Teaching Comparative

Decentralization or secession?

The road to this agricultural town winds through the slums and cartel-controlled territory of Michoacán, ground zero for Mexico’s drug war, before arriving at a sight so strange it can seem like a mirage…

Local orchard owners, who export over $1 million in avocados per day, mostly to the United States, underwrite what has effectively become an independent city-state. Self-policing and self-governing, it is a sanctuary from drug cartels as well as from the Mexican state.

But beneath the calm is a town under tightfisted control, enforced by militias accountable only to their paymasters. Drug addiction and suicide are soaring, locals say, as the social contract strains…

Tancítaro represents a quiet but telling trend in Mexico, where a handful of towns and cities are effectively seceding, partly or in whole. These are acts of desperation, revealing the degree to which Mexico’s police and politicians are seen as part of the threat…

Each is a haven of relative safety amid violence, suggesting that their diagnosis of the problem was correct. But their gains are fragile and have come at significant cost.

They are exceptions that prove the rule: Mexico’s crisis manifests as violence, but it is rooted in the corruption and weakness of the state... 

Tancítaro: Nearly four years in, long after other militia-run towns in Michoacán collapsed into violence, the streets remain safe and tidy. But in sweeping away the institutions that enabled crime to flourish, Tancítaro created a system that in many ways resembles cartel control…

Cinthia Garcia Nieves, a young community organizer… set up citizens’ councils as a way for local families to get involved. But militia rule has accustomed many to the idea that power belongs to whomever has the guns…

Officially, Tancítaro is run by a mayor so popular that he was nominated by the unanimous consent of every major political party and won in a landslide. Unofficially, the mayor reports to the farm owners, who predetermined his election by ensuring he was the only viable candidate…

The citizens’ councils, designed as visions of democratic utopianism, hold little power. Social services have faltered.

Though the new order is popular, it offers few avenues for appeal or dissent…

Monterrey: Rather than ejecting institutions, Monterrey’s business elite quietly took them over — all with the blessing of their friends and golf partners in public office.

But their once-remarkable progress is now collapsing…

Monterrey’s experience offered still more evidence that in Mexico, violence is only a symptom; the real disease is in government…

Mexico’s weak institutions, Jorge Tello, a security consultant, [said], make any local fix subject to the whims of political leaders. Countries like the United States, he said, “have this structure that we don’t have. That’s what’s so dangerous.”

Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl, a million-resident sprawl outside Mexico City, was once known for poverty, gang violence and police corruption so widespread that officers sometimes mugged citizens.

Today, though still rough, it is far safer. Its police officers are considered “a really promising model,” John Bailey, a Georgetown University professor said, in a part of the country where most are seen as threats.

Neza inverted Monterrey’s model: Rather than establishing an independent police force and co-opting the political system, Neza established an independent political system and co-opted the police.

Mexico’s establishment parties are more than parties. They are the state. Loyalists, not civil servants, run institutions. Officials have little freedom to stretch and little incentive to investigate corruption that might implicate fellow party members. Most are shuffled between offices every few years, cutting any successes short.

Neza, run by a third party, the left-wing P.R.D., exists outside of this system. Its leaders are free to gut local institutions and cut out the state authorities…

But Neza’s gains could evaporate, Mr. Amador said, if crime in neighboring areas continued to rise or if the mayor’s office changed party…

Labels: corruption, devolution, Mexico, political parties, reform

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Disunited islands

With gray clouds building and rain slanting in over the Atlantic, Stuart Hill pointed to a small lump of land inhabited by an otter, a few seals and a variety of seabirds.

Croft (farm) in the Shetlands

To the rest of the world, this barren, inhospitable and largely inaccessible rock off the coastline of the Shetland Islands is a part of Scotland, on the northernmost tip of Britain. To Mr. Hill, it is the sovereign state of Forvik, whose independence he proclaimed in 2008, arguing that it — along with the oil-rich Shetland Islands themselves — is legally neither part of Scotland nor Britain…

Yet, while many Shetlanders regard Mr. Hill as an eccentric, a growing number are being drawn to calls for more independence for their remote and scenic isles…

Shetlands

Even though Gary Robinson, leader of the Shetland Islands Council, opposes independence, he favors more autonomy. To that end, he is pursuing links beyond Edinburgh and London, through the Nordic Council, which includes Denmark and Norway, as well as the Faroe and Aland Islands…

Unleashed by Britain’s planned withdrawal from the European Union,… the debate underscores the forces of fragmentation threatening to turn the United Kingdom into a contradiction in terms.

