Excellent stuff. JOE
Parliament needs more power, say leading Scots
Jason Allardyce and Kathleen Nutt (Times)
AN influential group of leading figures from Scottish public life is calling for more powers to be given to the Holyrood parliament. Politicians, businessmen, church leaders, artists and academics are backing a re- examination of the devolution settlement to make MSPs more accountable. Nicol Stephen, deputy first minister, Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, and Henry McLeish, former first minister, are among those who believe that the Scotland Act should be reopened.
Others include David Watt, director of the Institute of Directors Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, and Sir Bernard Crick, one of Britain’s leading constitutional experts. Academics backing the call for more powers for Holyrood include Robert Wright, professor of economics at Strathclyde University.
From the arts world supporters include Sir Sean Connery, the actor, Edwin Morgan, the national poet, Alan McGee, the record producer, John Byrne, the writer and artist, Stuart Cosgrove, the Channel 4 executive, and Bernard MacLaverty, the novelist.
There is support among some for decisions about corporation tax, abortion, the licensing of some firearms and the siting of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil to be made by the Scottish parliament. Others want Holyrood to become responsible for raising its own revenue, instead of relying on a grant from the UK government.
Their intervention comes ahead of a major debate about the issue to be held in Edinburgh next week, organised by The Sunday Times.
Stephen, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, said: “The time is right to look again at the devolution settlement to improve democratic accountability and to ensure that Scotland has the right powers to grow the economy and meet the challenges of the future.”
Fraser believes it is important to have a debate on the future of devolution so that Scotland can move forward. “Arguments for greater financial powers for the parliament do have their attractions although there are serious practical difficulties to be resolved before this becomes a reality,” he said.
Jack McConnell has already ordered his advisers to prepare a case for reopening the Scotland Act, which was passed in 1997. Some of his senior Labour colleagues, including Wendy Alexander, the former minister, back more powers.
Other supporters include Canon Kenyon Wright, who led the campaign for devolution before Labour came to power in 1997.
Trade unions who helped to devise the blueprint for the Scottish parliament ahead of its first election in 1999 are keen on a wide range of new powers.
Unison, Scotland’s biggest union, believes that there is “merit in considering further devolution in areas of policy, including equalities, energy, broadcasting, civil service, drugs, firearms, immigration, council tax benefit, job centre plus, gaming and consumer protection”.
Unison wants an independent commission to consider Holyrood’s powers, similar to a review into the Welsh assembly led by Lord Richards.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress is conducting an internal review of its position which is expected to see it call for health and safety and other areas to be devolved early next year.
Giving Holyrood greater financial powers could allow ministers to offer tax breaks to artists and film-makers, such as happened in Ireland.
McGee, the founder of Creation Records and the man who discovered Oasis, said: “Scotland should be much more like Ireland and a Celtic haven for artists.”
Any attempt to extend the powers of the Holyrood parliament would first have to gain the support of the Westminster government, where it would meet with stiff resistance from unionist MPs.
Last week’s dispute over dawn raids for asylum seekers highlighted the friction between Holyrood and Westminster and was cited as a key reason for more Holyrood powers by Alasdair Gray, the author, and Hardeep Singh Kohli, star of the television comedy Meet the Magoons.
Influential figures in Scotland: what they think
Henry McLeish, former Scottish first minister: “I am absolutely delighted that the Sunday Times has taken this step. It is timely, six years into the parliament. It is time to formalise the discussion about where devolution goes in the future, what kinds of powers we might have and to tackle some of the outstanding issues which were not fully resolved when the settlement was signed and sealed at Westminster. We have to use the parliament to bring Scotland alive, acting with more ambition as a beacon for Scotland on the world stage.
“There will be huge political issues around money and the parliament’s funding formula will undoubtedly come under pressure therefore we have to start to address that now.
“But if we are going to have a debate on new powers we need to build a consensus in Scotland otherwise Westminster will not listen. We can be for financial autonomy, for a greater say in Europe, or for tweaking employment and welfare issues and environment and transport but without consensus nothing will change. There is an awful lot we all agree on and we should be seeking to start the consensual ball rolling rather than arguing about the irrelevant. We need leadership from all the parties.”
