As the Guardian and many other papers note this morning:
Politicians across the spectrum have reacted angrily after Boris Johnson dismissed devolution as “a disaster north of the border”.
During a Zoom call with around 60 northern Conservative MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister described devolution as “Tony Blair's biggest mistake”.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that we have a Prime Minister who cannot spot that Tony Blair's biggest mistake was the Iraq war.
And let's ignore the supposed claim put out afterwards that this referred to the SNP alone, because Blair was clearly not responsible for them, so it was impossible that this was what Johnson meant.
And let's ignore that devolution came as a package with the Welsh also being given this option and Northern Ireland securing peace via the Good Friday Agreement, which presumably falls into the same category for Johnson given the problems it is now giving him on the EU.
Instead, let's just consider how insulting this is to the consistent majority in Scotland who now want independence, and how alienated they must feel.
And let's remember that this was said to the Northern Research Group of Tory MPs who want what amount to devolved powers for their area, which also feels deeply alienated from London, because it is, also by London's choice.
And then let's recall that Scotland does at least have a functioning government, that has taken decisions on coronavirus sooner than London, as have those in Cardiff and Belfast as well.
After which let's appreciate that the evidence is firmly stacked against Johnson, barring one thing. If you look through the lens of the imperialist oppressor, seeking to free-ride on the back of the exploited from afar the capital, then of course Johnson is right. In the sense that devolution was the precursor for the independence that is now to follow in, I think, all three of the UK's smaller nations, then, of course, Blair made a massive mistake. The right to exploit was put in peril by his actions and Johnson wishes to retain it. That is what this is about.
Johnson wants to retain Scotland precisely because he knows London needs its economic support. Ignore the rigged data in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland. The reality is that little England knows that it is sucking value from Scotland as hard as it can. And it does not want that to stop. And the chance that it might is what petrifies them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Norway’s oil revenue-based Sovereign Wealth Fund is worth almost £1tn (trillion).
How much is the UK’s equivalent SWF worth, Johnson?
The UK’s equivalent SWF is also £1tn + as Scotland is currently part of the UK. the question is how big is Englands SWF?
Quite honestly the way things are going at the moment I’d rather that Scotland didn’t leave the Union, but the UK be run from Holyrood rather than Westminster 🙂
My mistake Fergal. I misread ‘Norway’ as ‘Scotland’… Anyway the same sentiment holds I think. Scotlands ‘SWF’ would have been close to Norways if Scotland was an independent nation.
Devolution has been said to be the only thing that saved the tories in Scotland – its the only thing that gives tories a voice here (because of partial proportional representation).
Devolution itself is very popular – I don’t know the numbers but 70-80% popularity maybe. Some people that support independence don’t support devolution, so don’t assume that includes 50% independence supporters. So his threat to devolution now force a lot of people that want a degree of separation but not full separation to choose.
Yep, England suck Scotland dry, asset strip regularly, stop development etc. Why many people in Scotland still think this is fine is bewildering to me. Why the SNP don’t actually stand up for us and stop it happening is also bewildering.
Richard, I’ve just listened to this podcast with Mark Blyth interviewing a Brett Christopher on his book about Rontier (?) capitalism – about the rentier economy in the UK as part of the neoliberal ideology on skates – to me it sounds like a good summary of why and in what way neoliberalism is so damaging to an economy: stifling growth and innovation, and even reducing competition (that ideal of capitalism – what I always think of as the irony of neoliberalism). Have you, or one of your learned readers, read this book or have any opinion on the author, or what Rontierism (? I’ve only heard it, not seen it written I think) is? – just to give me an idea of the value of this podcast for sharing with others:
https://youtu.be/4fh5UvV8hfU
I have not listened to the podcast (I am finite) or read the book but am broadly familiar with the arguments
Rentierism is literally about people focussing on extracting rents – unearned in come – from the economy
Some is rent
Some is monopoly profit
Some is excessive high pay because of a lack of accountability
Some is excessive interest rates
Some is student debt arrangements
The list goes on, and on….
The big one of course is PFI, the right to suck the high rates of return from various PFI deals change hands for large amounts of agreed media of exchange. Sucking at the public teat.
The tragedy of MMT not being accepted is that it was all so unnecessary. With the current SNP looking to entrench the non MMT orthodoxy and allow capture of our institutions just look at the board of the National Investment Bank.