Shaped by their Viking, rather than Celtic, roots, the Shetlands have a unique culture. Small Shetland ponies are a frequent sight in much of its panoramic landscape, and the red and blue houses of parts of its capital, Lerwick, look more Nordic than British…

To critics, discussion of independence for a tiny clutch of islands, while far-fetched, underscores the growing risk of the post-Brexit Balkanization of Britain.

[T]he local member of the British Parliament, Alistair Carmichael… concedes… that Shetland’s relationship with power centers can be strained.

“We have a history of having to push water uphill against Edinburgh,” he said. “From London, you get benign neglect, but you get patronized from Edinburgh.”…

Labels: cleavages, devolution, politics, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

The dilemma of England-only voting

A row has erupted over plans to bring in "English votes for English laws", as MPs debate the proposals.

MPs from English seats will get an effective veto on bills that apply to England only under the plans…

But Labour and the SNP oppose the plans. The SNP said they "simply exacerbate the further alienation of Scotland from the UK Parliament".

Labour said they risked creating "two tiers" of MPs at Westminster…

Ministers say their solution will address the long-standing anomaly - known as the West Lothian Question - by which Scottish MPs can vote on issues such as health and education affecting only England - or England and Wales - but the House of Commons has no say on similar matters relating to Scotland, where such policies are devolved.

Under the reforms, an additional parliamentary stage, called a grand committee, would allow English, or English and Welsh, MPs to scrutinise bills without the involvement of Scottish MPs…

The government is attempting to change the way MPs make laws to reflect the fact that the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood is getting more power…

Why does it matter?

At the same time, he promised English MPs they would get more power too - they would be able to legislate in areas such as health and education without any input from MPs representing Scottish seats. He called it "English Votes for English Laws", which got shortened to EVEL…

Why not just set up an English Parliament?

This is what the SNP - who are firmly opposed to EVEL - claim the government is trying to do, in all but name. They claim the current plans will just make their MPs at Westminster "second class" citizens.

Some argue that an English Parliament would strengthen the SNP's case for an independent Scotland, further weakening the ties that bind the UK together…

So how will it work exactly?

All laws passed at Westminster will, in theory, continue to have the backing of the majority of MPs, just as they do now.

But an extra stage will be introduced in the middle of the law-making process, allowing English MPs to block anything they don't like the look of in bills deemed to be "England only"…

How many England-only laws are there?

Quite a lot…

The picture becomes even more murky when you consider laws that are, on the face of it, England, or England and Wales, only but have knock-on effects in Scotland and the other devolved nations.

There are also funding implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when a spending commitment is made for England only, for example on the NHS. Under the current Barnett formula grant system, the devolved administrations' funding is adjusted to take into account changes to public spending in England.

This is often controversial, for example when spending on the London Olympics was deemed to be UK-wide, rather than England-only - triggering a row between Westminster and the devolved administrations…

What is Labour saying about all this?

Labour has previously called for a "constitutional convention" to consider the issue, and has accused the Conservatives of "rushing" a decision that will enact "profound constitutional change"…

Under its previous leadership, the opposition called for devolution within England to regions and for the House of Lords to be replaced with a "Senate of the Nations and the Regions".

The Government was accused of risking the creation of a “disunited kingdom” after the Commons approved an historic change to give English MPs a veto over laws which affect only England...

The landmark reform has been agreed in the Commons by 312 votes to 270, a government majority of 42. Moves by Labour to derail them were rejected...

Labels: devolution, politics, regime, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Watch this space

The government will give MPs from English constituencies a new "veto" over laws affecting England only.

Grayling

Commons Leader Chris Grayling said the change, also applying in some cases to Welsh MPs, would bring "real fairness to our constitutional arrangements".

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon called the plan "staggering in the extent... of its hypocrisy and incoherence".

Labour said it was an "outrage" that ministers wanted to rush into making "profound constitutional change"…

Under the proposals, all MPs would continue to vote on all key stages of legislation.

But English MPs - and in some cases English and Welsh MPs - will have a veto in Westminster when debating matters that have been devolved to the devolved administrations [Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland].

