The Scottish Labour party is floundering on home rule
|
Version 0 of 1. Keir Hardie's first manifesto for the Scottish Labour party famously had three key aims: home rule, a minimum wage, and temperance. More than a century later New Labourites were fond of pointing out that Tony Blair had delivered on the first two. And so he had, although in other respects the modern Scottish Labour party has been trapped ever since. This week's long-awaited report on what devolution might look like in the event of a no vote, entitled Powers for a purpose, thus talks up the party's historical provenance."Scottish Labour is a party of both devolution and the union," it proclaims. "For over 100 years, Labour has led the argument for Scottish devolution within the union." The trouble is, it's only half true. After pushing home rule for half a century the pledge lapsed until the mid-1970s, and only after battling Margaret Thatcher for a decade did Labour produce a credible blueprint for a devolved parliament. But the proposals unveiled this week look timid by comparison. Having previously indicated that it would devolve income tax "in full", it instead proposed transferring "three-quarters of the basic income tax rate and the ability to increase (but not lower) the upper rates. It looked very much like a compromise designed to keep opponents of further devolution happy. Since last April they have wasted little energy making clear their opposition to trying to be "more nationalist than the nationalists". Given the obvious backtracking on certain points, it looks very much like they've won. But even if these proposals make it through the Scottish Labour party conference in Perth this weekend, they are unlikely to find much favour among fellow unionists or key opinion formers. Some Scottish Liberal Democrats and Conservatives I spoke to regard Labour's recommendations as a short-term fix rather than a rigorous examination of the case for a reformed union. Furthermore, they fear that it validates the SNP's charge of jam tomorrow, while making a cross-party "more powers" offer that little bit harder prior to September's referendum. Labour party sources naturally reject such charges, instead arguing that they have produced a coherent response to the question set out in the report: "How can we strengthen the present constitutional arrangements to serve Scotland better … and at the same time strengthen the United Kingdom?" But the difficulty is, as Alistair Darling remarked last year, that most of the "low-hanging fruit" of devolution has already been picked. Short of backing independence or federalism, nothing Labour produced could possibly have satisfied expectations. But that is partly its own fault, for not only did it grant the Scottish parliament tax-varying powers back in 1999, but it went even further as part of the 2009 Calman commission; and once you devolve 50% of income tax it is difficult to argue against complete devolution. But Labour perhaps sees the issue as more ideological than constitutional. Thus a lot of the proposed powers are politically contrived: with control of the additional rate it would tax the rich; with control of housing benefit it would abolish the bedroom tax, and so on. As was the case with the Scottish government's white paper last November, Powers with a purpose has a manifesto-like feel. There is a sense that Labour believes that appealing to the commentariat isn't the same as winning over undecided voters, most of who will glean a general sense that the party wants to devolve more power. Here they might have a point. Better Together seems content that Labour's proposals give them enough to work with over the next six months. Would Hardie be turning in his grave? He was, of course, an idealist who didn't have to worry about turning his socialist vision into practical reality. Scotland, not to mention the Scottish Labour party, has changed significantly since he composed his commitment to home rule 126 years ago. |