Those areas in which the Commission has supported possible further devolution of powers to Scotland are broadcasting, energy policy, animal health and movement, firearms, misuse of drugs, regulation of health-care professionals and marine-planning. Whether this transfer of powers would improve governance or simple efficiency in these areas is most definitely a matter of debate. My own opinion is that we need a lot less regulation and bureaucracy (including the de-Establishment of our state broadcaster) in the world of broadcasting- and if that means more Scottish (or Welsh, or Northern Irish)-centric programming, then let it be down to the public demand as opposed to some Soviet-style Dept of National Broadcasting Directive dictating what we are allowed to watch/read/listen to.
"Animal health and movement" falls into the same category as "immigration" mentioned earlier; animal diseases do not respect land borders- and although there may in cases of emergency be a call for a narrower county or regional policy, this could be organised as well from London as from Edinburgh. "Firearms" and "misuse of drugs"? Yes, obviously, bad things. And how exactly would devolving legislation in this area reduce their overall "badness" effect on the United Kingdom as a whole?
The biggest inequities arising from the UK's devolution experiment have occured within what used to be the National Health Service; health-care professionals need exactly the same skills (and qualifications proving those skills) wherever they may be practising in the UK, so why should there be different regulation of this area in different parts of the UK? Which leaves marine planning and energy policy from that original list of seven- so, go ahead, save a bit of time and forget those other five areas and investigate the pros and cons of devolving solely these two issues to Edinburgh.
The one main area the Commission touched upon which, in the interests once again of good and joint-up government should be amended, repaired, or whatever asap, is the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood:
"...there ought to be an expectation that the Parliaments, Assemblies and Governments of the UK should work together in the common interests of UK citizens, even though there will sometimes be political differences between them"
...an imminently sensible truism to point out and it is a sentiment which every "governing" party in the UK should be required to sign , whether it ties in with their present short-term tactics or not.
Finally, the topic which has received most publicity is the one of granting further financial autonomy to Holyrood:
"Full fiscal autonomy is inconsistent with the Union and we do not consider it further".
"Correct" and "good" in that order. But the present asymmetrical financing system is also inconsistent with the Union- how does the Commission propose to solve that situation? The interim report agrees that looking at the block grant (ie the Barnett Formula) is quite clearly necessary and in both Scotland's and the Union's long-term interest. This is a matter which deserves a lot fewer populist soundbites and much more further, real economic consideration and if the Commission achieves nothing else, a workable solution to the problem would have made all the time and money spent worthwhile. But as I mentioned in my first part earlier, it cannot be looked at in isolation solely on the basis as to how it affects Scotland- how we devolve powers in one part of the UK affects the rest of the UK, the remit of the Calman Commission should be widened to pay much more attention to that fact.
13 comments:
"But as I mentioned in my first part earlier, it cannot be looked at in isolation solely on the basis as to how it affects Scotland- how we devolve powers in one part of the UK affects the rest of the UK, the remit of the Calman Commission should be widened to pay much more attention to that fact."
First there has to be an acceptance that the nations of the UK are equal in stature and any agreement is between them OR that the nations don't exist and the UK is one unified people.
The former is better for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the latter is better for England.
"Full fiscal autonomy is inconsistent with the Union and we do not consider it further".
I haven't read the thing so tell me, is that all it has to say about full fiscal autonomy? If so then how flawed is the whole Commission? It's job was to look at what would be best for Scotland - without me trying to answer whether ffa would be good/bad for them I could still say with certainty that the Commission's job was to look at it and not dismiss it simply because they were scared it would give the answer they did not want.
The broadcasting issue is a fairly hot topic in Scotland. One of the first things Salmond did last year was to launch the Broacast Commission to investigate broadcasting in Scotland.
It certainly caused a stir - and the one broadcasting system fits all argument got a bit of a knock with remarks from ITV's Michael Grade inferring that Scotland could not produce talented production companies to the BBC being got trying to twist statistics over Scottish production figures. Most famously it tried to argue that a major production (was it Life on Mars) was Scottish produced since the head of the production company was a London-based (for several years) Scot. They just ended up looking stupid.
The general consensus seems to be towards a Scottish digital channel which particularly supported by the Tories (whose broadcasting bod is ex-Grampian TV boss Ted "save the union" Brocklebank - an alleged former paramour of Selina Scott - has been at the forefront in calling for such a channel). The question is just over funding. It looks likely that such a channel would be part state-funded, part commercial funded.
The reaction from the BBC shall we say to all these events has been panic. As it always does when it gets accused of Anglocentricity and Metrocentricity (Salmond "The BBC is awfully White City") and thinks it might lose some cash because of this.
