Independence Debate
Gordon Brown, the former Labour prime minister and 'part-time' MP for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, has entered the independence debate via The Scotsman newspaper by suggesting that the UK will become a federal state within two years, if there is a No vote in next month's referendum.
But have you ever heard a more ridiculous claim ever in your life?
Because the last Labour Government was in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010 with an overall majority of MPS at Westminster, yet during that period we heard not a word about this business of a federal UK.
So I think it's fair to say that this latest intervention is just so much hot air and empty political rhetoric because if Labour were serious about federalism they'd have been championing the issue years ago when Gordon was right at the heart of government.
Gordon Brown backs federalism in event of No vote
Gordon Brown said talks on extending devolution should begin the day after a No vote. Picture: Hemedia
By ANDREW WHITAKER
GORDON Brown has said talks on extending devolution should begin the day after the referendum if independence is defeated as he stated that the UK would be a “federal state” within two years with Holyrood and other regions of the UK handed equal status to Westminster.
The former Prime Minister talked about the “sharing of sovereignty” across the UK as he called for Scotland and the English regions to “unite” to demand a shift in power away from Westminster during an appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival.
Mr Brown’s backing for federalism goes further than that set out in Scottish Labour’s plans to devolve the bulk of income tax to Holyrood in the event of a No vote.
Mr Brown said that a new federal settlement could be delivered two years after a No vote, with a series of regional and national assemblies across the UK and a federal government retaining powers over defence and foreign affairs.
The Labour MP said Scotland and English regions such as the North East could demand more powers as he stated there was a “mood that too much power rests in London”.
Mr Brown claimed the UK and Scottish governments could open talks about a radical extension of devolution the day after 18 September if Scots vote against independence.
He said: “When I was at university I heard a politician speaking and I’ll never forget what he said: This is a promise we will keep,” Mr Brown said.”I can understand how people are sceptical when promises are made.”I would say that there is no alternative to further devolution.”It’s not just that all parties have committed themselves to it, it’s that the people of Scotland know that these promises have been made not just by one party but all the parties that they want to see further change.”These parties will not command popular support in the general election in Scotland if they renege on their promises after the referendum.”I would suggest that the talks to agree this devolution should start immediately after September 18 so that we recognise that there is a will for change.”
Mr Brown claimed a package of enhanced devolution delivered after a No vote would prevent policies such as rail privatisation and the Poll Tax being imposed on Scotland.
He said: “We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population.
“There is now an all party agreement that they will bring in big changes after the referendum.”I believe that there is no alternative but to introduce these changes, which would be taxation powers for the parliament.
“It would mean that there would never be anything like a poll tax or a bedroom tax or rail privatisation imposed on Scotland against its will. There is a mood that too much power rests in London” but that this is about to change.”
Mr Brown, who also served as Chancellor for a decade, added that an independent Scotland would be relegated to a “neocolonial” relationship with the remainder of the UK if it keeps the pound.
He said: “On the important issues affecting our lives - interest rates, money supply, inflation, what happens to our living standards, employment, banking rescues - when it came to it we would have no formal input on the decisions being made.”We would have to accept them being made elsewhere and we would be creating by our own decision, with the SNP, a neocolonial relationship between us and the rest of the UK where we would have to accept the decisions that were made.”It is a worse outcome than now, and it is the worst possible outcome for Scotland.”The Oxford Dictionary defines neocolonialism as the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence another country, especially the retention of such influence over a developing country by a former colonial power.”
Mr Brown also warned that the financial sector of an independent Scotland would be damaged by a Yes vote as he claimed 90 per cent of its customers were based in England.
He said: “There is undoubtedly a problem as 90 per cent of businesses in the financial sector are selling policies to English customers.
“The main customers for Scottish financial services are in England and we’ve got to recognise that there will be a case put that asks why should these financial services be regulated in Scotland when they are selling services to England.
Rule Broontania (31 March 2014)
I loved the following spoof article from Private Eye on the 'big offer' from Scottish Labour in a desperate effort to persuade people to vote No in the independence referendum on 18 September 2014.
THAT GORDON BROWN POWER-SHARING PLAN FOR SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND IN FULL
- England and Scotland thrash out a deal over dinner in a fashionable Islington restaurant
- They agree a date when power will be handed from England to Scotland
- England reneges on the deal, leaving Scotland aghast. It then spends the next decade brooding and plotting revenge
- Er...
- That's it.
Yes, I'm afraid that's really what Labour's 'big offer' on further devolution boils down to - let's all put our trust in Gordon Brown and Labour to deliver the goods.
Who's Kidding Who?
That Gordon Brown's a piece of work, don't you think.