Sean Connery: “The opening day of the Scottish Parliament on 1st July 1999 was one of the proudest days of my life. However, nearly seven years on, it is obvious that the powers are inadequate to do a real job for Scotland.
“My most pressing concern is that the dead hand of Westminster still weighs too heavily on many areas of Scottish life. I also believe that Scottish commentators should give a fair wind to the proposals coming from our Parliament to improve the life of Scots.
“I believe in Independence because it means equality for Scotland and that is the high ground in the coming debate - a debate which I welcome.”
Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Scottish Catholic church:“The constitutional settlement should not be seen as untouchable but rather as something capable of evolving to meet the changing needs of our society.
In particular I think of two areas where at present Scotland is unable to decide what approach should be taken to very different but crucially important topics. These are; abortion and nuclear weapons.
In the case of the former, while virtually all areas of health policy are devolved and can be debated and questioned by our elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament, abortion remains out with our MSP’s jurisdiction. There are strongly held and widely differing views on abortion in Scotland just as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom yet I see no reason why the approach taken in Scotland could not reflect the views of the Scottish population.
On nuclear weapons, again while the issue of defence is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, the question of location of nuclear weapons has an enormous impact on Scottish communities and on Scotland in general. It is not possible however under our current arrangements for the country most affected by the storage and maintenance of nuclear weapons to express a view on whether or not stationing of these weapons and their potential successors is in tune with the wishes of the population.”
Rory Bremner: “First there was devolution. Now it’s time for evolution. Have your say in the Sunday Times debate.”
Susan Deacon, MSP and former health minister: “I am relaxed about discussing the issue of parliamentary powers. Indeed, I believe we should always be willing at least to discuss any aspect of devolution and to reflect on the basis of experience. However, I do believe that our primary concern at the present time should be to make best use of the considerable powers the Scottish parliament already has at its disposal and to ensure that we are developing the full potential of the devolution settlement we have.”
Edwin Morgan, Scotland’s poet laureate: “I think the Scottish parliament should have more powers. It’s doing reasonably well. I wouldn’t rush to condemn it without giving it a good chance. But it would be helpful if it had more fiscal powers. That would help the country really make something of the new situation altogether. Many people may have been a bit dubious about devolution to begin with, and have now come around. I think it's got to a stage now where devolution would be helped forward by the parliament having more powers."
Sir Stewart Sutherland, peer and chair of the Scottish executive commission on free personal care: “It is a very good idea to have this debate. We live in very volatile times and things have to be thought through. I believe the parliament needs to get its act together before it looks for new powers and the West Lothian Question needs to be sorted out before we go down that road.
“There will doubtless come at some point a reconsideration of how Scotland’s financial grant from the British government is calculated. We get a lot more money than England for health and education but it is not delivering the goods in the same way which suggests it is about the effectiveness of spend.
“When that reconsideration happens we need to be in a strong position and I believe that demanding extra powers now will accelerate when the Barnett formula is looked at.”
Laura Marney, best selling author: “I would have most things devolved back to the Scottish Parliament. However, until that happens nuclear weapons is an issue that Scots should have a greater say on. While there are moves towards a European defence force it remains unacceptable that not only do we not have a seat at the top table in Europe but we are consistently bypassed by London on nuclear planning and all the while the Clyde bristles with weapons of mass destruction - weapons of which we are the unwilling hosts. Despite the fact that Scotland has clearly and consistently been against nuclear weapons, negotiations are going on to replace the ageing Trident missiles buying American components with our money to be sited on Scottish soil.
This is morally and constitutionally wrong and there should be a statutory obligation for Westminster to consult the Scottish Parliament. By this I don’t mean the Scottish executive who will roll over – I mean the parliament of Scotland.”
Pat Nevin, former Scotland and Chelsea footballer: “It is good to have this debate. I think people have only limited knowledge of what powers the parliament has. As we go one we find areas where we thought we had powers which we don’t. What we expected to get out of devolution is not what everyone got.”
Jeremy Peat, director of the David Hume Institute and former chief economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland: “I welcome constructive debate around this topic.”
