Matt Qvortrup, political scientist, outlines the steps required for a country to become independent. In his book, ‘I want to break free’, he sets out both the practical and theoretical phases in creating a new stand-alone state and the merits and difficulties this can face.

Alicia Fitzgerald spoke with Matt about this through a Scottish independence lens…

The post How does a country become independent? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

This was a remarkably scotocentric few days by the standards of British politics.

It was all pretty handy timing for the SNP. On Monday, Sturgeon was keen to prove that her independence strategy was working — and not 18 hours later were her lawyers taking on the UK government on that exact issue. Momentum, it appeared, was firmly with the independence movement.

The new legal front for Scotland’s independence hostilities will be welcomed by the SNP, but less so by the prime minister, who must now add a crisis of the Union to an ever-burgeoning in-tray of cataclysms.

Nonetheless, Sturgeon should be under no false illusions. The SNP’s grassroots are desperate for results, and any sign that the party is losing their momentum will quickly prompt a backlash against her personally.

As the events of this week demonstrate, the first minister is caught between the insatiable appetite for independence among her party grassroots and the stubbornness of the institutions of the Union-state which simply will not deliver it.

So while Sturgeon’s newfound confidence may satisfy and unify the SNP conference hall, when it comes the Union-state, just because there is a “settled will” for a referendum, it does not mean there is settled way.

The Supreme Court Case
Legislation pertaining to the 1707 Anglo-Scottish Union is notoriously labyrinthine, but it is worth surveying the intricate arguments submitted by both sides to the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday. For they highlight the potential paths the independence argument might take over the coming months.

Representing the Scottish government, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain was plain that Holyrood government does have the right to hold an independence vote. She argued that while the Scotland Act 1999 reserved the right to legislate on “Union affairs” to Westminster, it makes no mentions of referendums. Highlighting the difference between “entirely advisory” and “self-executing” votes, the Lord Advocate affirmed that the legal effect of any referendum on the 1707 Anglo-ScottishUnion would be “nil”.

One wonders whether this argument might be thrown back in the faces of the SNP if it eventually does secure a vote. With the legal arm of the Scottish government working to hollow out the meaning of an independence referendum, might unionists feel tempted to boycott the whole affair — if it really does not relate to the status of the Union at all? On extreme analogy would be the 1973 border Northern Ireland border poll, which was boycotted by Irish nationalists — resulting in a 98.9 per cent vote to remain in the UK on a 58.7 per cent turnout.

Furthermore, its has long been the SNP’s argument that Westminster should respect the will of the Scottish people. In the event of “Yes” vote in a referendum, it would implore the UK government to begin negotiations on the terms of independence. Certainly, this is the expectation of the SNP party faithful. But any admission of this to the court would lose immediately — such is the double-bind Sturgeon now finds herself in.

In an attempt to side-step the arguments of the Scottish government, the UK government’s submission highlighted the fact that Sturgeon is yet to pass any referendum bill. Focussing on this purely procedural point, the UK government argued that the Supreme Court should not operate as an advisory body for SNP legislation.

In fact, it was striking how little time the UK government team spent on the substance of the Scottish Government’s case — insisting, rather, that the case be thrown out on “procedural incoherence” grounds.

Consequences for the SNP
A decision from the Supreme Court is not expected for many months, but regardless of how exactly the judges rule on the legal arguments, we can be sure that a fresh wave of political arguments will follow.

Ultimately, this is the SNP’s strategy.

Even if the court makes no “substantive” ruling at all and throws the case out on purely procedural grounds, Sturgeon will use this to highlight the worst aspects of the “democracy-denying” Union-state. This was the result Sturgeon prepared her supporters for on Monday: “if Westminster had any respect at all for democracy, this court hearing would not be necessary”.

The SNP will progress to “Plan B” and run on an independence-or-nothing platform in 2024, turning the general election into a “de facto referendum”.

But this plan also suffers from some serious weaknesses — not least of all it does not solve Sturgeon’s key problem: how does she force the British government to hold a referendum when the British government can simply refuse? The underlying legal position, and stubborn status of the Union state would not change.

In any case, an election is not a referendum, and a single party cannot simply declare that it be treated as one. The rise of Labour in the polls may also persuade indy-curious voters back to the Union cause.

One thing the SNP can do is continue to make the argument — and maintain their “maximalist” approach to the independence issue. Indy-watchers can expect a number of Scottish government “prospectus” papers setting out the mechanics of what an independent Scotland would look like over the coming months. The first paper, due for release on Monday, will focus on what the economic future of an independent Scotland might look like within the EU.

This will keep the party faithful happy — and halt any leaking of pro-indy voters to Alex Salmond’s Alba and the Scottish Greens. But the reality remains the same: the Union-state offers Sturgeon and the SNP very little room to manoeuvre.

The Sturgeon’s desire to hold a referendum on 19 October 2023 already seems far too optimistic.

The stubborn Union-state
Sturgeon is now running out of time, and her political future now relies on delivering results for the independence movement. The first minister’s emphasis on “the independence generation” on Monday was not just a political observation but a promise. One that must be delivered upon.

So even if “Unionists” like Liz Truss refuse to make a positive case for the Union — the structures of the Union can hold Scotland in tow. This is a recipe for division, frustration and, above all, continued stalemate.

The Union of 1707 created a hybrid polity, a mixed-unitary state which exhibits both pluralism and centralisation. But when it comes to the matter of an independence referendum, it is the state’s centralisation which we see emphasised.

History tells us that Union crises can endure for decades. Twenty years passed between the first, narrowly unsuccessful referendum on for Scottish devolution and the second successful one in 1997, from which came the 1998 Scotland Act. In fact, the history of the Union is arguably one of intermittent crises and recurring stalemates. On any occasion, the centralised Union state still retains and reserves the capacity to say no.

The Labour factor
Come 2024, Labour might feel they have a chance in Scotland once again. The focus of the pitch will be on kicking the Conservative’s out of Downing Street, but the party will also need new ideas on the constitution if it is to do battle with Sturgeon.

For several years now, the SNP could largely afford to ignore the Labour Party; for Sturgeon, the Tory-SNP dichotomy was seriously beneficial. But if the framing of Scottish politics as a two horse race is to come to an end, Labour may be ready to throw a spanner in the works of Sturgeon’s independence pitch.

The party is preparing to publish the Gordon Brown’s “constitutional review”, which, speculation suggests, could include proposals to replace the House of Lords with an assembly of regions and nations.

A new set of constitutional proposals would go some way to undoing Sturgeon’s line that the Conservatives and Labour fail Scotland in equal measure. She told conference eon Monday: “Whether it’s Tory or Labour… It’s not us who gets to decide. For Scotland, the problem is not just which party is in power at Westminster. The problem is Westminster”.