The former Labour leader swans about out of the country for much of his time, but poles back into Scotland to tell us that we should re-write the UK constitution and give the Scottish Parliament more powers.
Now I don't necessarily disagree with these sentiments although the $64,000 question is:
"Why didn't the last Labour Government do anything about these issues when it was in power for thirteen years (1997 to 2010) and when it had an overall majority in the Westminster Parliament?"
Now if you ask me, Gordon Brown's new found enthusiasm is a response to the referendum on Scottish independence which will be held on 18 September 2014 - a tactic to encourage voters to No.
Because if Gordon were really serious about these matters he would have demanding action when he was in a position to get things done, as Labour Prime Minister between 2007 and 2010.
So to be honest I don't think you can put any store in what Gordon Brown has to say - in my view he has zero credibility and is no longer a serious politician.
Independence Debate (25 February 2014)
Some say that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, is something of a liability for the No or Better Together campaign in the Scottish independence debate - but I disagree with that assessment because I think the PM comes across as sensible and reasonable on matters to do with the referendum at least.
The most obvious example of the Prime Minister's calm reasonableness is that he quickly agree to hold a referendum after years of prevarication by the last Labour Government and Gordon Brown, in particular, who slapped down Labour's Scottish leader at the time, Wendy Alexander, who challenged to SNP to 'bring it on'.
Now I still believe that there should have been two questions on the ballot paper, a second question on the principle of 'Devo Max' and significantly increased powers for the Scottish Parliament, but at least now we are having a referendum - and that is better than having no vote at all, other than amongst MPs and MSPs of course.
So if you ask me, David Cameron has been a big improvement on Labour and Gordon Brown as far as allowing people their say - and he is also committed to a future referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, if the UK continues to exist, of course, after the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September 2014.
But David Cameron has also said the right thing the other day regarding Scotland's continued membership of the European Union when he made clear that if the Scottish people do vote for independence in September 2014, then as PM he would not try to place obstacles in the way.
Now that's what you would expect from a good neighbour with whom we have a shared history and much in common - yet to listen to some of the hotheads in the Better Together campaign, they sound as if they would like nothing better than punish Scotland for voting the 'wrong way' by suggesting the Scots can't stay in Europe or can't keep using the pound.
Which I think is completely daft, so I take my hat off to the Prime Minister although I do believe he should agree to debate the subject with Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister - the voters deserve nothing less.
Faintly Ridiculous
The notion that Gordon Brown could emerge as 'everybody's darling' as opposed to a lame-duck prime minister seems faintly ridiculous to me - although those supporting a No in the forthcoming referendum are now making noises strengthening the powers of the Scottish Parliament including the member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Now I can't remember Gordon Brown suggesting that more powers for Holyrood were a big priority when a Labour Government was in power, so I find it pretty unconvincing that he or the Labour Party are really serious about further diluting the power of the Westminster MPs over Scottish affairs.
In my view, it's all just a big act because these Westminster MPs are the same ones, by and large, who got their knickers in a terrible twist 10 years of so ago - when the First Minister, Henry McLeish, began referring to the Scottish Government and not the Scottish Executive, which was the favoured term up until that time.
But incredibly the use of the word 'Government' caused uproar amongst Scottish Labour MPs who did not want the Scottish Parliament or its Ministers getting ideas above their station - so they mocked and briefed against they own side, anonymously, of course.
Even more ridiculous is the report in Gillian Bowden's piece from the Sunday Times that Gordon Brown is set to stand for Labour again at the 2015 general election - the man is effectively a part-time MP who spends a considerable amount of time outside Scotland and away from Westminster.
So, I think the cartoon by Brian Adcock at the top of this post (from Scotland on Sunday) hits the right note.
Brown could become everybody’s Darling
By Gillian Bowditch
“Hopeless leadership”: Alastair Darling’s memoir accused Gordon Brown (left) (Luke Macgregor)
It may have been the season of goodwill to all men but the news that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling kissed and made up during the Christmas break will have friends of the former chancellor wondering if he should be a contender for an Oscar for best actor.
In his memoir Back From the Brink, Darling accused the former prime minister of “hopeless leadership” and “appalling behaviour”. The chairman of the Better Together campaign said that Brown’s attacks on him were “deeply unpleasant” and left a mark that “could not be erased”. Brown is said to have been on the brink of sacking or demoting his former friend five times between 2008 and 2010.
Last week, it was reported that the two men had put their differences aside for the sake of the Union. The pair met at Westminster last year. More recently they had a private meeting at which they agreed, if not to bury the hatchet, at least to kick it under the sofa and out of the way for the time being. Brown has spoken out against independence twice in the past week and his supporters believe he is gearing up for a more sustained role in the campaign.