John Park, Scottish Trades Union Congress: “There are powers that need to be looked at, there needs to be a tidying up exercise. As a natural consequence of devolution we are finding there are things we deal with where we would like to have more scope around.”
Stuart Cosgrove, Channel Four director of Nations and Regions: "I tend to be very much in favour of more powers. Devolution has been broadly successful in Scottish political culture and there are clear areas that now need to be taken further.
“One of the big challenges is policies on inward migration where Scotland has different needs to the overheated south east of England and policy is being set by default. Scotland has to accept what the home counties thinks is relevant."
"Areas that have already been devolved and have led to significant and different changes in the law, for example, on issues such as sectarian aggravated violence or indeed smoking in public places proves that devolution can offer solutions that are nuanced for the Scottish context. Despite all the doom mongers the world hasn't fallen apart."
"Devolution is fundamentally about taking governance closer to people and it would be wrong to see that purely in nation state terms. We need to begin to think more broadly of Scotland as a complex mix of different regions and communities and find ways of devolving power and public policy away from, say, the Central Belt."
Sir Bernard Crick, Britain's leading constitutional expert: “The more powers the Scottish parliament has, the more responsibly it will have to act and the more attractive it will be for people of calibre to join it. There is a feeling at the moment among some eminent Scots who have the choice between being in the parliament at Westminster or getting into Edinburgh that the Scottish parliament has only second rate powers, particularly when it comes to finance. I'm sure myself whether this is true, but certainly that feeling is very strong.”
Alan McGee, founder of Creation Records: “Scotland should have more powers. It should be much more like Ireland and a Celtic haven for artists. We should be making it easier for people to exist, with tax breaks not just for musicians to live in their home country but artists like Jim Lambie who shouldn’t have to live in New York.”
Nicol Stephen, deputy first minister of Scotland and Scottish Liberal Democrat leader said: “The time is right to look again at the devolution settlement to improve democratic accountability and to ensure that Scotland has the right powers to grow the economy and meet the challenges of the future.”
Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives: “It is important to have a debate on the future of devolution so we can explore the possibility of moving forward. Arguments for greater financial powers for the parliament do have their attractions although there are serious practical difficulties to be resolved before this becomes a reality.”
Tommy Sheppard, former deputy general secretary of the Scottish Labour Party and owner of The Stand comedy clubs: “Surely it cannot be a matter of controversy to say that six years after setting a body up one should review how it is working and the relationship of the devolved body with the superior parliament. It can only be good logic to pause for a review.
“I am in favour of fiscal autonomy. I would like to see the parliament having a lot more economic power to create an environment in which people can get on and make some money and create wealth. I take a maximist position on devolution. My starting point is not what should be devolved but what should be retained.”
Canon Kenyon Wright, chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, 1989-1999 and member of the consultative steering group on the Scottish parliament: “It’s certainly time to have a debate because there will almost certainly have to be a revision of the Scotland Act by the time of the next election in 2007. Having had two parliaments and eight years of experience it will be time to look afresh.
“The fear is there are those in Westminster who would quite like to review the Scotland Act in the opposite direction to draw powers back to Westminster, for example by insisting on a new electoral system, less proportional than we have.
“I believe in a reformed union - but if any future Westminster government attempted to radically alter the powers for the Scottish parliament in the wrong direction or to abolish the Scottish parliament then Scotland would and should go for independence.
“That’s why a debate is so important in the next few years, to mobilise opinion in Scotland to
ensure that at the very least the Scottish parliament retains all the powers it has and look at areas where it can advance.
“We were always hesitant in the convention about financial autonomy. We discussed the possibility of using the kind of system some of the Spanish regions use, whereby they collect all taxes and pay a precept to the Spanish government for services rendered by them. If something like that were adopted in Scotland it would give us much greater financial autonomy which I am in favour of.
We would have direct accountability rather than just relying on certain sums coming from Westminster. So long as we have the present situation there’s no guarantee that a future Westminster government will not renegotiate the Barnett formula to disadvantage Scotland. If Scotland had much greater financial autonomy that would not be possible.
During the convention I also pressed for the setting up of a Scottish broadcasting corporation which would have much more control over how much is produced in Scotland as well as what is broadcast. That is an area that needs to be put into the debate.