If Labour can both denigrate Scottish nationalism as divisive, while offering a coherent constitutional alternative, Scotland might be prepared to enter a form of post-nationalist politics.

Amid stalemate and frustration, which threatens to capture Scottish politics for the coming years, Labour finally has a chance to make a positive unionist case.

The post Sturgeon vows to break the independence deadlock, but the Union-state is a stubborn beast appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In her speech at the SNP’s annual conference which has taken place in Aberdeen, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said “the problem is not just which party is in power in Westminster – the problem is Westminster”.

She said that despite her disapproval of the Conservatives, Labour are no better for Scotland as they have chosen to support a hard Brexit too.

The speech included a broad mix of immediate policy pledges that government will adopt immediately, plans for independence, and jibes at the failure of other parties.

Of course, Scottish Independence was a key feature in Sturgeon’s speech. From tomorrow, the Supreme Court will consider whether the current law allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.

“If the Court decides in the way we hope it does, on the 19th October next year, there will be an independence referendum,” she says, adding that if the court decide against it, she will respect the decision as she respects the law.

But, she says the choice then becomes about putting the case for independence to the people in an election or give up on Scottish democracy.

“I don’t know about you, well, I think I probably do know about you actually….I will never – ever – give up on Scottish democracy,” she says, to a raucous applause from her audience.

There were countless standing ovations for her promises that “the overwhelming power of democracy” would triumph. The speech made it very clear that Sturgeon certainly has her party behind her.

The first minister went on to chastise Westminster, saying that “i

She criticised the prime minister and her predecessor, and what she called a “Tory Misery-Go-Round”, saying that although it was bad enough that the party took three years to realise Boris Johnson was inadequate, “it only took three weeks” for them to realise the same about Liz Truss.

Comparing her new policies with the Conservative “trickle-down economics”, Sturgeon announced that her government will increase the Scottish Child Payment again, this time to £25.

This will be introduced in five weeks and will be extended to families with children up to the age of 16.She also says the quarterly “bridging payments” of £130 will be doubled to £260.

“I hope this investment of almost £20m will bring a bit of Christmas cheer to those who need it most.”

There was a message to staunch unionists too, with the first minister promising that “whatever happens in future, Scotland belongs to you as much as it does to us”.

The post ‘The problem is Westminster’ says Nicola Sturgeon appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, the Scottish First Minister said “I want a referendum, and we are only talking about the other scenario if outrageously, the referendum route is blocked”.

The SNP leader did also add that “a referendum can only happen if it is legal and constitutional. We won’t deliver independence in any other way”.

Reiterating that the merger of a referendum and a general election is not the ideal outcome, Sturgeon blamed the Westminster government, saying, “We have a Westminster government who say Scottish democracy just doesn’t count for anything”.

“We wouldn’t be in this situation if we had a Westminster government that just accepted Scottish democracy”.

When campaigning to become Conservative party leader, Liz Truss repeated that she would “not allow” another independence vote, and spoke of her disapproval of “separatists” who are “trying to drive us apart”.

The Supreme Court will decide later this month whether to allow Indyref2. The draft bill, which the judges will consider, states that the aim of the referendum is to “ascertain the views of the people of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country”.

The latest polls on Scottish independence, suggests that ‘no’ campaigners have a narrow lead in the polls, albeit a notable 5-10% of respondents regularly cite that they are currently undecided on the issue.

Sturgeon’s latest comments reaffirm her commitment to a second referendum being held during her time as First Minister. She added, “Voters in Scotland elected me on the proposition of having a clear referendum. I am seeking to treat Scottish voters with respect but I am also seeking to deliver on the mandate that they elected me with”.

The post Sturgeon reiterates that a general election may be the only alternative to a referendum appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Ms Truss, speaking at a hustings event in Exeter on Monday, referenced growing up in Paisley, Scotland, before saying: “I feel like I’m a child of the union, I really believe we’re a family and we’re better together and I think the best thing to do with Nicola Sturgeon is ignore her.”

Conservative members applauded the comment, with the Foreign Secretary adding: “She’s an attention seeker, that’s what she is.

When asked about another independence referendum in Scotland if she becomes prime minister, Ms Truss replied “no, no, no”.

Speaking on BBC Scotland this morning, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MP, said, “Liz Truss has demonstrated openly and candidly that Conservative politicians at the heart of this government hold Scotland in contempt”.

“I think these comments are deeply troubling and concerning.  I think many people in Scotland, regardless of their politics, will be very concerned, and in many cases insulted by them.”

“Nicola Sturgeon is the democratically elected first minister of Scotland.  She represents a very sizeable proportion of public opinion in Scotland.  In the last Scottish parliament elections, 48% of the public voted for Nicola Sturgeon.  The Conservative leadership campaign is being conducted amongst a private circle of 160,000 members and MPs. Nicola Sturgeon has far more democratic legitimacy than Liz Truss is going to have if she becomes the prime minister.  And I think Liz Truss has no right or no foundation to make these remarks”.

Continuing, Mr Swinney said, “Liz Truss has told us what she really thinks, that Scotland should get out of the road, it should not be listened to, it should not have our concerns put forward by a democratically elected first minister”.

“She is just trying to appeal to the grass roots of the Conservative party with insulting remarks to Scotland, and to the democratic choices that people in Scotland have made”.

SNP MP Chris Law has also condemned Liz Truss, posting on Twitter, “The only reason why Scotland needs independence. Utter contempt from the future PM.”

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser who is backing Liz Truss, did though offer some support for the hopeful PM, telling BBC Radio Scotland this morning that, “I think we will just ignore the manufactured outrage from John Swinney on this issue”, adding that two thirds of the Scottish population do not want a referendum.  “Liz Truss is far more in tune with the majority of Scottish opinion on this issue than Nicola Sturgeon is”, he concluded.

Liz Truss spent her early years in Paisley, Scotland, where she attended primary school before moving to Leeds. She describes herself as a “child of the union”.

Truss has garnered the support of some Scottish Conservative MSP’s. Nine of them backed her in an open letter, claiming that Scotland would be “at the heart of the Union” under her leadership and that she is “a heartfelt unionist”.

The post Deputy First Minister accuses Truss of a contempt for Scotland appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says she wants a second referendum on Scottish independence by the end of 2023. The move has put Scotland on a collision course with Westminster as the battle for Indyred2 begins in earnest. 

How did we get here? The SNP has made no secret of its desire to hold another referendum, but its strong set of Scottish election results in May has renewed its determination to press ahead with Indyref2. The SNP’s spokesperson on constitutional affairs, Tommy Sheppard MP, says people “have voted to have the choice and we will make sure that they get it.”

Yet there are three key hurdles on the road to Indyref2. First, why should there be a new referendum? A lot has changed since 2014. Brexit, the pandemic and three general elections later, the UK is no longer the island it once was when Scotland initially said no to going it alone. The SNP will have to make a new case for why Scotland is better off out of the UK than in.