MPs will debate the changes on 15 July… and the system will be changed using the rules - known as standing orders - that dictate how Parliament conducts its business.

With more powers set to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament after September's independence referendum, Tory MPs have said it is not right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies can continue to determine laws affecting England only…

The Speaker will be asked to certify which bills or parts of bills relate to England or England and Wales only…

Tablet computers will be used to count MPs' votes as they walk through the voting lobbies so officials can instantly register whether they have used their veto in votes where the "double majority" rule applies…

New system

• The Speaker will judge which parts of a bill relate to just England, or England and Wales
• An England-only committee stage will consider bills deemed "England-only in their entirety"
• Membership of this committee will reflect the number of MPs each party has in England
• Where sections of legislation relate only to England or England and Wales, agreement of a "Legislative Grand Committee" will be required

Labels: devolution, legislature, politics, regime, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Another analysis Scotland's independence movement

This isn’t exactly the solid, stable old Britain that Americans love.

After throwing a scare into the country’s political elite, Scots voted in September against independence. So a political union that predates the American revolution will stay in place — at least a while longer.

But by seriously considering breaking up the country, Scotland has helped launch a debate that may fundamentally change how America’s closest ally functions.

Think of the issue as a British version of the U.S. struggle to define where Washington’s power ends and state authority takes over…

Many Scots have felt increasingly at odds with the UK’s national government for decades. While “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher was popular enough to become Britain’s longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century, her policies were widely detested in Scotland. And Scots see little more than a continuation of them in the quarter of a century since she left office…

In late November, the so-called Smith Commission return its report on Scottish autonomy. Among its recommendations: that Scots be given the power to set income tax rates and retain the money raised by it; that they be able to decide whether to extend the right to vote to 16-year-olds; and that the Scottish parliament be free to create new benefits.

Cameron said he was “delighted” with it. The Scottish National Party was disappointed, saying that the authority over the vast majority of revenue and spending would remain in London…

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said, “If you think today’s constitutional changes are only about Scotland, think again,” he said. “If you think they will end the debate about Scottish independence, think again. If you think they mark the end of a process of change, think again.”

Now, mayors of major cities across England said they should be given the same powers as the Scots…

The Scottish National Party's, former First Minister Alex Salmond, widely recognized as one of Britain’s wiliest politicians, resigned as the head of Scotland’s government… But he hasn’t left the scene. He stirred the pot on Sunday by announcing that he would run for a seat in parliament in London.

With his party gaining in the polls, Salmond is setting himself up to be a national power broker. Cameron’s foes in the Labor Party can’t beat him outright without a strong showing in Scotland. The Scottish National Party says it will never support the Conservatives. But it might be willing to back a Labor government, for a price. And that price would be likely to take Britain back to the future — an intensified debate over autonomy (for Scots and others, as well) and possibly another vote on Scottish independence.

Labels: devolution, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Devolution proposal in the UK

Scotland was promised sweeping powers over taxation and welfare spending…

The groundbreaking proposals have the backing of major political leaders in both England and Scotland, but a final vote on legislation to enact the changes is not expected until next year…

Under [these] proposals, the Scottish Parliament would have the power to set income tax rates, and some of the revenues from sales taxes raised in Scotland would go toward the Scottish budget. The Scottish government would also be able to control the duties imposed on passengers traveling through Scottish airports.

In addition, Scotland would gain significant control over welfare spending. Scotland generally leans more to the left than England and one of the main goals of many of those who pushed for secession was to be able to spend more liberally on social programs…

Legislation on the recommendations is expected to be drafted early next year and put in place by the government that will be formed after a general election in May…

 

Labels: devolution, regime, rule of law, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

What's good for Scotland is good for England, isn't it?

Lingering in the margins of Labour's conference on Sunday has been a simple question with a complicated answer: is the promise of further devolution to Scotland conditional on England getting the same?

Let us examine the evidence.

Early on Friday morning, a man relieved still to be prime minister of the United Kingdom stood in Downing Street and categorically linked the two issues together.

David Cameron said: "The question of English votes for English laws - the so-called West Lothian question - requires a decisive answer.

"So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland."

But what do "in tandem with" and "at the same pace as" actually mean?…

Chief Whip Michael Gove

Chief Whip Michael Gove… said: "It would be impossible to move forward without making sure you have changes both in Scotland and in England.