To Contrary,
The link you show to Mark Blyth and Brett Christopher is the same one I posted on Nov 8th, “It is Rentiers who will bring this country down”
As I said at the time the podcast is good. I went on to watch/listen to Michael Hudson on Junk Economics.
I suggest you watch this too.
https://youtu.be/k6y35aO_fpU
Tom D
I must have missed that at the time Tom (I am finite,,, 😉 ). ,,, thank you both, yes it does seem to be good podcast – focusing on how rentierism and financialisation are how big companies suppress competition solely to then extract wealth and squeeze the workers. It’s not a sustainable model at all is it?! We certainly won’t be getting any green new deal with it in place – but how do you convince those that benefit from it that it can’t go on?
Student debts is an interesting one too – I know it’s a huge thing in the US, and now of course it’ll be developing to the same size of problem in England (Scotland isnt immune, just not on nearly the same scale). I don’t think we naturally think of it as a macro economical problem, but it is – and has horrible consequences for students and our future society. Let’s hope neoliberism dies a death very very soon.
🙂
Johnson’s ill-informed blustering about devolution having been disastrous for Scotland is quite simply that: ill-informed blustering with no basis in facts. It doesn’t need a new poll to determine the facts: the Scottish Social Attitudes 2019 survey (a Scottish Parliament representative survey conducted every second year) states this in its Summary:
In 2019, 61% of people said they trusted the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s best interests, compared with 15% who said they trusted the UK Government to do so.
The Scottish Government (37%) and local councils (29%) were more likely to be trusted ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ to make fair decisions than the UK Government (11%).
Over half of people (51%) thought the Scottish Government was good at listening to people before it made decisions, compared with 45% who thought this of their local council, and 15% who thought this of the UK Government.
Substantially more people thought the Scottish Parliament was giving Scotland a stronger voice in the UK (61%) than thought it was giving Scotland a weaker voice (5%). Similarly over half thought the Scottish Parliament was giving ordinary people more say in how Scotland is governed (56%) than thought it was giving them less say (6%).
Views were fairly evenly split on which government had the most influence over the way Scotland is run, with 40% saying that the Scottish Government did, and 42% saying that the UK Government did. Almost three-quarters (73%) thought the Scottish Government ought to have the most influence, compared with 15% who thought the UK Government ought to have the most influence.
Factor into the above the trends of the last year being increasingly pro-independence and supportive of the Scottish Gov, and the view of a majority of Scotland’s people is clearly that devolution and, in particular, the performance of the SNP Gov have significantly improved their lot. The last of the above survey findings is especially significant in my view: an even split on the relative influence of ScotGov v UK Gov reflects the fact that virtually all economic policy and provision is reserved to Westminster, while the significant majority view that ScotGov should have the greater influence clearly shows that the Scots want a change in the balance of powers (perhaps even a dawning that control of all the economic levers is required to take Scotland to a new level of prosperity and democracy).
If Johnson really believes in democracy, he should read and understand what the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey actually says. To continue with his stubborn refusal to accept the views of the Scots is to concede that he views Scotland and, by extension, Wales and NI as colonies.
Thanks Ken
Thanks for your comments. Most thinking Scots are fully aware of this now. Unionism is now very obviously colonialism. Shouldn’t be too long now until it ends.
Tories are no respecters of democracy. The Scottish Parliament is elected on a proportional system, not a perfect one, not even the best one, but elected MSP’s reasonably represent the voting intentions of the electorate who voted.
Johnson, and co, were elected on the least proportional system invented bar autocracy, where millions of votes are worthless thanks to the “safe seat” syndrome and where a party can have an overwhelming majority of seats and yet have lost or barely won the popular vote. And they have no intention of changing it – so much for democracy.
This has been a “disaster” for decades and seems to have reached a zenith with a man elected as leader and PM who has led the country into two true disasters in the space of less than a year, and whose personal “qualities” were and are well known and who should never have been allowed near parliament never mind “leading” the country. I am confident that history will be excoriating in its criticism of his failures and of those complicit in his rise to power who are equally culpable.
Meanwhile Scottish voters will continue to vote for the politicians who they think will best focus on the interests of the Scottish people.
