not exclusive to the state government.
State government gets inheritance tax, real estate tax (stamp duties), property taxes for individuals and organisations, gambling taxes and very important in Germany - beer tax. It can also impose excise duties on anything not reserved for the Federal government.
Concerning the two biggies - well here is the crux of the problem for the UK - corporate and income taxes are uniform. Pull out the union jacks, aye. But, and here is the big but, these taxes are split by the constitution 65% to the states government where it was collected and 25% to the federal government. Whilst the federal government has the power to propose changes of corporate and income tax rates and allowances, the states governments collectively sitting as the Bundesat (the upper house) have the power to veto any proposed changes. No approval of changes by the Bundesrat - no changes full stop. Legislation on these areas must get past the Bundesrat before getting to the popuarly elected Bundestag.
This is the system for the world's no.3 economy (despite the problems of integrating the old east) and the host country for Europe's no.2 financial centre.
This is fair of course as the state governments get most of the cash and therefore should have a say on what is accrued.
Such a system would annoy the UK authorities for a number of reasons:
1) It would undermine the principle that taxes are solely the remit of the House of Commons
2) It would hamstring the UK government in how much they would get in two of their three main sources of finance.
3) There are many people in the London establishment who would rather see armageddon than give Paisley, Salmond and Morgan some sort of veto on corporate and income tax legislation!
4) It would force the UK government to be much more friendlier to parts of the UK which do not vote for it to keep them from voting in state governments who can effectively veto their budget. Lose control of the Bundesrat and a German government in paralysed. Pace Herr Schroder's fall.
Unfortunately the UK government and parliament still see themselves are imperial institutions and think like that way as well. Toga! Toga!
No wonder as Alan Taylor of the Sunday Herald calls the Scottish Tories the "Scottish Doh-Doh Party". They are not the most popular bunch in Scottish politics despite it has to be said Annabel and Murdo's best efforts.
If, as looks likely, they are going to die a long, slow lingering death electorally in Scotland and Wales, why not do it with at least their Unionist principles intact?
Very good points about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and something that I haven’t thought about too much before. It seems they want the benefits of being British without the attendant responsibilities and costs.
Do you think the parliaments and governments of these islands should be shut down?
How about a referendum giving them the stark option of a lot more integration with UK tax systems etc or full-out independence. That’s should rattle a few cages and cause more than a few flutters amongst the financial establishment.
Re the German example of a federal state. It works, basically because no one lander is big enough (as England would be in our hypothetical case) to dominate the federation and secondly and more importantly, there is no pressure for separation within any of the lander. Within their kind of scenario, the separation of taxes you mention between the centre and the provinces makes logical sense, it acts as a further democratic balance and check.
In our situation, the devolution of tax-raising (and spending) powers will merely be the stepping stone not to a federal state but full independence of the three countries and God knows what with N.Ireland.
Post a Comment