"This means that a system of English-only votes for English-only laws must be brought in before Scotland can get the devolution it wants."

From that, you might think Scottish devolution was actually conditional on progress towards English votes for English laws…

But after accusations from some that the prime minister was putting Scottish devolution at risk by linking it to change for English, Downing Street today acted to try to clear up the confusion… They said the chief whip had been misinterpreted by the paper.

They said it was always clear there were two separate processes.

The PM, they said, will keep his vow to the people of Scotland - no ifs, no buts…

Labels: devolution, leadership, politics, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

More devolution in the UK?

A big gap has widened in Britain in recent decades between cities and regions at each end of the country. The ‘North-South Divide’ came about because manufacturing and mining industries in the north and midlands failed while London and the south east saw a boom in financial and media industries.

It’s a source of bitterness for many British voters, who see London as a city state increasingly detached from the rest of the United Kingdom not just economically but culturally…

Now however the Scottish referendum, coming after the United Kingdom endured several years of recession, has prompted local politicians, leaders and businessmen to shout louder for the regional autonomy they need to boost growth in their areas too.

Nearly half of Britons - 48 percent - support more decision-making powers being devolved to English and Welsh cities and regions…

In England’s biggest county, Richard Carter launched the “Yorkshire First” campaign in August, calling for devolution to a regional government.

With a population the same size as Scotland and an economy twice the size of Wales, Yorkshire is suffering because it has the powers of neither, Carter says…

Elsewhere in the north, many inhabitants of Greater Manchester agree.

The county in north-west England has a bigger population than Northern Ireland and a larger economy than Wales. That makes it a prime candidate for devolved powers, says Phillip Blond, director of think tank ResPublica…

Yorkshire, with its white roses fluttering on flags over city halls across the region, and Manchester, with its engineering output and cultural profile, have, along with other English cities like Liverpool and Newcastle, strong identities that help fuel their inhabitants’ desire for autonomy.

Not all parts of Britain can say the same however and so far, attachment to local regions has not translated into enthusiasm for what devolved power is currently available.

Towns and cities have been permitted to have elected mayors since 2000 but few have taken up the opportunity. In 2012, 11 of England’s largest cities voted on whether to introduce an elected mayor with 9 of them - including Manchester and Newcastle - rejecting the idea.

In part this is down to public distrust of politicians…

Labels: devolution, economics, politics, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Scotland votes NO

Scotland has voted to stay in the United Kingdom after voters decisively rejected independence.

With the results in from all 32 council areas, the "No" side won with 2,001,926 votes over 1,617,989 for "Yes"…

Labels: devolution, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 7:39 AM 0 comments

Details on referendum results

Polling stations close later this evening with the result expected Friday morning. The BBC's Jeremy Vine explains how the votes will be counted.

Labels: devolution, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 1:20 PM 0 comments

The last arguments

Both sides in the Scottish independence referendum debate have seized on a pledge by the three main Westminster parties to devolve more powers.

The pledge, signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, also promises equitable sharing of resources and preserving the Barnett funding formula.

The "Yes" campaign described it as an "insult" to voters and asked why it had taken so long to offer.

Better Together said it was "a vision around which Scotland can unite"…

The pledge signed by the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem leaders appears on the front of the Daily Record newspaper.

The first part of the agreement promises "extensive new powers" for the Scottish Parliament…

The pledges were first outlined by the former prime minister, Gordon Brown, and endorsed by the three main unionist parties in Scotland.

On the penultimate day of campaigning ahead of Thursday's referendum, the "Yes" side is focusing on jobs and the NHS, while the "No" side is promising change and a "better Britain"…

Labels: devolution, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Panic time in London?

The leaders of the main UK parties are heading to Scotland to campaign against independence, ahead of the referendum.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband will abandon their weekly Prime Minister's Questions clash to head north on Wednesday.

It came as the Scottish pro-Union party leaders announced their backing for more powers for Scotland.

First Minister Alex Salmond said the campaign to keep the Union was now in "absolute panic".

Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will also be campaigning in Scotland, ahead of the 18 September referendum, although the three leaders will not travel or appear together.