Abortion is an area of tremendous controversy but it is one which is pretty firmly a moral issue which depends on the particular culture of different societies. I believe, therefore, it is something that should be dealt with at a Scottish level.”
Hardeep Singh Kohli: “The question of more powers is a no brainer. We need to up the ante. Apart from suffering a brain drain of talented people leaving Scotland there has been a net loss in the population so we need a different policy on immigration from the UK.
“The case for more powers has to be focused. There is no point in having a separate defence force for example, it’s about helping the arts, protecting the legal system and self determination for the education system. Many people worry about political erosion but more worrying is cultural erosion because once the culture goes you don’t get it back.”
John Byrne, writer and artist behind the comedy series Tutti Frutti: “I agree that we should have tax breaks for artists in Scotland. They have been a huge success in Ireland. That was the start of it all. It seemed to signal a different mindset within the Irish government. I believe Scotland should be autonomous. It should be a separate nation.”
Alex Salmond MP, leader of the Scottish National Party: “More powers for our parliament means getting the best deal for Scotland, and rejecting the straitjacket which stifles our democracy.
After nearly seven years of devolution, hope has been replaced by frustration. Expectations have been dulled by an Executive that lacks ambition, but also by a parliament without power.
It is time to take stock, to debate and to move on.
Scotland's parliament should be able to protect our pensions so older Scots are not forced by London to retire at 67. If that happens the average man living in Glasgow will get six times less pension over his lifetime than a man living in the centre of London.
It should control our oil and gas and be able to make sure Scotland isn't faced with winter blackouts. We produce eight times more gas than we need and there is no good reason Scots should be facing high energy and petrol prices.
This campaign is about winning power over asylum so we can end the appalling British practice of dawn raids; about being able to cut taxes so Scottish business flourishes, and having the power to remove air guns from our streets.
It is about being free to take Scottish soldiers out of an illegal conflict in Iraq and having the power to save our historic regiments.Like many others I have campaigned long and hard for a Scottish parliament, but I believe that only a real Scottish parliament can make a real difference.
It is time Scotland took full responsibility for our nation. It is time for independence.”
John McLaughlin, Scottish songwriter who put together the band Busted writes for some of the biggest names in the music business:“I’ve always been pro-Scottish and giving power back. As a country I would love to see us have more control which has worked well in other small countries like Sweden and Scandinavia.”
Bernard MacLaverty, the Belfast-born novelist who has lived in Scotland for 30 years, said: "I think it's just so obvious, the more Scots can rule themselves, the better. I would certainly welcome tax breaks for writers and artists like they have in the Republic of Ireland. These kinds of things are important to a country and the state should support good writing."
John Lowrie Morrison, Argyll-based painter: “I was in the parliament a couple of weeks ago, I was very impressed by the building, which is fabulous. The MSPs do a great job, you might disagree with say Tommy Sheridan or Annabel Goldie, but at the same time they are passionate about what they do and they are doing it for Scotland.
But I do think after all this time, the Scottish parliament should have a lot more power. I'm not really a political person and have voted for different political parties over the years, mainly when I think somebody is going to do the best for Argyll. But I do feel that if we are going to have a parliament then it should have more power. What's the point of spending half a billion pounds on a parliament if it's just a showcase? It’s brilliant that the Sunday Times is raising this as an issue. ”
Alasdair Gray, acclaimed author of Lanark, said: "I'd like the Scottish parliament to have more powers over the people of Scotland. It seems stupid to have a first minister who explains that he would like asylum seekers to be treated more humanely, not arrested at 5am and handcuffed without warning, but unluckily a man from Westminster has told him he hasn't these powers so there's nothing he can do about it - that kind of cringing attitude by the Labour leaders runs through many areas. It's good that we've got the parliament, but over many important issues in which the Scots and the English see things differently, matters such as defence policy and asylum, we in Scotland have no powers."
Robert Wright, professor of economics at the University of Strathclyde and a member of the expert advisory board of the Government Actuary’s department: “A few weeks ago the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) in London made public its most recent set of population projections for Scotland. The main message was the same as in previous years-if fertility remains below the replacement level and if mortality continues to decline at a steady pace and if net migration is zero (i.e. the number of immigrants balances the number of emigrants), the population of Scotland will decline in size from its current level of about 5.1 million to about 4.5 million in the next four and half decades.
