The Sunday Herald’s front page statement of support for independence framed the early part of the week’s political chat. It has to be said that the move came as a surprise only to those people who haven’t picked up a copy in recent memory, but it did spark a discussion about whether this was a smart piece of opportunism in the face of a shrinking readership or a bold statement that was merely stating for the record the paper’s political standpoint.
I’ve long been of the opinion that Ed Miliband had huge potential to influence the referendum outcome by committing to the transfer of additional powers should Labour win the general election next year. And today we will finally hear the details of that commitment in a speech in Dundee, where he’ll commit to a new Scotland Act to deliver control of higher rates of income tax, housing benefit and the Work Programme – the recommendations of Labour’s devolution commission.
And yet, it already feels like it might be too little, too late. Johann Lamont did her due diligence by establishing the Commission but the campaign has been playing catch-up since 2011 and seems to be relying on a latent distrust of change. The strategy of “who are you gonna trust?” on pensions, finance and the economy might have worked in 2007, but following an economic crash, a Scottish Government seven-years-established and the recent CBI debacle, this approach is no longer gilt-edged.
As analysis of Scottish social attitudes has shown, the graph showing Scots’ support for independence is not the inverse of attitudes to the union, per se. Nor does it map precisely onto support for individual parties. The attitude which mirror images support for independence is all about how Scots perceive the relevance of the British state. And that’s the challenge for Miliband today.
As I blogged about last time, the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee has been considering the issue of lobbying regulation with a mix of views received from the industry, in-house practitioners and campaigners across four evidence sessions. The Committee had a discussion in private yesterday to consider the evidence heard and has proposed to seek Chamber time for a parliamentary debate in advance of making its final recommendations. This is an unusual move and it will be interesting to see what position the parties take – not least the SNP, whose commitment to “increase transparency” following the introduction of a Member’s Bill sparked the Committee’s inquiry in the first place. In terms of timing, there is no room in the plenary schedule in advance of the July break, but for referendum reasons, the Parliament will sit again for three weeks in August which would be earliest opportunity for any potential debate.
In a busy month for the Standards Committee, they have also this week issued their determination (see foot of linked page) following a complaint regarding operation of two health-related Cross-Party Groups.
In the chamber this week, a debate led by the Scottish Green Party on Wealth & Income Equality sparked one of the closest votes in recent memory with the Government’s amendment going through by 60-58. It also sparked the poignant recall of how much has changed in the move from minority to majority Government when we used to wait on a knife edge to see how Margo would vote. Referendum excitement or not, our Quotes of the Day just aren’t the same without you, lady. RIP.
Kirsty Regan
Director, newsdirect