Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts

Monday, 14 September 2020

Shetland and Orkney want independence: the Holyrood power grab

Opinion: Mark Smith: The reason Shetland and Orkney want independence: the Holyrood power grab

14th September 2020
By Mark SmithFeature writer

Up Helly Aa in Shetland
Up Helly Aa in Shetland

Let me just say before we start that no-one really thinks Shetland and Orkney are going to become separate states, although part of me would like to see it just so I could witness the sight of separatists having to deal with separatists and enjoy the feeling of Scottish schadenfreude. But the idea also raises interesting questions about what independence is and what a separate Scotland under the SNP might actually be like.
What’s happened is that Shetland Council has approved a motion on greater autonomy – the council says it wants to explore ways of achieving financial and political self-determination. Orkney Islands Council said something similar in 2017 in the wake of the Brexit referendum and has confirmed recently that it’s still thinking along the same lines. Their leader James Stockan says they want the chance to do something different if they want to.
The point the councils are making is understandable. Anyone who knows Orkney or Shetland will know how strong the local identity is and how it affects the political outlook. Many islanders feel the same way about Edinburgh that some people in Cornwall and Yorkshire – and Edinburgh – feel about London: it’s a place that doesn’t understand their priorities. Effectively, it’s the same instinct that motivates some people to support Scottish independence.
The question is what the islanders’ desire for self-determination would actually mean in practice. There’s been some talk that Shetland could maybe become a Crown dependency along the lines of Jersey and Guernsey, but I have my doubts about whether that could ever be a goer. I was on Guernsey recently and as we drove around the island, my guide ticked off all the houses that were owned by millionaires. The economy is based on financial services and tax minimisation/dodging/avoidance whatever you want to call it and it would not be a good or realistic model for Shetland.
The obvious alternative for the Shetlanders would be oil and gas, but we know how that economic model went for the SNP in 2014: badly. There’s also tourism, but if Jersey, with its beautiful climate, can’t make the tourist industry work anymore, what are the chances for Shetland? Healthcare on Jersey and Guernsey is also largely private which may be fine for an economy based on attracting rich people, but it couldn’t, and shouldn’t, work for Shetland.
I’m also not convinced, in the end, that the people of Shetland and Orkney would want Crown dependency status anyway because that’s not really the point they’re making. The reason they’re talking about autonomy and self-determination is because their autonomy and self-determination has been reduced by the SNP government, both directly and indirectly. You know all that talk by the SNP about a power grab by Westminster? Well, that’s how many islanders feel about Holyrood.
The direct part of the attack has been on revenue funding. Look at the figures. Between 2013-14 and 2019-20, the Scottish Government’s revenue funding has reduced by 2 per cent but local government revenue funding had reduced in real terms by 7% over the same period. At the same time, local government’s share of the Scottish Government’s revenue budget has declined from 34.7% to 33%. It’s a sign that the Scottish Government is prioritising central government by passing on a disproportionate share of the cuts.
The indirect attack is just as worrying. The Scottish Government likes to talk about cash increases to councils – the extra £330 million for coronavirus for example – and that’s fine as far as it goes, but the problem is it doesn’t take into account actual need – you can increase funding all you like but it can still be short of what is required. That is what has happened in Shetland and Orkney.
The other problem is the Scottish Government has also increased the list of government priorities that councils have to deliver – this year, it’s £104m for teachers’ pensions for example and another £4m for counselling in schools. In fact, the proportion of ring-fenced national priorities has increased from 34% in 2013/14 to 61% in 2019-20. In other words, council autonomy is being undermined because there’s an increasing proportion of their cash that is controlled by national government. Anyone got a phrase we could use to describe that? How about “power grab”?
The aspirations being expressed in Shetland and Orkney are essentially a response to that power grab, and what makes it particularly outrageous is that it’s being perpetrated by a Scottish Government that rails against what it says is centralised power. However, every argument the SNP applies to Westminster could apply equally to Holyrood: people have the right to self-determination, decisions are best made as close as possible to where the consequences are felt, and so on. The point is that devolution shouldn’t stop at Edinburgh – it needs to go all the way to Lerwick.
The answer – and it’s one federal unionists are constantly making – is a devolved system that maximises power at all levels, national and local. It’s an idea you can imagine attracting a lot of support in No-voting Shetland and Orkney – certainly more support than the status of Crown dependency or full independence, but the leaders of the SNP would never countenance it because they are essentially unitary nationalists. Their tactic is to rail against a state they say is centralised (but isn’t really) to create a new one that actually is.
All of that leaves us, it has to be said, in a pretty weird situation, but it also underlines one of the central flaws of the SNP’s approach. What they tell us is independence is required so Scotland’s government can reflect “Scotland’s values” but it seems to me this is just another indication of the unitary mindset. The assumption they make is that there’s one set of values we can subscribe to even though there isn’t. There can be hundreds of miles between the values of Lerwick and Edinburgh.
We should also remember why we are in this weird situation in the first place. The instinct of pretty much every politician is to keep the powers they manage to get their hands on and to try to obtain new ones. It’s the instinct that powers Brexit and it also powers Scottish independence. But listen to the councillors of Orkney and Shetland. Listen to what they are saying. Bad politicians assume their job is about obtaining power. But good politicians recognise that their job is actually about giving power away.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18717880.opinion-mark-smith-reason-shetland-orkney-want-independence-holyrood-power-grab/

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Sadiq Khan is pushing for London devolution

London mayor Sadiq Khan is pushing the Treasury to announce fresh devolution of powers to London within weeks.