In a joint statement they said: "There is a lot that divides us - but there's one thing on which we agree passionately: the United Kingdom is better together."…

Labels: devolution, leadership, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Campaigning for Scotland's future

DAVID CAMERON reckons people should think jolly hard before they vote in Scotland’s upcoming referendum on independence. As he and other unionist leaders often argue, the result on September 18th will be irreversible and binding…. Such entreaties seem to be working: the “no” to independence campaign has a comfortable poll lead.

Scottish nationalist

A second warning lurks between the lines: if they vote “no”, Scots had better accept that outcome, too. There should be no “neverendum”; the term applied to Quebec’s decades-long deliberations over breaking from Canada. Whether or not this message will go heeded is less certain. The reason can be found in the comparison between the “yes” and “no” campaigns.

In Bathgate… Harry Cartmill, [is] counting out leaflets. Like many [in the Better Together campaign], he is also active in the unionist Labour Party. The drill here is as in election years: canvass swing voters by phone or in person, constantly refine the database and hit targets set by headquarters. They may not be terribly impassioned, but unionists are disciplined, dutiful and experienced.

If the “no” campaign is a machine, “yes” is a carnival… es Scotland, the official campaign, provides local groups with materials but otherwise lets them do what they want. Many canvass, but others prefer street stalls, film screenings and pop-up “independence cafes”… This is understandable: most Scots say they do not support independence; Yes Scotland has to win people over, not just induce them to vote.

Several larger nationalist initiatives have developed lives of their own. National Collective, a gathering of creative types, has toured Scotland putting on pro-independence arts and music festivals collectively known as “Yestival”. Other bodies, like Common Weal and Radical Independence, are marshalling idealistic ideas for an independent Scotland and connecting the “yes” campaign to other causes, like nuclear disarmament…

But raucousness can also alarm the undecided. Yes Scotland may have a larger online presence (including many more Facebook and Twitter followers), but this is polluted by “cyber-nationalists”: bloggers who harass unionists, peddle conspiracy theories and generally undermine the cause…

This spirited chaos may be making it harder to turn fizz into votes… Blair McDougall, director of Better Together, offers a related explanation: his side is more focused and better at using its canvassing to direct the campaign’s messages effectively. Nevertheless, his opponents are confident that energy and numbers will boost nationalist turnout on polling day. Canvassing consistently shows that “yes” voters are more passionate in their views than “no” ones, claims Blair Jenkins, who runs Yes Scotland.

The distinction between the campaigns has a second, bigger implication… Successful or not, that campaign will fold after September 18th. But the “yes” campaign is a movement… A group of them will meet in late August to discuss next steps after the referendum.

“If we lose, our anger will turn into determination,” predicts Robin McAlpine, director of Common Weal. He expects another referendum within five years if Scotland votes “no”. “Whether people move on is up to the nationalists,” adds Mr McDougall at Better Together. Thus looms the prospect of a “neverendum”. If unsuccessful, “yes” campaigners could import that decades-long limbo to Britain.

Labels: devolution, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

Dis-United Kingdom?

Despite fierce, sometimes angry, exchanges, a televised debate on Scottish independence from the rest of Britain failed to produce a decisive victor… a little more than six weeks before Scots vote.

Opinion polls indicate that Scots will reject independence on Sept. 18, making the two-hour confrontation particularly important for the leader of the campaign for independence, Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, who has a reputation as a talented debater. Most commentators suggested, however, that he had not produced a knockout punch during the exchange with the leader of the campaign to keep the union, Al​istair Darling. A Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, declared online that a “fiery debate” had produced “no clear winner.” Each side proclaimed itself happy with the outcome…

Salmond (l) and Darling (r)

In several exchanges, Mr. Salmond argued that Scotland was being run by political parties in London that Scots did not support. Mr. Darling focused on the uncertainty surrounding independence, including the issue of which currency it would use…

There were also impassioned exchanges over the issue of Scotland’s representation within Britain, with Mr. Salmond arg​u​ing that “for more than half of my life, Scotland has been governed by parties that we didn’t elect at Westminster,” referring to the government in London.

Mr. Darling responded that this was the outcome of democracy and that he had never voted for Mr. Salmond…

Labels: devolution, leadership, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

When, not if

ONE thing is certain: Whatever the outcome, this referendum campaign is changing Scotland irrevocably. Whether the Scots vote yes or no to independence on Sept. 18, their sense of what is possible for this small nation will have been transformed…

This referendum… dares the Scots to go the last mile: proposing an independent Scottish state within the European Union, sharing a monarch… and possibly a currency, with the rump of the old United Kingdom.