While PR might be good in principle, by itself it won’t deliver better or more representative government. In fact it is more likely to further entrench the right.
The reason for this is that the voting system is just one small part of a deeply flawed political system which includes the right-wing media, parties funded by vested interests, lobbying, propagandist “think-tanks” funded by big money, MPs allowed to have second jobs, ex-MPs and ex-Ministers offered lucrative directorships by businesses and corporations, and the unelected House of Lords.
In addition, in recent years we have seen how easy it is for monied interests to build a new party from scratch and exploit the weaknesses in our system to advance a right wing agenda. So, if PR were to be introduced we would almost certainly see the promotion of a right wing or supposedly “moderate” party or parties which would be elected to hold the balance of power and ensure the continued domination of neo-liberal capitalism.
The only way to prevent that outcome is to consider all the anti-democratic elements in our political system, possibly by means of a constitutional review, followed by carefully executed legislation and reform of all the areas that need to be reformed. But this can only happen with a majority government of the left, something which seems very unlikely now that we turned down the chance of a government led by Jeremy Corbyn and the right are once more in control of the Labour Party.
However, notwithstandig that, things will only get worse if we do blunder into PR without considering the wider ramificatons.
I admit I do not agree
I think we will have diverse views
Of course the right will be more widely represented
So too will everyone else
No, that’s incorrect. We are in the situation we’re in now due to FPTP and the disastrous Tory-Labour duopoly that is both a product of FPTP and endlessly reinforces it. FPTP is a system that favours the right in the UK. The non right vote splits between the progressive parties in enough seats to give the Tories a huge and unfair built in advantage. Add their control of most of the media, and the Labour party’s insane refusal to work with other parties to overcome FPTP by entering a properly worked through electoral pact, and they are practically guaranteed to win any GE.
Hence Johnson has a majority of 80 on under 50% of the votes cast. PR would stop this. Always assuming of course that the Labour party was prepared to compromise and share power with other progressive parties. No party that calls itself progressive can support FPTP. Which tells you a lot about Labour, regardless of which faction is in charge.
Richard, I disagree that Iraq was Tony Blair’s biggest failure. His failure to replace FPTP with PR in his first term has been a disaster for progressive politics in Britain.
You make a good argument
While I agree there are fundamental problems with our political and economic system, some of which you mention, I think that Richard is right that more diverse views will prevail. But of course we have a hard right government in power right now, while at Holyrood there are no parties, other than Tories, of the extreme right, while the Greens have a small but significant representation, under the Additional Member system which the ERS gives 4 Stars for PR.
However, if we are talking about democracy, then I believe all views (other than those promoting violence and the denial of rights to any group) have a right to be represented no matter how repugnant some of us might find them. It’s up to those who reject these views to persuade voters of a better way.
The problem is the same throughout the democracies; democratic constitutions are delivered through political parties, and political parties are by their essential nature nests of special interests and factionalism. You cannot trust them, not least but not exclusively because they are all open to ‘entryism’ (and ironically, if they weren’t they would probably descend into anachronistic, unrepresentative fossils – sooner, or more likely, later).
It is an illusion that entryism is almost exclusively a problem of the left in Britain. Thatcher was an entryist. She spent most of he political capital destroying the Wets; who, whatever their weaknesses, also represented most of the basic human decency in the Party built up after the notorious failure of the Conservative Party in the 1930s (a taboo period and subject in modern neoliberal Conservatism).
Thatcher also calculatedly destroyed the Scottish Conservative Party. It was this structural demolition to the fabric of its popular base that made it easier for the SNP to deliver the final political coup de grâce by reducing them to zero representation in a famous Scottish election. The Scottish Conservative populism that currently keeps the Party alive in Scotland now, has nothing like the same community rooted base of the pre-Thatcher past, nor is it retrievable; its base is now a shallow, shifty, tabloid populism that the gerontocracy that is the core of the Party thinks works for it, because the ‘mainstream’ Scottish media have been so supportive of it; and the Party adherents no longer have a sufficient community base, or the foot-soldiers on the ground to fight elections, save in distinct but fragile pockets of Scotland, or carefully chosen, limited targets for special effort; even to appreciate their own fundamental weakness.
