Letters / Proposals ‘fell far short’
It is surprising to hear Alastair Carmichael (‘Lib Dems: more powers are good news for isles’, SN 22/01/15) describe the newly published command paper on the Smith proposals as Home Rule, firstly because his unionist bedfellows generally try and claim that the infamous “vow” didn’t promise “home rule”.
This part of the debate centres around what was and what was not said in the “vow” and is largely a matter of semantics. It is generally clear though that most people took the “vow” to mean “home rule” and that most people interpret “home rule” as something very close to the devolution of everything except foreign affairs and defence.
I am glad therefore that Alastair has cleared up at least one aspect of this as he suggests that “home rule” was indeed promised. Coming from the Secretary of State for Scotland I attach some weight to this.
I am disappointed though that he feels that home rule has now been delivered. The Smith proposals fell very far short of what most people believe is meant by home rule and the current command paper falls shorter still.
Many of the proposed powers require the consent of the UK Government, the caveat being that such consent will not be unreasonably withheld; however, this depends on whose definition of “reasonable” is the preferred one. It is easy to foresee many circumstances where each government could differ significantly with the other claiming that reason is on its side. If the proposals are implemented in this form I would expect to see considerable ongoing friction and no one can believe that this is a formula for good government. This cannot easily be dismissed as bad drafting and can only be interpreted as the UK Government seeking to provoke a fight.
It will hardly be a surprise to anyone that I don’t feel that these proposals go nearly far enough, but I am joined in this by widespread disappointment being expressed from across Civic Scotland. Organisations like the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations, the Poverty Alliance and Citizen’s Advice have all expressed profound dissatisfaction. Many academics have been much more critical, describing the proposals as incoherent and unworkable.
All of those expressing concern recognise that much of the point of further devolution is to enable the Scottish Government to create enhanced economic growth and that these powers fall far short of conferring this ability. Higher growth increases the tax take without government having to resort to increasing taxation rates and it is this higher tax take that can be used to fund a fairer welfare system.
It is also disingenuous of Alastair to claim that the LibDems have delivered devolution of the Crown Estate despite SNP opposition. It is well known that devolution of the Crown Estate has been SNP policy for many years. Indeed part of the SNP Government’s response to the recent Our Islands Our Future campaign was to promise 100 per cent devolution of the Crown Estate revenues to local communities. This was done in a comprehensive document entitled ‘Empowering our Island Communities’. For those who wish to check this document is still available online.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/2708
The corresponding UK Government response was a document called ‘A Framework for the Islands’ and this by comparison offers little more than a few warm words. It commits to greater transparency on the Crown Estate revenues and greater co-operation but nothing else. There is no mention of devolution of the Crown Estate revenues.
Some of the Scottish Government proposals were predicated on a Yes vote in the referendum as we obviously cannot devolve powers we don’t have, but Derek MacKay, Scotland’s first islands minister, has now been charged with delivering as many of these proposals as possible, given current powers and those we are likely to get in the near future.
Far from being a recipe for co-operation and good government the command paper proposals are instead a recipe for incoherent government and conflict. What is perhaps just as disappointing is that we have a Secretary of State who fails to recognise that in this age of the internet it behoves politicians to be scrupulously honest with the electorate. Anything less will be quickly found out. It is only those who are still wedded to the out-dated Westminster style of government who still believe otherwise. I expect more of Alastair Carmichael and so will voters on Shetland.
Mike MacKenzie, SNP Highlands and Islands list MSP
Become a supporter of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider start paying for their dose of the latest local news delivered straight to their PC, tablet or mobile phone.
Journalism comes at a price and because that price is not being paid in today’s rapidly changing media world, most publishers - national and local - struggle financially despite very healthy audience figures.
Most online publishers have started charging for access to their websites, others have chosen a different route. Shetland News currently has over 600 supporters who are all making small voluntary financial contributions. All funds go towards covering our cost and improving the service further.
Your contribution will ensure Shetland News can: -
- Bring you the headlines as they happen;
- Stay editorially independent;
- Give a voice to the community;
- Grow site traffic further;
- Research and publish more in-depth news, including more Shetland Lives features.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a supporter of Shetland News by either making a single payment or monthly subscription.
Support us from as little as £3 per month – it only takes a minute to sign up. Thank you.
Already a supporter? Sign in to hide this message.