Second, the difficult task of securing a referendum. In short, Nicola Sturgeon needs the UK government to grant Scotland a new referendum. The noises coming out of Westminster would suggest that such a request is unlikely to be granted. However, the issue isn’t going to just go away.

Polling expert Sir John Curtice suggests that Scotland may be able to hold a referendum if the question was changed, but the first minister’s best bet will be to build up a consensus for Indyref2.

The fact that the question of independence currently divides the population and politicians, bring us to our third roadblock: timing. The polls are neck and neck, and the consensus in Scotland appears to be that the public wants to wait a few years before being asked about independence again.

Professor Nicola McEwan told Politics.co.uk: “The stakes this time are much higher for both sides.” Ultimately, pursuing a referendum too early, whilst the margin is small between both sides, is the wrong strategic move for both unionists and independence supporters.

Scottish Independence Poll

The road to Indyref2 is a long one. Independence supporters will need to bide their time and play the long game. Nonetheless, the SNP will feel that May’s election results, coupled with their power-sharing agreement with the Greens, has given them the mandate they need to hold Indyref2.

In their eyes, Scotland voted for a second referendum on Scottish independence, and that’s what they are hellbent on delivering.

Scottish Independence Referendum

The post The long road to Indyref2 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

He claimed that “narrow nationalists” ran both Holyrood and Westminster.

A poll released today by the pro-union pressure group Our Scottish Future, of which Brown is founder, said the results demonstrate “that the nations of the UK are united on the key priorities they want government to pursue after the pandemic”, and by certain national values.

The group polled people across Scotland, England and Wales to ask them about their own values and their priorities for the coming years.

In Scotland, England and Wales, people are united in their belief that equality (78%, 76%, 78%), tolerance (83%, 83%, 83%), liberty (86%, 87%,83%), and diversity (82%, 82%, 80%) are key to feeling national pride.

In light of these findings Brown said: “If people thought before that England was not as forward in diversity, equality, tolerance or indeed on inclusivity, that is dispelled by this poll. In fact, the polling shows that England is more egalitarian than Scotland on the issues that we raised on colour. The idea that the three countries are moving apart is wrong.”

The poll also showed that people across the three nations largely agree on controversial social questions such as immigration levels, the nature of British history, and the balance between opportunity and equality in society.

IndyRef2

47 per cent of respondents in Wales, 42 per cent in Scotland and 41 per cent in England said that the NHS was their number one issue.

Similarly, people across the UK listed a “dignified” retirement for old people, tackling climate change, and making sure every child has the best education as other top priorities.

Writing in the New Statesman magazine this week, Brown cites England football manager Gareth Southgate’s “Letter to England” earlier this summer, which highlighted the values of tolerance and equality.

Brown says the poll demonstrates that he was indeed speaking for the majority of people in England.

Writing in tomorrow’s New Statesman magazine, Brown argues that a “new Britain is waiting to be born” based on the shared values and priorities that now exist across the whole UK as the country emerges from the division of Brexit and the trauma of the pandemic.

Brown’s comments were later dismissed by a number of SNP MPs via Twitter.

We can at least concede that Brown is a trier. He never lets up on the ‘there is no demand for independence’ rubbish. Find the flags stuff moderately amusing from the man who invented ‘British jobs for British workers’. https://t.co/33FSlmU7rn

— Pete Wishart (@PeteWishart) September 16, 2021

Latest opinion poll showing the latest Gordon Brown intervention as credible as ever! pic.twitter.com/7m4dT7me7P

— Richard Lochhead (@RichardLochhead) September 16, 2021

The post Gordon Brown says UK is ‘moving closer together’ despite talk of indyref2 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Should Union supporters accept or reject Indyref2? 

Seven years after the last referendum on Scottish independence, the situation in Scotland has irrevocably changed. 

Back in 2014, the UK government was confident of defeating the Scottish nationalists in a referendum. Indeed, it was a key reason why David Cameron agreed to an independence referendum in the first place. After winning with a relatively comfortable 55% of the vote, the polls have slowly but surely narrowed.

Why is this the case? Three key reasons spring to mind. 

First, Brexit changed the conversation, taking Scotland out of Europe against their wishes, with 62% voting to remain. 

Second, the pandemic has given the Scottish public a glimpse of what Scottish independence would look like. Health is devolved in Scotland, with Nicola Sturgeon calling the shots. 

Third, a strong set of results in May’s Scottish elections for the SNP has continued its sustained electoral success. While the SNP can’t unilaterally hold a referendum, it is  well-placed to put Indyref2 firmly on the political agenda in Scotland over the coming months and years.

Ask any unionist politician about Indyref2, however, and you’ll get a clear answer of ‘now is not the time’. John Lamont MP described the prospect of another referendum on Scottish independence as “reckless”.  

Coree Brown Swan is the deputy director at the Centre on Constitutional Change. Dr Swan explained to Politics.co.uk why union supporters should be concerned about the uncertainty of another referendum, saying that it’s “definitely a very uncertain situation”. 

“Are you willing to take that risk?”

When asked about whether the Scottish public wanted Indyref2, Dr Brown Swan was unequivocal. “Generally, people want to wait.”

The chairman of Our Scottish Future, Professor Jim Gallagher, agrees with the view Indyref2 isn’t around the corner anytime soon. Writing for Politics.co.uk, Professor Gallagher argues that “[Nicola] Sturgeon is certainly relieved not to be fighting a referendum Scots do not want just now”. 

“The priorities of the largest part of the Scottish population – healthcare, education, economic recovery – take second place.” You can read more in his article here.

Whilst the question of independence continues to be a hot topic in Scotland, in England people, remain split. The Union continues to crack and creak in the aftermath of Brexit, the pandemic and we asked the London public about Scotland’s place in the Union.

There are a number of reasons why union supporters may be reluctant to fight Indyref2:

1. Timing – At this moment in time, the public doesn’t want another referendum, the SNP aren’t pushing for one imminently. 
2. Winnability – The polls have narrowed, and unionists can’t be sure they would win a second time around. 
3. Political collateral – Boris Johnson and his cabinet don’t want to be remembered as the government that ‘loses Scotland’. 
4. Unionists hold the trump cards – It is in the UK government’s power to accept or reject SNP calls for Indyref2. Moreover, the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon is highly unlikely to go down the radical route and hold an illegal referendum, like Catalonia did in 2017.

Making the case for Scotland’s place in the UK will continue to be an ongoing battle for pro-Union groups. Kevin Hague is the chairman for These Islands, who primarily deals with the economic arguments for staying in the Union. Hague is clear that union supporters must be “on the front foot” when making the case for Scotland’s place in the Union.

Meanwhile, Pamela Nash, the chief executive of Scotland in Union, holds the view that the conversation needs “to move on” from the constitution. 