In Britain, Boris Johnson is an entryist, who purged the party of the last remnants of ‘one-nation’ Toryism, only with a coalition of the Right (ERG) and the Vote.Leave mob, who loathe the Conservative Party, but happily exploit it. Such a phenomenon, rising inside the Party, but holding it in contempt is a marker of things to come. Parties do not work well in the modern world of instant personal communication, and will work less well as the realisation dawns widely that so shallow is the modern political base of party allegiance, so provisional the support for “Party” that opportunists see the chance to exploit the Party (rather than pursue a conventional career) as a better option, while increasingly, close inspection of Party and politician reveals that any political Party, just like any major institution, does not attract only – or even primarily – the public spirited; but all kinds of people for all kinds of (very, very often exploitative) reasons.
Can voters truly be represented when the mainstream media is giving them false and misleading information? I don’t think so.
We would be gambling that the changed voting system will somehow be able to overcome biased media and other flaws in our democracy and elect politicians that will correct those flaws.
In my opinion the odds of that happening are very long indeed.
Graham Hewitt and others.
I am not arguing against PR itself, what I am saying is that the introduction of PR into the present system would not deliver the kind of changes in politics that people hope for. As far as I can see there is no evidence that it will and the odds are stacked against it because of the deficiencies in our democracy that I have already mentioned. A far more likely outcome is that the monied interests that are in control at the moment will just find new ways to game the system.
To my mind, reform of the media is more important and much more likely to put us on a path towards improving our democracy which in turn would make PR both more likely and more likely to succeed.
sickoftaxdodgers
The Conservatives manipulate FPTP to enable them to gain an advantage. If we had PR in the present system they (or the monied interests that support the Conservatives) would just find different ways of achieving the same outcome. In order to be effective any democratic reform has to result in a transfer of power in the right direction. There is no evidence to support the belief that PR will do that unless other more important changes are made first and to my mind it could very likely make things worse.
The Electoral Reform Society does not agree with you
I believe them
Richard Murphy
Haha, not expecting to change anyone’s mind but I think it’s important to get the counter-argument out there.
Why don’t more people disagree with the ERS? It can’t be because they are right about PR as “rightness” is not usually a priority in politics. Maybe they don’t see it as a threat to the status quo, either because it’s unlikely to happen or because they can live with it. Or both (probably.)
So, where is the SNP’s fiscal plan for independence that will show how wealthy Scotland will be , after leaving a country with the 5th largest economy in the world, that collects Scotlands taxes for it and then pays 100% back to Scotland and gives Scotland £16bn per year just because Scotland is in the UK.
You prove exactly why any rational Scottish person (and there are many more of them per head of pop[ualtion in Scotland than in England, as far as I can see) would wish to leave the Union
Not only are your facts wrong, they are also deeply patronising
But the real question is that if that’s true why aren’t you keen to be rid of Scotland? That you are not proves that you do not believe your own argument
It’s ironic that the argument for leaving the EU includes the ‘£350m a month’ the U.K. sends to Brussels. Yet a surprisingly similar amount being supposedly ‘handed out’ to Scotland is used as an argument for Scotland staying in the union.
From a different perspective, it also shows how Johnson and the Conservatives have no intention of decentralising any power whatsoever, be it to the other nations in the union or to regions of England.
🙂
Worth noting that the size of an economy isn’t related to quality of life.
China, india and Brazil all have larger economies than the uk. I’m guessing you don’t wan to live there?
No, take GDP per capita. Uk was 5th in the world in 2015 by IMF measures.
Now 21st, with Brexit still to come.
Your faith in the UK seems rather poorly placed.
Oh this one again; the ‘Scots are socialist subsidy junkies’ sneer from the right. The Scots are helpless, hopeless wastrels dependent on the largesse and generosity of the English. Why, they can’t even collect their own taxes, apparently!
So if that’s the case Neil, why oppose independence? Surely you can’t wait to get rid of these parasites?
Johnson is the gift to the SNP that keeps on giving !
Indeed….
What are the Tories afraid of? Scotland and England could quite easily get along as independent nations. You would think the Tories would fully understand the desire for self-determination. Afterall it is all about the desire to be treated as a sovereign nation and not a vassell state something very close to the hearts of the current Government.
Maybe Johnson’s crass remarks on the Scottish Question are a cunning media ploy to distract attention away from the Brexit disaster about to happen.