Brown is said to be rewriting his “five economic tests” designed, when Labour came to power in 1997, to gauge the rationale for Britain’s joining the eurozone. The new economic tests would be used to “stress test” the SNP’s claims for a sterling currency union.
Better Together has been ahead in the polls since day one of the referendum campaign but it has taken a bit of a hammering in recent weeks, with Darling under fire from Conservative and Labour politicians. The campaign more generally has been seen as too negative and blokeish. The feeling is that it has failed to connect emotionally with the electorate and it appears to have lost confidence in recent months.
Darling may be trusted by voters but he lacks the populism of Alex Salmond. The unionists know that it is not enough to win the referendum, they have to win decisively. To prevent a debilitating rerun in a decade or so, they must push the Yes vote below 40%.
They are also aware of the momentum independence may gain from the feelgood factor of the Commonwealth Games, the Year of Homecoming, the 700th anniversary of Battle of Bannockburn and the build-up to the Ryder Cup. These will be positive, celebratory events at which the first minister will take centre stage and in which ordinary Scots will have a significant stake. More than 50,000 volunteered to help with the Games. Woe betide the unionists if the message they disseminate then is perceived as negative.
So despite their standing in the polls, there is no shortage of questions for the unionists, the most pressing of which must be whether Gordon Brown is the answer to any of them.
Under the skilful guidance of his wife Sarah, Brown has undergone a transformation. Gone is the dourness of the nail-biting brooder. These days he combines pent-up, raw energy with the cussed determination of the natural-born Fifer and the moral stricture of an old- fashioned Presbyterian. What Brown can bring to the party is intellectual firepower, a sense of authority, a well-connected address book and utter self-confidence.
More than anyone else, he will be able to reposition the unionist campaign away from arguments over procedures, in which it has become bogged down, and onto the issues of principle with which it so desperately needs to engage. At his best, he brings a more statesman-like, international perspective to a debate in danger of becoming parochial.
Brown is not a particularly effective campaigner with the general public, as can testify Gillian Duffy, the woman who berated him on the last election campaign and whom Brown testily called “bigoted”. But he knows how to rally Labour troops. At the 2010 election, which saw him ousted from 10 Downing Street, he boosted his share of the vote in Scotland by 2.6%.
With the defection of a number of once seemingly solid Labour figures to the independence camp — including John Mulvey, a former leader of Lothian Regional Council; Sir Charles Gray, a former president of Cosla [the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities]; and Alex Mosson, a former provost of Glasgow — the traditional left appears vulnerable. This is the constituency to whom Brown has the strongest appeal and to whom Nicola Sturgeon made a direct entreaty last week, insisting that independence fits with the “home-rule traditions” of Labour voters.
But set against Brown’s undoubted skills is the fact that he comes with more baggage than Lady Gaga on a world tour. Had he said at the outset of the campaign that he wanted to be a figurehead for keeping Scotland within the UK, he would have got the job and the necessary backing. Now any sustained campaigning on his part will inevitably undermine Darling, especially as Brown does not believe that the unionists are Better Together. He has joined the alternative United with Labour organisation to avoid having to share a platform with the Tories.
Should the two campaign together, the public will be given a stark visual reminder of the men widely considered the architects of the UK recession. “Their problem is that Gordon is too big a figure,” says a friend of Brown. “Everything he says and does is magnified. His problem is that he thinks he is superman and can do it all. Throughout his career and especially during his time as prime minister he was a control freak. He had to have his finger in every pie.”
At the low-key celebrations to mark his 30th anniversary as an MP in June last year, held in the Kirkcaldy church where his father was once the minister, Brown surprised friends by voicing his intention to stand as a candidate in the 2015 general election, despite rarely being seen in Westminster. They believe he needs a more substantial role in British politics.
Brown can bring substance to the debate. The unionists may claim to despise personality politics but that may be because they don’t have a personality big enough to take on Salmond. A Salmond/Brown televised bout could reinvigorate this interminable campaign.
For Brown, the referendum could be a vehicle for his rehabilitation. If he brings his significant talents to the cause of keeping Britain together, is prepared to work alongside Darling and resist the urge to succumb to paranoia and factionalism, he could go down in the history books not as a lame-duck prime minister but as the man who saved the Union.
Trouble is, as Darling knows all too well, it’s a big if.
It may have been the season of goodwill to all men but the news that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling kissed and made up during the Christmas break will have friends of the former chancellor wondering if he should be a contender for an Oscar for best actor.
In his memoir Back From the Brink, Darling accused the former prime minister of “hopeless leadership” and “appalling behaviour”. The chairman of the Better Together campaign said that Brown’s attacks on him were “deeply unpleasant” and left a mark that “could not be erased”. Brown is said to have been on the brink of sacking or demoting his former friend five times between 2008 and 2010.