Nonetheless, from a pro-Union perspective, they are in a strong position when it comes to Indyref2. Ultimately, why would they want to take such a big risk when they simply don’t need to?

The post Should Union supporters accept or resist Indyref2? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Indyref2 is a hot topic in Scotland, after another strong set of Scottish election results for the SNP put independence back on the political agenda.

But what does the rest of the Union think about Scottish independence? Do they want them to go, stay, or do they even care?

That’s what we went to find out when we asked the public in London what they thought about Scotland’s place in the Union.

The post ‘We treat them badly’ – Scotland’s place in the Union appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

After a strong set of results in May’s Scottish elections for the SNP, Indyref2 is back on the political agenda in Scotland.

Sooner or later, pro-Union groups are going to have to make the case for Scotland’s future in the UK, but it won’t be easy.

Here’s why Indyref2 will pose numerous challenges for Unionists in the coming years.

The post Why Indyref2 poses numerous challenges for Unionists appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Sturgeon hopes as a result he becomes even less popular with the rest of Scots. But none of this manoeuvering gets Scotland out of the Groundhog Day of Yes/No, nor comes to a truly settled view on the future, to which a substantial majority assent.

One elephant in the room is independence itself. Sturgeon’s government talks endlessly about a referendum, but never about the practicalities of separation.

Occasional references to refreshing the independence argument conceal an iceberg of unanswered questions the SNP are in denial about – not just the arguments they lost in 2014 and have no new answer to, like currency, public spending and taxation, but the apparently insoluble border and other issues thrown up by Brexit.

Sturgeon is certainly relieved not to be fighting a referendum Scots do not want just now; starting from under 50% support, she might well lose. But with no real independence plan, she may be even more fearful of winning.

The UK government argument isn’t in much better shape. Boris Johnson’s administration is as nationalist as Nicola Sturgeon’s, and has no appeal beyond those irrevocably committed to the union.

Urging people to be more British by sticking flags on roads and bridges is futile. Johnston can – and will – refuse a referendum, but has no positive offer to make, as he, like Sturgeon, is in thrall to his core vote. So neither government has the incentive nor any plan but to continue this endless game of constitutional tennis – sometimes advantage Yes, sometimes advantage No – but never a tie-break.

And, in the meantime, the priorities of the largest part of the Scottish population – healthcare, education, economic recovery – take second place.

There is a way out. It begins with a better understanding of Scotland. It is not really a country split 50/50 down the middle on independence versus the union. Yes, about 30% of the population are deeply committed to independence; another 30% are just as committed to staying in the UK. But the largest group, Middle Scotland, don’t really want to choose between one and the other.

They think of themselves as mainly Scottish, and that Scotland could choose to leave the UK if it wanted. If you force them, in a referendum or an opinion poll, then they will plump for Yes or No. But they don’t want to be forced, and they certainly don’t want a referendum now.

What neither government offers them just now is a constitutional settlement that doesn’t force them to choose between being Scottish and British. Nationalists, whether in London or Edinburgh, always want to make you one thing or the other. But in the grown-up world people have multiple identities and allegiances, and institutions which reflect that.

This isn’t only, or even mainly, about more powers for Scotland. There may well be some, but the real problems lie in the relationships between the nations of the UK, and how Scotland fits into the whole. Paradoxically, some of the answer lies in England.

England is the most centralised country in Europe, and it shows. Local councils are a shadow of once great institutions. Government struggles to micromanage public services from the centre. Economic inequalities between regions are among the worst in the developed world. No wonder people in the regions of England are crying out to be heard and represented.

That’s beginning, especially with the development of Metro Mayors and combined authorities, but it will require a complete change at the centre of government – indeed, a new constitutional settlement for a territorially diverse UK.

Scottish Independence Poll

And there lies the opportunity for Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland too. New constitutional arrangements to support the territorial diversity of the different nations, regions, counties and cities. Not just powerful devolution in Edinburgh or Cardiff – but strong voices at the centre for them, and for the great cities of England too.

Other countries manage this better; learning from them, the UK might consider a powerful council of nations and regions, and perhaps abolishing the extraordinary anachronism of the House of Lords and replacing it with a Senate in which all the parts of the country have voice and influence.

It’s no surprise that the answer to Scotland’s constitutional conundrum lies not in arguing about a referendum that isn’t going to happen, but in devising a constitutional settlement most Scots can be pretty comfortable with. The opportunity is there. The political prize will go to the government which is first to realise this.

Scottish Independence

The post The open secret in Scottish politics appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In the meantime, we can focus our attention on what a referendum campaign might look like.  These thoughts are, of course, largely hypothetical. The SNP-led government has not made a Section 30 request for the transfer of power to hold another referendum.

Boris Johnson has said that he would not grant such a request, and any referendum legislation may be challenged in court as outwith the competences of the Scottish Parliament.

The context has changed significantly – in the seven years since the last vote, the UK has exited the European Union, Conservatives have overtaken Labour at Holyrood and appear entrenched at Westminster, and a global pandemic has sparked a global health, and economic, crisis.

The challenge is relatively clear on the Yes side – the SNP will need to come up with a convincing prospectus for currency, the economy, and the European Union, many of the same questions which dogged the party in 2014.

It will do so in a more complex political space. They are, however, aided by the relative popularity of the party’s current leadership, who staved off challenges from Alex Salmond, and its dominance of the Scottish political space.

Things are less certain for the so-called “No” side given they lack the comfortable lead in the polls of 2014. How might Unionists, those in favour of the integrity of the UK state and against Scottish independence, campaign in a second referendum? How will they organise themselves? And what defence of the Union might be offered?

Timing matters here. A referendum held in the next year, with both Brexit and the pandemic fresh in the minds of the voter, will likely look very different from one held later in the Holyrood term.

What appears clear is that there will not be a reunion tour for Better Together, the cross-party campaign for a No vote comprising Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat politicians. Unionists ultimately won the debate, stressing the economic risks of independence and the security provided by the Union.

However, the campaign entailed significant cost to Scottish Labour, members of which blamed the coalition for its subsequent electoral woes. Scottish Conservatives, forming the second-largest party, will likely feel that their message is best undiluted by association with Labour, making a more assertive case for the Union.

The Liberal Democrats, significantly reduced at both Westminster and Holyrood, are unlikely to play a significant role.

Individuals will also matter. Scottish Conservative Ruth Davidson, who in many ways made her name in 2014, has now de-camped to the Lords, and Boris Johnson, if still in Number 10, might be viewed as politically risky in Scotland. Whether Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar achieve the same sway with their voters appears an open question.

Gordon Brown is likely to remain vocal, but cannot, from his elder statesman position, make a credible offer of change. New voices may yet emerge.

