This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/guardian-view-david-cameron-scottish-devolution-wider-reform

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on David Cameron’s entangling of Scottish devolution with wider constitutional reforms The Guardian view on David Cameron playing politics with constitutional reform
(about 3 hours later)
Any prime minister is a party politician. But a prime minister must also be a national leader. When big national interests are at stake he or she has a duty to think beyond the boundaries of party. David Cameron’s handling of the aftermath of the Scotland vote has fallen far short on this count. Nation-threatening issues have been raised by the Scottish independence campaign. At times over the past two years, Mr Cameron has appeared to have an instinctive understanding of that fact. He was clearly determined, and rightly so, not to be the prime minister who lost Scotland. He made some well-judged interventions in the Scottish debate. But Mr Cameron’s response to Scotland’s vote last week has been that of a different man. He has responded to the no vote not as the prime minister of the United Kingdom but as the leader of the Conservative party – and not a particularly distinguished example of that, either.Any prime minister is a party politician. But a prime minister must also be a national leader. When big national interests are at stake he or she has a duty to think beyond the boundaries of party. David Cameron’s handling of the aftermath of the Scotland vote has fallen far short on this count. Nation-threatening issues have been raised by the Scottish independence campaign. At times over the past two years, Mr Cameron has appeared to have an instinctive understanding of that fact. He was clearly determined, and rightly so, not to be the prime minister who lost Scotland. He made some well-judged interventions in the Scottish debate. But Mr Cameron’s response to Scotland’s vote last week has been that of a different man. He has responded to the no vote not as the prime minister of the United Kingdom but as the leader of the Conservative party – and not a particularly distinguished example of that, either.
Mr Cameron chose to use the no vote to embarrass Labour, to humour his right wing, and to steal a march on Ukip. He stood outside No 10 and quite deliberately said that English grievances against Scottish MPs should be addressed at the same pace as the pledges given to Scotland in the campaign’s final week. This was not the act of a man who wanted to bind the wounds of the union and to act as a statesman should. By fanning the embers of an esoteric southern English complaint, he has promptly handed Alex Salmond a fresh grievance on a plate and confirmed the most cynical prejudices of every critic of Westminster. Mr Cameron’s response has been wholly tactical. His mind was on Clacton, not on Clackmannan. His approach in the days since the Scotland vote has been unworthy of the office he holds and inadequate to the sensitivities of the hour.Mr Cameron chose to use the no vote to embarrass Labour, to humour his right wing, and to steal a march on Ukip. He stood outside No 10 and quite deliberately said that English grievances against Scottish MPs should be addressed at the same pace as the pledges given to Scotland in the campaign’s final week. This was not the act of a man who wanted to bind the wounds of the union and to act as a statesman should. By fanning the embers of an esoteric southern English complaint, he has promptly handed Alex Salmond a fresh grievance on a plate and confirmed the most cynical prejudices of every critic of Westminster. Mr Cameron’s response has been wholly tactical. His mind was on Clacton, not on Clackmannan. His approach in the days since the Scotland vote has been unworthy of the office he holds and inadequate to the sensitivities of the hour.
The mess that the UK parties have got themselves into needs to be disentangled. Here’s how it can be done. First, all parties must recommit to the pledges they made to Scotland before the referendum. They must explicitly remove any linkage to any other constitutional issue. Those pledges should be legislated by the new government after May 2015, ideally in time to come into force at the Scottish parliament election of 2016 or shortly thereafter.The mess that the UK parties have got themselves into needs to be disentangled. Here’s how it can be done. First, all parties must recommit to the pledges they made to Scotland before the referendum. They must explicitly remove any linkage to any other constitutional issue. Those pledges should be legislated by the new government after May 2015, ideally in time to come into force at the Scottish parliament election of 2016 or shortly thereafter.
Second, all parties should agree to establish a UK constitutional convention, with a widely cast membership, with politicians in a minority, and a citizens’ jury element. They should pledge to seek consensus on a much wider set of issues, with no preconditions and nothing ruled out. The convention should report within two years, with a view to legislation to come into force by the following general election, currently due in 2020. These would be linked processes but at different speeds. Yet both should be completed at the earliest practical opportunity, and in time for the earliest feasible relevant election.Second, all parties should agree to establish a UK constitutional convention, with a widely cast membership, with politicians in a minority, and a citizens’ jury element. They should pledge to seek consensus on a much wider set of issues, with no preconditions and nothing ruled out. The convention should report within two years, with a view to legislation to come into force by the following general election, currently due in 2020. These would be linked processes but at different speeds. Yet both should be completed at the earliest practical opportunity, and in time for the earliest feasible relevant election.
Right now, this is all urgent work. It needs to be restated as a genuine priority – which means this week. The clumsy partisanship of Mr Cameron’s response has made it look as if he is reneging on a promise – which is about as dangerous a thing for a modern politician to do as can be imagined. As Nick Clegg, who knows a thing or two about the perils of promise-breaking, pointed out in the Sunday Times, if the Conservatives get themselves into a Dutch auction with Ukip over English votes, they could destroy the very union they so recently appeared determined to defend.Right now, this is all urgent work. It needs to be restated as a genuine priority – which means this week. The clumsy partisanship of Mr Cameron’s response has made it look as if he is reneging on a promise – which is about as dangerous a thing for a modern politician to do as can be imagined. As Nick Clegg, who knows a thing or two about the perils of promise-breaking, pointed out in the Sunday Times, if the Conservatives get themselves into a Dutch auction with Ukip over English votes, they could destroy the very union they so recently appeared determined to defend.
Labour is not exempt from criticism here, either. The party has not thought through its constitutional reform stance. Too often, like the Tories, Labour responds to the issues on grounds of self-interest and maintaining the status quo rather than on the grounds of what is fair and democratic. Giving further powers to Scotland and Wales means the English question has to be addressed too. But it needs addressing at the local and regional level and not just at Westminster. Labour absolutely has to be open to such changes. They are a matter of credibility. One of the tests of Labour this week is how far its conference displays any sign of understanding the opportunity that currently exists to remake our antiquated political system in a modern way.Labour is not exempt from criticism here, either. The party has not thought through its constitutional reform stance. Too often, like the Tories, Labour responds to the issues on grounds of self-interest and maintaining the status quo rather than on the grounds of what is fair and democratic. Giving further powers to Scotland and Wales means the English question has to be addressed too. But it needs addressing at the local and regional level and not just at Westminster. Labour absolutely has to be open to such changes. They are a matter of credibility. One of the tests of Labour this week is how far its conference displays any sign of understanding the opportunity that currently exists to remake our antiquated political system in a modern way.