Slightly O/T, but on the subject of Johnson’s initial crass remarks on the Scottish Question, there was this bit of mansplaining as leading Tories tried justify his comments (was this by Jenrick?) as to “what he really meant to say”, along with a reader’s response:
“He said simply that devolution had been a disaster, that Scotland appeared to be incapable of electing a party that would govern in its best interests…”
The people have spoken – the bastards!
Talk about digging holes for themselves, but it carried on today. Following PMQs today, this turned up in the Independent:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/prattling-away-in-his-padded-cell-in-downing-street-boris-johnson-is-the-snp-s-greatest-asset/ar-BB1b8pKD?ocid=msedgdhp
Methinks Boris is in need of some counselling or therapy
Meanwhile, Angus MacNeill M.P. has written to Johnson asking if he intends to agree to a Section 30 Order, or if not, does he take the “Thatcher view” – “Namely that if there was a majority of independence-supporting MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament, then that itself would be a mandate for Scottish independence, without the need for a confirmatory referendum?” (https://www.thenational.scot/news/18876247.snps-angus-macneil-asks-boris-johnson-section-30-order-indyref2/)
Angus is a proponent of a “Plan B” for independence which the SNP must surely embrace. Personally, I think the Thatcher view is sound, or, the Craig Murray modification – a convention of all Scottish elected politicians deciding the independence question.
I know Angus and am sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve
That gift that keeps on giving is no good to the Scottish people if the SNP does not believe it needs its own currency.
Sovereignty begins at home; printing your own currency is an expression of true sovereignty in my view.
Beware Scotland! Otherwise you’ll just be part of the English homeland ‘Empire’ and you’ll be bled dry. Don’t say you haven’t been warned. Look at how those countries who are pegged to the U.S. dollar get on and how the U.S. exerts influence through that.
I blame neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is the devil at work
Neoliberalism the root of all evil
I blame neoliberalism for Scotland failing to qualify for a major football tournament since 1998.. till last week that was
🙂
But wait, are we not a sovereign nation with a claim of right recognised by Westminster in a voluntary union with England that may be renegotiated at any time by either party. I notice that plans for a 2GW interconnector between Scotland and England are now formalised and after it is in place electricity generated in Scotland will flow to England. We must surely get the true price for this resource that is being made available as equal partners trading across a mutual border. It would seem that this is but a fantasy of the drink sodden Scots from whom England has been stealing for over three centuries without them realising it.
HM Treasury, 18th November published the ‘National Statistics Country and regional analysis’, which uses what it terms ‘identifiable spend’ as the basis of the analysis. I could not find an adequate definition of ‘identifiable spend’. Here is the Treasury explanation:
“In 2019-20 UK identifiable spend (i.e. spending that can be identified as having been for the benefit of a particular country or region) was over £660.9 billion and the average spend per head [see footnote 1: where it refers to ONS population mid-year data] in the UK was £9,895. Northern Ireland saw the highest level of spending per head at £11,987 and England the lowest at £9,604. The share of identifiable spending taken by each of the individual countries of the UK has remained broadly unchanged in recent years….. The profile of spending by country is influenced by the Barnett Formula. This is designed to provide the devolved administrations with a population share of any increases in comparable spending by UK departments.” Scotland’s share of identifiable spending per head is £11,566 or £63.0m.
This is presumably based on a Scottish population of 5.45m (2019).
Clearly “identifiable expenditure” is not “Total Public Sector Expenditure”, Since GERS (August, 2020) shows total expenditure in Scotland as £81.0m, or £14,829 (but it does appear to use the same population estimate); which is used to produce the Scottish £15Bn deficit. The difference between the two ‘spends’ (£81Bn – £63Bn) is £18Bn. What is not offered anywhere that I could find, was a reconciliation of the two data-sets, or any explanation of the differences between them for any citizen seeking to understand both presentations, or the purpose of the complexity of shifting, unreconciled reference points. This is important, because the differences between them may provide invaluable information on the underlying, arcane methods of data collection and analysis that are currently being used to produce both data-sets. This may be worth probing further; my remarks are based on a hasty first look at the Treasury paper. Comments would be welcomed by this reader. For example, could this £18Bn difference be linked in some way to the nebulous figures for UK public expenditure spent “for” Scotland, but not “in” Scotland?
I have finally got to this…
This may be worth an FoI…