The dominant arguments in 2014 focused on the negative case against independence, not on making a positive case for the Union. Research has found consistency from 2014 onwards – with pragmatic arguments about the UK welfare state, the NHS, and the economic might of the United Kingdom.

The pandemic might be used as an object lesson – with the vaccine rollout and the economic support provided to individuals and businesses as evidence of why Scots are better together. However, this argument may be undermined should Brexit have negative economic impacts in the long term.

Unionists may face a temptation to dust off the 2014 campaign posters, but this might not be enough given razor-thin margins. This challenge appears particularly profound for Labour, in opposition and on the backfoot everywhere except for Wales (where the most substantive constitutional thinking is actually happening).

It will need to move beyond references to the NHS and the welfare state, undermined by Conservative policies of austerity, to develop both a meaningful vision of the Union and a realistic path back to power. In contrast, the Conservatives are on more confident territory, more comfortable with the language of Britishness and Union. But it is unclear how this will play with a Scottish voter.

In short, we know what Unionists of all political stripes are against, we know less what they are for; and this is the question which will face partisans of all stripes in the coming years.

The post Unionists must tell us what they’re for, not just what they’re against appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Shortly after the ‘No’ victory, polling by Lord Ashcroft indicated that the reasons people voted against independence were primarily those that had dominated the campaign long before September: the health of the Scottish economy, staying in the EU, keeping the pound.

The referendum threat was seen off because people voted with their heads, not their hearts. But somehow that argument has become unacceptable to the four party leaders who had taken Scotland to the brink of independence. And, until today, the truth has proved rather elusive.

The defeated Alex Salmond was first and foremost among them. He blamed the Vow – the pledge obtained by the Daily Record from the three party leaders to hand more powers to Scotland in the event of a ‘No’ vote – for preventing his side from getting over the line. It made sense for him to shrug his shoulders over a convenient excuse for failure, because it distracted attention from the fact he’d been defeated on the substantive issues. And blaming the ‘Vow’ had the useful side-effect of drawing voters’ attention to the fact the nationalists hadn’t gone away empty-handed.

Ed Miliband says “We made the Vow”. I thought the Daily Record made it by photoshopping a weird scroll? #ScotLab15 pic.twitter.com/Rhnis7hsCN

— Michael Gray (@GrayInGlasgow) March 7, 2015

Yet Salmond’s central claim was nonsense. Today’s findings from the Centre of Constitutional Research’s Scottish referendum study confirm that to be the case. Just 3.4% of No voters opposed independence because of the offer for more powers, it’s established. That compares rather unfavourably to the  29.5% who cited ‘feeling British / believe in Union’, the 27.8% who said there were ‘too many unanswered questions’ and the 26.3% who thought ‘independence would make Scotland worse off’.

Salmond’s misleading narrative of defeat isn’t meaningless. It’s not taking place in a vacuum. It matters because the momentum created by last year’s campaign means the possibility of independence later in this century can’t be discounted.

But Westminster’s leaders haven’t bothered to really combat Salmond’s claims. And there’s a reason for that. They’re embarrassed by the Vow because it was completely unnecessary. Actually, it’s worse than that. Their Vow was counter-productive.

Scottish Independence

Today’s findings show that among Yes voters the Vow had a galvanizing effect. The top reason given by independence supporters, from 41.3% of them in fact, was that ‘Westminster leaders misled Scots over more powers’. Ouch.

Who comes out looking worse? The only answer has to be David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. They got so worked up about the possibility that they might lose that they offered Scotland powers that have subsequently triggered a slow-burning constitutional crisis. The debate over English votes for English laws will return after the general election regardless of which of them ends up in No 10. Nice one, guys.

In a sense this data doesn’t matter for the nationalists because it reinforces their broader suggestion that pressuring London gets results. That’s the argument Salmond should be making now. He should be telling his party’s supporters that the SNP created such a wave of momentum that the debate over independence remains important.

Which is exactly why we should be paying so much attention to today’s research findings. The battle for the referendum may have been lost, but the war for independence is far from over.

The post Exposed: The Scottish independence myth no party leader wants you to hear appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

At one point in Alex Salmond’s much-anticipated tome, The Dream Shall Never Die: 100 Days that changed Scotland forever, he reflects on never having written a book – "loads of pamphlets, speeches and White Papers, but never a book". Before putting that right, he adds in an epilogue, suggesting he thought it "might be something of the same, just more words"’.

But of course a book, even a political one, isn't like writing a speech or policy paper, it has to have a purpose, a compelling narrative, inside information and a dash of colour. One might think the recent independence referendum would easily fulfill those criteria, particularly when the author was in the driving seat.

Curiously, however, it does not. Indeed much of the book – ostensibly a diary of the referendum's last 100 days – isn't about the referendum at all. Rather it serves to reveal how distant Alex Salmond was from the day-to-day battle. Only occasionally does he dip in and out of the fray, and only in the last week or so does he appear fully engaged with the referendum. Instead there are detailed accounts of Salmond’s first ministerial duties, particularly his attendance at sporting events. How interesting that is for the reader is subjective, but those expecting a blow-by-blow account of an historic battle may be disappointed.

Political memoirs or diaries are usually used to settle old scores, and The Dream Shall Never Die is no exception. Salmond’s hostility towards two Old Etonians, the prime minister and Treasury permanent secretary Nicholas Macpherson, manifests itself early on. Rather eccentrically, Salmond believes their opposition to independence derives from their "landed interests" in Scotland. When he discovers Cameron has never visited Huntly, in the north-east of Scotland, he is surprised "that someone should be so rootless as to never have thought of visiting a place presumably of importance to their family origins".

Particular sarcasm and condemnation, however, is reserved for the fourth estate, the alleged inadequacies of which dominate the book. Salmond is at once dismissive ("We are long past the stage where the looking-glass world of the unionist press can have much impact") and obsessed with the print and broadcast media. The Scotsman is "on a suicide mission"; he takes "considerable pleasure" in phoning The Times editor John Witherow to chastise its "anti-Scottish bias"; he's incredulous when the Sunday Post splashes on his hotel expenses ("it would be possible to meet company CEOs or international dignitaries at the local Holiday Inn, but I'm not sure how well that would work for Scotland’s benefit") and records with relish his attempt to offer a young Telegraph journalist "a packet of liquorice allsorts for good attendance at every press event". When, inexplicably in Salmond's eyes, Ben Riley-Smith "takes exception" to this condescending gesture, Salmond puts his "tetchiness" down to low morale at the Telegraph, which is, after all, "a subdivision of the 'No' campaign".