The complaints come in various guises. From Iain MacWhirter's common criticism that BBC Scotland is underfunded to make it look "provincial" to a few years back when there was a storm over Simon Scharma's "History of Britain" which raised complaints in Scotland that was merely a "History of England" with Scotland, Wales and Ireland playing walk-on parts.
This lead to a knee-jerk series on Scotland's history, hastily cobbled together to try and stem the anger.
At the moment Neil Oliver (Coast etc) is doing the "History of Scotland" - again part of the fallout of Salmond's commission. Again there has been controversy with resignations from some of the academic board of advisors to the series on the grounds that the programme is being deliberately angled at showing Scotland as a backward, divided country pre-1707. This side-steps the periods of prosperity that Scotland enjoyed certainly pre-1513 and also sells the idea that on the other hand England was united (yeah, like the War of the Roses, Simon de Montfort, depositions of Edward II and Richard II)
Another complaint about the BBC is the use of "Scotland correspondents" for UK news rather than using the staff at BBC Scotland. Smacks slightly of colonialism as most "Scotland Correspondents" tend to be English and therefore raises the accusation that BBC Scotland reporters do not have "Anglo-friendly" accents such Messrs Neil, Naughty and Grove.
Mark Thomas did a sackcloth and ashes routine a few months back pledging that Scotland would produce at least 10% of BBC programming. However the bulk of these programmes look likely not to be "Scottish" but rather BBC Scotland managed - Question Time, Weakest Link, Wallander will be run by BBC Scotland.
At present 2% of BBC programmes are produced in Scotland with an extreme disproportion in London. This is blamed on the "Metrocentric network". Murial Gray - who opposes a Scotland-only channel - has said the only way this can be tackled is to force the move of either BBC, ITV, Channel Four or Five to relocate their HQ of London. Some hope!
However the broadcast of Scottish society or indeed other parts of the UK outside the charmed M25 circle into the living rooms of the UK still look unlikely in the short term. Unfortunately broadcasters in London like Scotland to produce things in three categories:
1- Kailyard (Dr Findlay, High Road, Monarch of the Glen, even the Crow Road could fall into this category)
2- Mental Scotland (Taggart, Rebus, Looking after Jo Jo)
3- Cheeky Weegies (Scotch and Wry, Rab C, Chewin the Fat)
What looks likely is that the Scottish Parliament will supervise BBC Scotland, STV etc and make sure they are producing Scottish programmes for Scotland and enquire how much they are producing for the UK. And on top looking after the digital channel if it gets off the ground.
In Germany, the "Third" channel is purely autonomous regional programming with some shared programmes. Somehow, how does it make Scotland parochial to have its own television channel but Bavaria not.
The other two channels in Germany are ARD 1 which is like the BBC or ITV - mainly national with regional optouts whilst the second - ZDF is purely a national channel.
Well that is broadcasting done.
I am not bothered about Animal Health and Movement. Although there seems to be an anomaly that whilst the UK government controls animal health, the Scottish government has to compensate (out of its own budget) for any livestock loss brought about by a UK government ordered cull. This led to a dispute between the two administrations over compensating farmers who lost animals over the recent foot and mouth cull.
http://www.alistaircarmichael.org.uk/newsdetail.asp?ID=429
In Germany, if the federal government makes an order that effects the finances of the state government (such as the above example) then the constitution states that the state government must be compensated by the federal government.
Getting that out of the former masters of the Empire - fat chance!
Concerning drugs and firearms, generally they should be done in a UK context. However some discretion on lowering ages - such on air weapons - might not go astray.
Health Service - been here many times. Three different health services. Always has been. Different bureaucracies pre-date devolution. Health trusts throughout UK provide different priorities, even within England etc
Health professionals being uniformly liscenced. No problem there. Of course in the UK social workers and teachers need different licenses for different parts of the UK - predating devolution but this is due to different legal and education systems.
Finance. Well as I said a few weeks back, I tend to favour the "Wendy solution" of assigned portioned revenues from income, corporate and VAT receipts. Also on oil and gas revenues. Scottish government to control some taxes directly such as stamp duty and some excise duties. UK government grant based on need.
A mechanism needs to be found for the Scottish government along with the other autonomous administrations to be able to influence VAT, Corporate etc rates. This goes on in Germany where a majority of state governments have to back any changes in VAT, Corporate or Income tax for it to become law.
Full fiscal autonomy is something the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have and obviously whilst sharing a common defence, foriegn, social security etc makes such a thing difficult within the UK.