“In addition, the ageing of the population will accelerate, with a sharp increase in the number of people in the older age groups and a sharp decrease in the number of people in the younger age groups.
“Jack McConnell is correct when he concludes that population decline and population ageing is Scotland's ‘Number 1’ problem. He is equally correct when he concludes that "we need to grow the population to grow the labour force to grow the economy". As the population declines and ages, so will its labour force, which if unchecked will put a serious brake on economic growth. Any businessperson will tell you that it is critical for growth and profitability to have available for employment a diverse, multi-skilled and expanding pool of labour. From an economics point of view, population decline and ageing is detrimental to growth through its impact on labour market.
Since deaths have exceeded births in Scotland for nearly a decade, the only way in which the population will grow is through an increase in net migration. That is, through increased immigration and decreased emigration. Likewise, since the Scottish population is failing to reproduce the next generation of workers, there is only one way in which any projected shortfall can be made up-through an increase in the net migration of people of working age.
Earlier this year, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke outlined a "five year plan" aimed at changing fundamentally the way immigration to the United Kingdom is managed. Central to this plan is the adoption of a "points system", where applicants are allotted points for possessing characteristics that make them more employable, such as education, technical skills, work experience, knowledge of the English language, etc. If some threshold level of points is achieved, they will be allowed to immigrate to the UK, subject I would expect to medical and security checks. Although the Government has tended to portray this system as new, novel and innovative, it is not. It is essentially the same as was introduced in Canada in 1967 and copied by Australia in 1973.
Immigration policy is set for the UK ‘as a whole’ by Westminster since it is a ‘reserved power’. Any policy that reduces immigration to the UK ‘as a whole’ will also reduce immigration to Scotland. This will certainly be true unless immigrants to the UK are required to reside in a particular region. However, there is nothing in Mr Clarke's plan that takes into consideration the different demographic conditions that exist across the UK, and there is certainly no discussion of residence requirements.
It is in fact trivial to increase immigration to Scotland with a points-based immigration system. The Scottish Executive does not need to try to recreate the wheel through such ill-thought through policies such as the Fresh Talent Initiative. All they need to do is borrow yet again from the immigration system that has been in place in Canada for nearly 40 years. In Canada, additional or bonus points are allocated to those potential immigrants agreeing to reside in a particular geographic region for a minimum period of time.
Regional differences are a key feature of Australian and Canadian immigration policy and are reflected in the immigration system. For example, nine of Canada's ten provinces (and one of its territories) have agreements with the federal government relating to immigration which takes into consideration specific provincial (territorial) requirements. Eight have negotiated Provincial Nominee programmes, which essentially means that applicants with certain skills get more points if they agree to reside in these provinces for a stated period of time.
The Canada-Quebec Accord goes one step further and essentially devolved responsibility for immigration to the province of Quebec (i.e. potential immigrants apply directly to the Province of Quebec and not the Dominion of Canada). The only province that does not have some sort of agreement with the federal government is Ontario, a province that does not need any ‘help’ in attracting immigrants, since it has been the main destination of immigrants to Canada over the past few decades.
The system proposed by Mr Clarke could easily be modified along these lines to meet Scotland's needs by allotting more points to applicants who agree to work and live in Scotland (say for a minimum of five years). However, this simple modification will only work if the government is serious about enforcing the terms of the residence requirement. Since a ‘deal is a deal’, they have to be prepared to, as a last resort, deport those who fail to live up to the agreement (as they do in both Canada and Australia). Given Mr Clarke has promised to be "harder" on failed asylum claims in terms of enforcing deportation orders, this does not seem to be a massive change in "policy".
The tweaking of the immigration system in this obvious way represents at least a partial devolution of responsibility which will not be welcomed by London. Given the current global political climate, and the obvious tension between Holyrood and Westminster over matters relating to immigration, Mr McConnell will have to show considerably more political will and resolve when dealing with his superiors in the Home Office. I am not convinced that he has what it takes, although I do hope he will prove me wrong in this respect.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1893063,00.html