Salmond provides few insights into why the Yes campaign failed to win the referendum

Particular vitriol is reserved for the BBC, especially its Scottish arm. When the Beeb isn't being "biased", it's guilty of "incompetence". Salmond spends a lot of time calling director-general Tony Hall. On one occasion he diplomatically suggests the BBC is "a disgrace to public service broadcasting", reads Lord Hall a tweet from Paul Mason and adds, for good measure, that "it is now difficult to tell where the network BBC stops and the 'No' campaign begins". Salmond acknowledges this won't achieve anything, but records, revealingly, how he "really enjoyed saying it".

And although Salmond acknowledges making mistakes, he rarely accepts full responsibility. When, for example, he attracts criticism for saying he admires Vladimir Putin in a magazine interview, Alastair Campbell is blamed for having "trapped" him into saying it; when he loses the first TV debate it's because he allowed himself "to be persuaded to act out of character"; and when it comes to the declining value of Brent crude Salmond writes breezily that "no-one really knows what the price of oil is going to be in the short term", despite having spent several years arguing precisely the contrary.

The idea, meanwhile, that Salmond's currency union proposal might have been unsuccessful doesn't get a look in; most criticisms of the idea were "low-grade and empty nonsense", while in his mind the issue had been settled once he'd "won" the second TV debate. When, for example, the BBC's Nick Robinson has the impertinence to question him about it on September 2nd, Salmond observes that it's "as if the debate with Alistair Darling had never even taken place". The "metropolitan" or "London media" simply didn't get it.

No-one, however, can fault Salmond's capacity for hard work, and The Dream Shall Never Die reveals his formidable networking skills, particularly when it comes to helping rescue the Ferguson shipyard. Other initiatives aren't as successful. He attempts to get a US congressman to table a "favourable" motion (about independence) to "snooker" the Foreign Office, tries but fails to persuade the former (Labour) first minister Henry McLeish to back independence (he "is clearly torn between loyalty to party and country"), and tries but fails to win the Scottish Sun's backing (on September 7th Murdoch is still prevaricating; by September 16th he has opted for "benign neutrality").

The BBC is singled out for criticism by Salmond for its Scottish independence referendum coverage

Nevertheless, the book contains some revealing nuggets. Salmond recalls, for example, suggesting to David Cameron shortly after he became prime minister that he should "spring a political surprise and implement radical devolution", although he seemed surprised when the PM gave this "devo-max" idea "short shrift". On July 18th 2014, meanwhile, Salmond concludes he would be "minded to resign" if he didn't win the referendum, but he tells no-one beyond Nicola Sturgeon, his wife Moira and adviser Geoff Aberdein.

The book, however, offers little of the inner Alex Salmond, although it does reveal a bit more of his marriage, about which he has always been fiercely private. "To one of Moira's favourite garden centres," begins one entry about Mrs Salmond. In July 2014 they go on their first holiday since 2010, and by August Moira is "none too pleased" about his "hectic" schedule. On September 18th, meanwhile, two exchanges between Mr and Mrs Salmond capture the highs and lows of polling day. "Have we won?" asks Moira at one stage. "I think so," replies Salmond. But later, following the first declaration, Moira asks: "How bad is that?" Salmond replies diplomatically. "It’s only the first result and it's pretty close," he says. Then he starts work on his concession speech.

There are flashes of self-awareness. In the book's epilogue Salmond notes that his special advisers and private office team "did not always see the sunniest side of my nature", although at other points he positively relishes his ability to put powerful individuals in their place. When there are transport issues during the Commonwealth Games, Salmond phones the chief executive of FirstGroup and adopts "a tone of controlled menace", noting that the "tone of total contrition" he gets in response helps matters "greatly". At another point, and following President Obama's endorsement of the Union, Salmond ticks off the US ambassador for his government's "poor treatment" of a "small country that has always been a staunch ally".

President Obama's endorsement of the Union earns the US ambassador a rebuke from Salmond
 

But there is surprisingly little analysis of why Scotland ended up voting No. Throughout the last 100 days Salmond is convinced things are moving his way: "Whatever is happening it is not being fully recorded in most polls" (29 June); there's "a real change in the air" (25 July); and "it's perplexing that we haven't as yet seen the same movement in the polls that I'm detecting on the ground" (16 August). Yet when all this proves overly optimistic, Salmond offers no real explanation beyond the 'Vow' (even though academic analysis doubts it had much of an impact) and some dodgy number crunching by mysterious Canadians.

There are, however, interesting glimpses of what might have been. For example Salmond's preparations for the launch of a 'Scottish Monetary Authority' immediately following a Yes vote (Mervyn King suggested Professor John Kay, who had agreed to lead it), but beyond that, for anyone well-versed in referendum politics, there is no real insight, depth or analysis. Much of the book could be summed up as 'why I was right and everyone else was wrong'. There are lots of exclamation marks and, at one point, a bizarre allusion to a Ridley Scott film starring Orlando Bloom.

Part of the problem is how the book was written. At no point does Salmond clarify this, but while the central portion takes the form of a diary it seems likely it wasn't written up every day, but rather fleshed out from notes later on (with subsequent rewriting by 'associate editor' and Scottish Sun deputy editor Alan Muir). As a consequence it lacks immediacy or flair; whole entries are turgid or bogged down with lengthy digressions, and overall it feels padded out rather than judiciously edited. There are, in short, better books to be written about the recent referendum, it's just a shame its chief protagonist hasn't produced one of them.

David Torrance is Alex Salmond's biographer and the author of The Battle for Britain, an insider's account of the fight for Scottish independence. You can purchase the book here. Follow him on Twitter.

The post Review: The Dream Shall Never Die by Alex Salmond appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander told a conference in London that Scottish voters were suffering from an irrational grief amplified by social media.

"Forty-five per cent of Scots voted 'Yes' and 55% voted 'No'. Amongst the 45% who voted 'Yes' there's a great sense of grief and sometimes grief presents itself as anger," he told the LabourList conference.

"Some of them blame the BBC and some of them blame the Labour party."

He spoke about an "intelligent woman" he met in a supermarket who claimed that the referendum result was a conspiracy.

"An intelligent woman, a social worker, came up and told me 'I'm never going to vote Labour again.'"

"'I'm very disappointed in the referendum. I don't believe the referendum result.' Do you think it was a conspiracy? 'Yes I do. Everybody I know voted 'Yes''".

He said the rise of social media was making it difficult to get through to these angry 'Yes' voters.

"We're used to a politics where we share facts but diverge on opinions," he said.

"We are confronting increasingly, with voters' eyes on social media, a politics which is an echo chamber of people's own opinions.

"How do we engage with a very rapidly changing media landscape in which facts are not common and people have their own facts?"

Alexander currently faces losing his seat to the SNP according to constituency polling by Lord Ashcroft.

He admitted that "the numbers are not good," but insisted that the stark choice between a Labour and Conservative government would concentrate voters' minds.

Asked whether he was among those Scottish Labour MPs who had called on Miliband to take a clearer stance on a possible post-election deal with the SNP he replied that "private conversations would remain private."