However Scotland (and other parts) need to move away from "pocket-money" Parliaments purely based on grants. The legislatures need more financial responsiblity and the ability to tweek their economies a bit more.
Relying on the London leviathan for scraps falling from its table is not the way to run a major economy.
The Economist strangely the other week complained out how centralised the UK is even post-devolution. In an article about the British blame culture, it said that things were so centralised that even minor local matters blew into national issues with blame being heaped on government ministers who had no direct influence on the problems in the first place.
"so why should there be different regulation of this area in different parts of the UK?"
Ummmm....Is it because that's what people voted for (unless they were English)?
The Calman Commission was financed by all of us (from UK coffers) so I agree that we should all have a say. My submission, and that of the Campaign for an English Parliament, was quoted in the evidence review, but the actual interim report didn't actually address the points raised.
Frankly I think they've already failed, at the (interim) first hurdle.
Their remit was "to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom." You can't change the terms of association without asking the rest of the UK (which is what they failed to do previously, and is the reason we're in this asymmetric mess to begin with)
First there has to be an acceptance that the nations of the UK are equal in stature and any agreement is between them OR that the nations don't exist and the UK is one unified people.
The former is better for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the latter is better for England.
John,
The UK can be one unified people, whilst recognising that the nation (UK) is comprised of 4 different individual units- it doesn’t have to be an “either…or” The present situation however is the worst of both worlds.
HF
haven't read the thing so tell me, is that all it has to say about full fiscal autonomy? If so then how flawed is the whole Commission? It's job was to look at what would be best for Scotland - without me trying to answer whether ffa would be good/bad for them I could still say with certainty that the Commission's job was to look at it and not dismiss it simply because they were scared it would give the answer they did not want.
One of their main declared targets was "to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.", there is no way that it could be argued that "ffa" could help achieve that aim. Having siad that, a little bit more illumination explaining why wouldn’t have gone amiss.
What looks likely is that the Scottish Parliament will supervise BBC Scotland, STV etc and make sure they are producing Scottish programmes for Scotland and enquire how much they are producing for the UK.
Aberdonian,
You’ve kind of proved my point there about state involvement in broadcasting. “Supervise”, “make sure” are two words and phrases that I hate to see used with determining what people can and cannot watch.
Toque,
Ummmm....Is it because that's what people voted for (unless they were English)?
What the people thought they were voting for and what they got are not the same here. The rest of your point I agree with; it’s the main failing of both Scottish and N.Irish Unionism that they assume the Union begins and ends solely with their own connection with the rest of the UK.
What the people thought they were voting for and what they got are not the same here.
Really? You think that the referendum voters of 1997 didn;t know that voting Yes would mean different policies in Wales and Scotland? Of course they did.
Does not the UK Parliament not have some sort of supervisory/scrutiny over the BBC (and to a lesser degree the independent broadcasters) through the Media, Sport and Culture select committee.
Not to mention the "Ministry for Fun".
That is the sort of thing the Scottish Parliament would be doing.
Just because it is the Parliament in Edinburgh, not the Parliament, does not make it the less legitimate.
Strangely last night there was a debate on the subject on Newsnight Scotland. George Foulkes came out against the digital channel but demanded more Scottish output on UK TV.
Does not the UK Parliament not have some sort of supervisory/scrutiny over the BBC (and to a lesser degree the independent broadcasters) through the Media, Sport and Culture select committee.
Aberdonian,
Probably, I didn't make it clear enough in the original post, I favour complete deregulation of the media which would involve naturally the "de-establishment" of the BBC. In the era of increasing digitalisation the fcat that any parliament has control over what is or is not broadcast is a an anachronism.
You think that the referendum voters of 1997 didn;t know that voting Yes would mean different policies in Wales and Scotland?
They knew it would mean different policies in certain areas, but they weren't obviously aware at that stage if the effects of devolving those areas.
but they weren't obviously aware at that stage if the effects of devolving those areas.
On what basis can you possible state that? The effects of devoution were drummed into us in 1997, both by the Yes and No campaigns. I've never heard anyone in Wales say "I voted for the assembly but god I didn't know it would mean we'd be doing things different to England".
And even if people were unaware of it, seeing how support for devolution has grown substantially since 1997 then I can only assume it was a nice surprise for them!
On what basis can you possible state that?
First of all because none of us can yet predict the future;), but especially of a govenance system that had never been tried before within a UK context.
There's a difference between not knowing the exact policies that would be put in place but you said that they got something difference to what they voted for, implying that they didn't know the extent of the powers tranferred - that's balderdash.
Post a Comment