Last week, it was reported that the two men had put their differences aside for the sake of the Union. The pair met at Westminster last year. More recently they had a private meeting at which they agreed, if not to bury the hatchet, at least to kick it under the sofa and out of the way for the time being. Brown has spoken out against independence twice in the past week and his supporters believe he is gearing up for a more sustained role in the campaign.
Brown is said to be rewriting his “five economic tests” designed, when Labour came to power in 1997, to gauge the rationale for Britain’s joining the eurozone. The new economic tests would be used to “stress test” the SNP’s claims for a sterling currency union.
Better Together has been ahead in the polls since day one of the referendum campaign but it has taken a bit of a hammering in recent weeks, with Darling under fire from Conservative and Labour politicians. The campaign more generally has been seen as too negative and blokeish. The feeling is that it has failed to connect emotionally with the electorate and it appears to have lost confidence in recent months.
Darling may be trusted by voters but he lacks the populism of Alex Salmond. The unionists know that it is not enough to win the referendum, they have to win decisively. To prevent a debilitating rerun in a decade or so, they must push the Yes vote below 40%.
They are also aware of the momentum independence may gain from the feelgood factor of the Commonwealth Games, the Year of Homecoming, the 700th anniversary of Battle of Bannockburn and the build-up to the Ryder Cup. These will be positive, celebratory events at which the first minister will take centre stage and in which ordinary Scots will have a significant stake. More than 50,000 volunteered to help with the Games. Woe betide the unionists if the message they disseminate then is perceived as negative.
So despite their standing in the polls, there is no shortage of questions for the unionists, the most pressing of which must be whether Gordon Brown is the answer to any of them.
Under the skilful guidance of his wife Sarah, Brown has undergone a transformation. Gone is the dourness of the nail-biting brooder. These days he combines pent-up, raw energy with the cussed determination of the natural-born Fifer and the moral stricture of an old- fashioned Presbyterian. What Brown can bring to the party is intellectual firepower, a sense of authority, a well-connected address book and utter self-confidence.
More than anyone else, he will be able to reposition the unionist campaign away from arguments over procedures, in which it has become bogged down, and onto the issues of principle with which it so desperately needs to engage. At his best, he brings a more statesman-like, international perspective to a debate in danger of becoming parochial.
Brown is not a particularly effective campaigner with the general public, as can testify Gillian Duffy, the woman who berated him on the last election campaign and whom Brown testily called “bigoted”. But he knows how to rally Labour troops. At the 2010 election, which saw him ousted from 10 Downing Street, he boosted his share of the vote in Scotland by 2.6%.
With the defection of a number of once seemingly solid Labour figures to the independence camp — including John Mulvey, a former leader of Lothian Regional Council; Sir Charles Gray, a former president of Cosla [the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities]; and Alex Mosson, a former provost of Glasgow — the traditional left appears vulnerable. This is the constituency to whom Brown has the strongest appeal and to whom Nicola Sturgeon made a direct entreaty last week, insisting that independence fits with the “home-rule traditions” of Labour voters.
But set against Brown’s undoubted skills is the fact that he comes with more baggage than Lady Gaga on a world tour. Had he said at the outset of the campaign that he wanted to be a figurehead for keeping Scotland within the UK, he would have got the job and the necessary backing. Now any sustained campaigning on his part will inevitably undermine Darling, especially as Brown does not believe that the unionists are Better Together. He has joined the alternative United with Labour organisation to avoid having to share a platform with the Tories.
Should the two campaign together, the public will be given a stark visual reminder of the men widely considered the architects of the UK recession. “Their problem is that Gordon is too big a figure,” says a friend of Brown. “Everything he says and does is magnified. His problem is that he thinks he is superman and can do it all. Throughout his career and especially during his time as prime minister he was a control freak. He had to have his finger in every pie.”
At the low-key celebrations to mark his 30th anniversary as an MP in June last year, held in the Kirkcaldy church where his father was once the minister, Brown surprised friends by voicing his intention to stand as a candidate in the 2015 general election, despite rarely being seen in Westminster. They believe he needs a more substantial role in British politics.
Brown can bring substance to the debate. The unionists may claim to despise personality politics but that may be because they don’t have a personality big enough to take on Salmond. A Salmond/Brown televised bout could reinvigorate this interminable campaign.
For Brown, the referendum could be a vehicle for his rehabilitation. If he brings his significant talents to the cause of keeping Britain together, is prepared to work alongside Darling and resist the urge to succumb to paranoia and factionalism, he could go down in the history books not as a lame-duck prime minister but as the man who saved the Union.
Trouble is, as Darling knows all too well, it’s a big if.