At this moment, a majority for independence looks unlikely…

But it’s the smell, taste and sound of this campaign that should warn us that, this time, a no vote will not be the end of the story. Scotland is changing as we watch…

Flag of Scotland

Where does this come from? In part, from economic confidence. Twenty years ago, postindustrial Scotland was dismissed as an economy shattered beyond repair. Now, even the British government and the “no” campaign admit that Scotland could survive and prosper and be a stable democracy on its own, given wise management of its North Sea oil wealth. The question is no longer “Can we?” It’s “Should we?”

The motives driving “yes” supporters are straightforward. Devolution… needs to be completed. The situation in which a Scottish government’s revenue comes as a block grant from London is irresponsible. The Edinburgh Parliament should be allowed to set and raise its own taxes.

British elections must no longer trample the will of the Scottish people: The Scots are solidly anti-Tory, returning just one Conservative M.P. to Westminster in the last three general elections, yet they are outweighed by southern English voters and regularly have to endure Conservative governments. Scotland should also be allowed to become a full member of the European Union, not a bolt-on to English interests.

Scottish currency

Add social welfare to those motives. In Britain, it’s not only Conservative-led governments but “New Labour” ones as well that now seem committed to Thatcherite economics, to the steady privatization of health, education and welfare. Most Scots hate this…

If Scottish “yes” reasoning is not hard to grasp, neither is Scottish “no” reasoning. Some of it is material: People are not convinced that their living standards would survive independence, and would like firmer promises about pensions and interest rates. Some of it is fear for the economic safety of Scotland, turned loose among the giant predators stalking a globalized world.

Some of it is emotional: a feeling that Scottish and English societies are so closely integrated now that separation (a word the S.N.P. never uses) would be absurd, even anachronistic…

The English media and many politicians explain the independence movement by claiming that the Scots are obsessed by “anti-English racism.” My own experiences tell me the exact opposite. Scots, these days, have almost forgotten about England, so fascinated are they by their own country. (This is sour news for the English, who can bear being hated but not being overlooked.)…

I shall vote yes this September. The campaign has already taught me that if we don’t make it with this third referendum, there will be a fourth. It’s time to rejoin the world on our own terms.

Labels: devolution, political culture, politics, Scotland, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments

The ultimate devolution

The Royal Lyceum Theater [in Edinburgh] has a modest hit on its hands, a slightly scabrous play that tells the story of Scotland’s parliamentary vote to dissolve itself and join the kingdom of England in 1707…

After each performance, there is an informal poll among the audience, with a late-night rush to vote in the ballot boxes set up in the foyer, asking whether the union 307 years ago had been a good idea — “Aye” or “Nae.”…

 

The votes for independence seemed to just outnumber those against, reaching a little bit higher in the clear ballot boxes. But in real life the balance is still the other way, with every poll so far giving the pro-union camp a clear, though shrinking lead.

For the independence camp it is in many ways a race against time: Over the last six months the momentum has shifted toward independence, but at least one-sixth of Scottish voters in recent polls have said they were undecided or refused to answer…

With the polls tightening, the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown spoke in Glasgow last week in defense of the union, arguing Scotland is better off economically inside the United Kingdom, especially in terms of pensions and social welfare.

Sowing doubt about the strength and viability of an independent Scotland’s economy is at the center of the anti-independence campaign… But the “no” campaign against independence emphasizes the negative, and the sense that the English are patronizing the Scots as ineffectual and incompetent also feeds the independence campaign, stirring indignation…

Bookstores feature volumes on Scottish culture and history, community centers are planning summer history classes and seemingly every segment of society has its own campaign for independence, many supported by the well-organized Scottish National Party, led by Alex Salmond…

People have become afraid of the passions stirred by the debate, but Mr. Fraser [Malcolm Fraser, an Edinburgh architect who designed the… Scottish Storytelling Center] said they should not be afraid of that. Britain is undergoing “an inevitable unraveling of empire.” It was time Scotland became “a bit more Danish,” saying goodbye to England’s more right-wing politics, he said.

The pro-union campaign thought of the Scots as “too small, too poor, too stupid,” Mr. Fraser said. “It plays right into the ‘yes’ campaign.”…

Labels: cleavages, devolution, politics, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:30 AM 0 comments