The post Labour blames ‘conspiracy theories’ for Scottish collapse appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The first minister's speech today is entirely focused on the potential role the SNP could play in hung parliament negotiations today.

That is what this election is all about, after all. With the Scottish independence issue sorted for a generation after last year's No victory, we can all forget about nationalism and concentrate on what is at stake on May 7th – who governs the country for the next five years.

When the stakes are the future of our country, that thinking is horribly short-sighted.

A new poll out today points to a truth not many in Westminster are prepared to admit right now: this year's election is only going to pave the way for another referendum in the future.

The University of Edinburgh survey found 69% of people believe Scotland will eventually leave the UK. That's only marginally higher than the 59% who live in England who think the same thing.

"We shouldn't mistake this as support for independence itself," Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh tells Politics.co.uk.

"What it means is people in Scotland and every other part of the UK are not thinking the issue is going away. Some of those people might want it to go away, but they do think that this issue matters."

His analysis makes sense. The referendum dominated last year and has triggered a constitutional upheaval which goes well beyond who runs Holyrood. It has created a wave of momentum which a majority of people now accept is not going to be halted easily.

The nationalists sensed this before the rest of us did. That was why, in George Square in Glasgow on referendum night, they were so euphoric. They knew they had started something which would not simply fade away and be forgotten about.

George Square has been renamed – not sure if Robert Burns approves pic.twitter.com/HfDvs8GIui

— Alex Stevenson (@Alex__Stevenson) September 19, 2014

Back then their predictions that the Scots would vote for the SNP in Westminster seemed implausible. Now the expectation is that they could win as many as 56 of Scotland's 59 seats. That possibility will skew the 2015 election result and make the SNP key players in deciding who becomes our next prime minister. It's a fascinating prospect and not at all surprising that we want to examine its implications. But it distracts us from the bigger picture – that the independence issue remains as significant as ever.

What flooding Westminster with MPs will do is help propagate the nationalists' permanent presence on the scene. They are adopting one of the most tried and tested strategies of war: the envelopment of the enemy. Cutting off escape routes, shutting down your opponent's flexibility, triggering a psychological collapse long before the actual practical options for resistance are exhausted. What the SNP is doing to the rest of Britain is imposing an unrelenting pressure which creates its own conclusion.

But it is a steady incremental process, not a quick one. After the referendum the SNP's initial strategy was to complain about broken promises. That ultimately led to Sturgeon raising the possibility of a second referendum if Britain is set to leave the EU. But the University of Edinburgh's polling has found only 45% of Scots back her on that and the numbers are even lower elsewhere in the UK.

So instead the nationalists should look to a longer-term goal of achieving independence in the next few decades, not the next few years.

They should be encouraged because today's research also finds that the Scottish independence really has motivated political views north of the border. The 85% turnout figure in the independence referendum itself wasn't ever going to be repeated in a Westminster election, but Eichhorn says people in Scotland nevertheless do now have a higher likelihood of voting in a normal election because of it. Around three-quarters north of the border say they are certain to vote, compared to around 60% elsewhere. And many of them want to talk about how Britain is governed. "Some of that political engagement is moving beyond just the simple proposition that people engaged with the referendum because that was an easy issue," Eichhorn adds. "We see something lasting here."

So, it seems, do British voters. They understand that this increased engagement is a direct response to Scottish nationalism. Those seeking independence have mobilised the debate and may sooner or later win it.

Today's speech from Sturgeon fits that long-term plan. Dominating the attention of the Westminster enemy is the first step towards a successful psychological envelopment. By making themselves impossible to ignore, with choices narrowing and alternative futures fading away, the SNP's strategy might be closer to fulfilment than any of us think.

The post How a flood of SNP MPs could lead to independence appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Right now the turmoil over whether and how to keep the promises made by Westminster's three party leaders to the people of Scotland is being kept firmly behind closed doors.

But frustrations on both sides of the coalition and a deepening split with the Labour party this autumn are steadily reducing the chances of agreement being reached along the lines of the timetable set out before the September 18th 'No' vote.

It might sound like bad news for the Conservatives, but this is actually a win-win scenario for them. Whatever the outcome, it's likely to make Ed Miliband's chances of getting into No 10 as prime minister all the slimmer.

Tory rebels ready to defy Cameron

Emerging evidence of the concerns of suspicious Tory backbenchers – those who are simply not prepared to back Cameron's promise without a comparable deal for England – will be alarming news for the government.

One Conservative MP said: "The deal was done by Gordon Brown without any consultation. In principle I have no problem whatsoever with more devolution for the Scots, but that has to go in tandem with English votes for English laws. The deal has to be done together, not one then the other. What is sauce for the goose has got to be sauce for the gander."

'In tandem' is an unfortunate phrase. It was first uttered by the prime minister on the morning of September 19th and implied that Scottish devolution could not take place without devolution for the rest of the UK.

That is exactly what Cameron meant. But it was an awkward choice of words, and in the following days the Conservatives realised a standoff over the English question risked the pledge to Scottish voters sliding. Unfortunately that is exactly what now looks like happening.

Senior Tories also realised there was great potential to politicise the issue. So, by U-turning, Downing Street isolated Miliband as the only party leader opposing English votes for English laws.

That has allowed Labour to be painted as the party letting down 85% of the population. Never mind that the opposition has unveiled an impressive-looking package of devolution. "English votes for English laws is not about devolution," as one source close to the Labour leader put it. "It's about the mechanics of this place for the political advantage of the Conservative party, even if it breaks up the United Kingdom."

Labour has steered clear of the cross-party talks being held on English devolution in a sub-committee of the Cabinet chaired by William Hague. That means the leader of the House's proposal to hold a Commons vote on the issue if a deal is not reached by the end of November is very much a live one.

The division, if it actually happens, is set for either side of Christmas. And the Tories are upbeat. If it came to it, Conservative strategists remain optimistic they could win a Commons vote even in the face of united opposition from Labour and the Lib Dems.

Persuading a handful of frustrated Labour backbenchers to rebel is always going to be difficult, however, and the suspicion of the Tories' partisan motives that unites Labour and the Lib Dems will probably be strong enough to block them.

Now the negative noises being sounded by some Tory MPs is making such a Conservative victory even more unlikely.

One former minister said the idea an English deal could be reached in keeping with the Scottish timetable was "ridiculous" and that he intended to rebel over the vow as a result.

"I will be voting against further devolution for Scotland as promised by Gordon Brown and signed up to by the leader of my party," he told Politics.co.uk.

"He [Cameron] had no mandate so I don't feel bound to support that idea. I wasn't elected on that proposition."

When asked whether he thought other Tory MPs would join him, the ex-minister added: "I'd be very surprised if there weren't. There was considerable disquiet at the prime minister's decision to get Gordon Brown to announce a new policy when it's specifically not been negotiated out of the options available to the Scottish people in their referendum. The PM felt it was necessary to save the union. That was his judgement, not mine – but then again, I'd probably put rather less store by the union than he does."