Wednesday 28 September 2016 3:01pm

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Addresses Labour Party Conference
Khan also warned against the impact of migration reform on the City (Source: Getty)

London mayor Sadiq Khan is pushing the Treasury to announce fresh devolution of powers to London within weeks.
Speaking exclusively to City A.M., Khan said he had recently met with Philip Hammond, and was optimistic the chancellor would make an announcement in the Autumn Statement. Khan also expressed fears that any reform to migration might hit City employers.
Hammond will take to the despatch box for his first fiscal event as chancellor on November 23.
“I've been impressed by the willingness of the government to recognise that London is the powerhouse for our country,” Khan said.
“More so now than ever before the government needs to give Londoners more control over our city.”
​Khan has been pressing for a raft of new powers for London, most recently demanding fresh tax devolution to match the abilities of city mayors in the US.
New York mayor Bill DeBlasio controls education, skills, healthcare and social service systems, as well as taxes on income, tobacco, alcohol and property, on top of equivalent powers in Khan's remit of housing, transport and policing.
“There's a coalition that we have formed with business leaders, businesses, the City of London Corporation, council leaders and London MPs of all parties and we all agree that London needs more control.
“The government understands that and I'm optimistic that there will be good news from the government in the Autumn Statement. I certainly hope so.”
And Khan added that his officials are drafting proposals to prevent any national reforms to migration harming City businesses.
“Whether it's insurers or banks or tech entrepreneurs, a key concern they have got is whether losing EU membership will mean they find it more difficult to get talent to London,” he said.
“The government recognises that.”
He added a London work permit is one possibility being evaluated at City Hall, although he admitted the finer details of how such a scheme would operate are still being finalised.
“There are business groups working with us on how we can make it work, and we are still working on the details, but the main thing is that the government recognises those concerns,” Khan said.
“We can't afford to give the impression that we are going to stop being open minded or outward looking.”

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Italy and devolution

To London-centric Britain, devolution of powers to regional mayors often seems like a no-brainer. In Italy, it's a little different. What, for example, if the local government’s policies are centred on 1950s Stalinist economics, the mayor a communist?


Tim Hedges
On 27 September 2016 15:03

Corigliano_calabro_7214
Corigliano CalabrĂ²

There are two seemingly unconnected news stories occupying Italian table talk at the moment. They involve marked and vociferous divisions of opinion which, unusually for Italy, is not necessarily along party lines.
The first is the controversial decision by the new mayor of Rome, Virginia Raggi, not to bid for the 2024 Olympic Games. Those who are in favour of holding the Games in the Eternal City profess themselves astonished at her intransigence. Surely having the Olympics can only be good? And ..er.. someone will pay.
Most of the cost would indeed be borne by central government and the Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, is in favour of holding the Games.
Whilst Renzi is supposed to be the moderate, it is Raggi, the supposed populist, who is talking calm sense. She points out that the transport service and the rubbish collection are riddled with corruption and not fit for purpose. Rome cannot afford the Games, would only let itself down, and by the way hasn’t yet paid for the 1960 Olympics.
Renzi holds the reins nationally, but in a country with devolved power the decision is Raggi’s.
The second talking point in the bars and trattorie is Renzi’s constitutional referendum. The main point of this is to replace the Senate, which currently has equal powers to the lower house, with an assembly of the regions. This would have less democratic legitimacy, and therefore less power.
Less talked about is the quid pro quo of this, that some powers would be transferred upwards from the regions to the national government. It is too early to tell if this might include power to hold the Olympics, but it should certainly have an impact in other areas, such as energy.
The little seaside town of Corigliano CalabrĂ² sits in the instep of Italy’s boot. A few years ago it was identified as having almost the perfect harbour for a project to bring much needed gas shipments to ease Italy’s energy crisis. The big gas boats need 15 metres of water depth and have a turning circle of a kilometre.
The reason Corigliano’s harbour was perfect is that it had been intended for shipbuilding. No ship had ever been built there, though. It seems to have been a whim of the town council. It was quite unused, maintained by local taxpayers.
A group of investors, including international oil companies, excitedly addressed the town council saying they could adapt the harbour, build a regassification plant, beef up the local power station and run a connecting pipe to the main north-south pipeline. There would be total investment of around $1billion and thousands of jobs would be created in an area of 80 percent youth unemployment.
No thanks, said the regional council, we’d rather have a yacht marina. So nothing happened. The area remains sadly undeveloped because your billionaire doesn’t just want somewhere to park his boat. He wants restaurants, hotels and nightclubs, and Corigliano CalabrĂ² isn’t exactly Monte Carlo. The unemployment, tragically, remains.
While we are talking gas, Renzi has furiously been fighting the proposed North Stream project, which would pipe gas from Russian fields to Germany. His complaint is that it would not benefit the rest of Europe.
He may not have mentioned the proposed TAP southern pipeline plan, bringing the gas from the Shah Deniz field in the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan, Georgia, Greece and Albania. Its final leg is across the Adriatic Sea to Puglia, where it has been held up because there is a grove of 200 olive trees in the way and a regional government which doesn’t like big capitalist projects.
A success story? The city of Livorno said yes to a gas import terminal as long as they can’t see it from the highest building. So there is a floating terminal 50km away, over the horizon, with an underground pipe. The local dignitaries assembled, well refreshed, at the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to check they couldn’t see it.
To London-centric Britain, devolution of powers to regional mayors often seems like a no-brainer.
But what if the local government’s policies are centred on 1950s Stalinist economics, the mayor a communist? The experience of Italy, whether it is holding the Olympic Games or just keeping the lights on, shows devolution can have its drawbacks.