The message of these MPs to William Hague is simple. Don't expect their support for devo-max until it's clear it represents a fair financial deal to constituents in England – and that the English votes for English laws question has been settled for good.

A Lib Dem spanner in the works

There is a further problem faced by Hague and Cameron: the risk that agreement with the Lib Dems could prove equally elusive.

The initial deadlock was over the makeup of a grand committee of English-only MPs put forward by the Lib Dems.

The coalition's junior party has been arguing that proportional representation is how the elected assemblies of the devolved institutions are chosen; the Tories respond by saying they refuse to accept any reduction in their influence in the Commons.

David Laws brings the LibDems to the English Question, with an argument for EVEL(PR) http://t.co/u4wMKdcZh2 via @guardian

— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) October 2, 2014

Despite the initial deadlock a deal might still be possible. As Politics.co.uk reported earlier this week, the Lib Dems could be prepared to give way if the Conservatives accept a big idea known as 'democracy on demand'.

The stakes are high for the Tories. If they accept the Lib Dem proposals power could leak out of Whitehall like a sieve. If they refuse, it's now emerged, the Lib Dems are threatening to block Hague's cherished vote on the issue.

A motion of the kind Hague wants would have to be put forward by the government. It would be impossible if the Lib Dems, frustrated by the talks, chose not to play ball. As one source put it: "Why would we agree to a motion when there's no cross-party agreement?"

An impasse with the Liberals would force the Tories to resort to asking helpful Conservative MPs to seek a vote in the sliver of Commons time controlled by backbenchers.

Such a move would only make already-strained coalition relations frostier after the parties blocked each others' bids to legislate for an EU referendum and dilute the impact of the bedroom tax last month.

Bad news for Ed

Of course the party leaders need time to secure consensus. Their problem is they have very little of it.

In Westminster the coalition's secret talks, backbench mutterings and Labour suspicions are set to continue all the way up to the vote which may, or may not, actually happen.

Right now none of the three main parties are in agreement. This opens up the possibility that nationalists will be given free rein to protest the timetable for the Scottish vow is not being upheld.

Such an outcome would not be so bad for the Tories.

Anger with the Westminster parties would only serve to help the cause of SNP candidates taking on Labour north of the border.

The nationalists can point to Brown's promise of a second reading bill before the general election as proof that the English can't deliver what they promised.

Gordon Brown is expected to be one of the four Scottish Labour MPs who retains his seat. (via MORI poll) pic.twitter.com/hOXfbXRphv

— Britain Elects (@britainelects) October 30, 2014

The Conservatives will argue that was never part of the deal and insist they only need to produce a draft bill before May next year.

It's an approach that won't put off Tory voters in their English constituencies, but will strengthen the hand of the nationalists in Scotland.

The SNP is looking to make substantial gains in 2015. These will come at the expense of Labour, further diminishing Miliband's chances of ending up in Downing Street.

The post Tory rebels threaten to derail Cameron’s Scottish devolution vow appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Five: Critics frozen out of MoJ as Grayling pushes ahead with child warehouse plan

Never underestimate Chris Grayling's aversion to critical voices. While it might seem to the layman that government policy could be improved by the active participation of civil society, the Ministry of Justice takes another view. It considers experts who disagree with it – and experts typically do disagree with it – to be left-wing pressure groups. So it was unsurprising when the Howard League and others were frozen out of a ministerial meeting on plans for child prison warehouses. Children's rights campaigners are particularly concerned about the use of violence in the centres and the priority given to cost cutting over rehabilitation. But only some of their voices were heard.

Four:   How immigrants feel about the immigration debate

Only 12% of articles about migrants actually feature quotes from migrants. But new Migrant Voice research is offering up a glimpse of how these communities feel as the debate around their role in British society becomes increasingly toxic. It isn't a pretty picture. When asked how the coverage made them feel, they answered: 'disgraced', 'embarrassed', 'scapegoated', 'angry' and 'depressed'.

Three: Very quietly, the coalition tries to dismantle judicial review

The attack on judicial review is one of those things you can get away with because its name has no resonance with the public. While it is one of the most effective legal remedies against over-zealous government, precious few people are aware of how much power judicial review gives them over the powers that be. But with their use, particularly in immigration cases, is going up, so the coalition predictably decided to try to price it out of ordinary people's reach. Very quietly, in the Lords, they set about dismantling it.

Two: The final death of meritocratic Britain

It was as damning a report as could be imagined. Alan Milburn's social mobility commission found the country slipping back into division and class stasis. Few will have been surprised by the results, but they made for bleak reading anyway. On pay, on home ownership, on public services and benefits – the same phenomenon emerged, of a deeply unequal society becoming ever more so.

One: How Salmond won the referendum

If you thought Alex Salmond lost the Scottish independence referendum, then you may be proved wrong. This careful assessment of the state of play in British constitutional reform suggested the Scottish first minister was in a win-win situation. Either Westminster hands him new powers, or he makes independence much more likely by highlighting the betrayal of 'the vow' to the Scottish people. Weeks after the result of the referendum, the full scale of what is happening to Britain is still only just becoming clear. Big changes are ahead.

The post Pick of the Week: Salmond clutches victory from the jaws of defeat appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The prime minister was inadvertently filmed during a private conversation with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg talking through his emotions after the referendum result had come through.

"The definition of relief is being the prime minister  of the United Kingdom and ringing the Queen and saying 'It's alright, it's okay'. That was something. She purred down the line," he said.

"It should never have been that close. It wasn't in the end. But there was a time in the middle of the campaign when it felt close.

David Cameron overheard saying the Queen "purred" when told Scotland voted No to independence http://t.co/Hqt9NDVRwK pic.twitter.com/ckYEC62oIQ

— Sky News (@SkyNews) September 23, 2014

"I've said I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through, you know. It was very nervous moments."

Downing Street did not immediately confirm the prime minister suffers from stomach ulcers.

But commentators on social media were instantly on hand to offer the prime minister medical advice about the condition.

Cameron caught on camera saying wants to 'find these polling companies and sue them for the stomach ulcers' we caused him over #indyref

— Joe Twyman (@JoeTwyman) September 23, 2014

Actually it's more likely that Cameron's stomach ulcers came from Helicobacter Pylori than from polling companies http://t.co/gxprYzSa00

— Matthew Greenall (@mngreenall) September 23, 2014

Hey @David_Cameron you don't get stomach ulcers through stress, it's a bacterial infection 2 Aussies won a Nobel Prize.

— Rob Moore (@RobM_07_78) September 23, 2014

The post Cameron says Queen ‘purred’ after ‘No’ vote appeared first on Politics.co.uk.