Land Matters

I’ve always though of Scotland as a pretty conservative country. Its institutions and its culture do not seem receptive or open to radical ideas. Individuals of course are a different matter and there are hundreds of them with wonderful ideas trying to make a change. But where are the channels that can turn their ideas into reality?

Others, whom I respect, appear to think likewise. Laurence Demarco of SENSCOT has been arguing along these lines for a long time. My good friend Gerry Hassan also wrote an interesting piece trying to make sense of David Cameron’s Big Society ideas and how they would play in Scotland.

What prompts me to write this is the Festival of Politics organised by the Scottish Parliament which seems increasingly irrelevant to the big issues of the day with a selection of worthy but largely uninspiring speakers.  Having attended Jim Hunter’s talk on Friday, I must emphasise that he is an exception to my generality! Tom Gallagher’s piece in Scottish Review highlights the problem. Perhaps we need a fringe festival of politics?

The Issue of the Moment

Much gnashing of teeth over the coalition’s proposals to introduce the 55% rule. This is the proposal whereby it would require a vote of 55% of MPs to dissolve Parliament.

Parliament is currently dissolved either on the whim of the Prime Minister (witness Gordon brown’s dithering in October 2007) or following a vote of no confidence by Parliament (a simple majority being sufficient).

The coalition propose a fixed five year term for Parliament. As I said yesterday, I think fixed terms are a good thing (though no doubt in 50 years we might get sick of them and move back to flexible terms). But for fixed terms to work, for there to be stable government, and for coalition politics to work efficiently there needs to be a way of ensuring that fixed terms can stick and, conversely, a method of dissolving Parliament in exceptional circumstances mid-term.

You make it stick by removing the PM’s prerogative to dissolve Parliament - this is what Cameron proposes. And you provide a method for dissolution which requires not the minimum bare majority but actually quite a sizeable one (otherwise, why have fixed terms if they can be terminated by a simple majority). The Scottish Parliament, for example, can only be dissolved mid-term by a two-thirds vote.

Repeat - if you want fixed terms, you need to make it difficult to dissolve Parliament, not easy.

The objections being raised by MPs and others is that the existing method of a no-confidence vote is being over-ruled by the new 55% rule. The coaliton respond by saying that the no-confidence rule remains and it can bring down the Government as before. The difference is that the PM does not then exercise his of her prerogative and dissolve Parliament. Instead, Parliament remains but a new Government then needs to be formed. If Lib Dems were to walk away from the coalition, the most likely result would be a minority Conservative government.

In the Scotland Act, the First Minister must resign if he or she loses a vote of no-confidence. The Scottish Parliament is then given 28 days to form a new government. If it can’t it can vote (by two-thirds majority) to dissolve Parliament.

If Westminster is to have fixed terms (which I believe to be a good thing for democracy), the question is not whether the threshold should set as high as 55% but why it should not be actually be higher - more like the 66% for the Scottish Parliament. I understand the claims of those who complain that a simple majority should suffice but if you do want fixed terms you must set the bar high or that worthy aim will be easily defeated. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

My colleague James Mackenzie points out of course, that, unlike the Scottish Parliament which has a “constitution” (the Scotland Act), Westminster does not (the UK does not). Any 55% rule will me merely an Act of Parliament which could be repealed by 51%..! But that would be a big undertaking so my view remains that bedding down fixed terms with a, let’s say 60% vote needed to dissolve Parliament would represent a significant improvement to the way we do business.

We live in interesting times. Here’s my take which reflects a post at the new Scottish politics site, Scotland Quo Vadis!

I rather despair of the sentiments being hurled across the floor of the Sccottish Parliament today. Many of use want a re-alignment of politics, want fair votes and thus want coalitions. That’s what we have in Holyrood. Why does the political class find it so amazing that it should happen at Westminster? I don’t buy the idea of betrayal of Lib Dem voters since this is the logic of their position on PR - you work with the coalition that gets you what you want. I think the situation now is interesting and different for a whole number of reasons and that stock responses may not be the most appropriate. Here’s why.

1. It is the first true coalition for over 70 years. The Lib Dems favour PR, as do many progressives, and there is huge pressure to make it work to demonstrate that coalition politics can work in Westminster as well as in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Many of us have a stake in that success too (I am a member of the Scottish Green Party). Failure will mean the swing voters of middle England going back to the perceived certainties of tribal politics.

2. Coalition should provide better government. Just imagine a Tory government with a working majority after 13 years out of power and who it needs to appeal to.

3. The coalition is signed up to some very welcome political reforms - look at the civil liberties agenda for example - the Freedom Bill - fantastic - what’s not to like?! We will get our first Green member(s) of the House of Lords if it all goes to plan - just think of that…!!!

4. Some of us are Thatcher’s children and we perhaps should put aside our views on that era for a moment. There are some pretty unreconstructed dinosaurs from that era still in the Tory party BUT 2 things are important - first, many of them have left as a result of the expenses scandal and second, Cameron and his younger group of liberal conservatives know that the future lies well away from that brand of conservative politics. This is exactly the same calculus as Tony Blair made in 1990s

5. Above all, in comparison to the past, we now have a Scottish Parliament. That changes everything. The UK voted in a majority for Lib Dems and Tory and England also voted a majority Tory. So England gets the domestic policies it voted for and the UK gets a government with a majority of Uk votes.

6. I think that Cameron and Clegg are serious about forging a new politics because they see that the UK is a marginally centre right place and do honestly believe that politics needs to be fairer and more open.

So - I think we need to think carefully about how we engage with this new political landscape. I am not looking forward to the expected oppositionalist agenda of SNP and Labour deploring UK government cuts. Cuts there will be but at least we now have the opportunity to slice the smaller cake the way we want. As a self-employed writer and civic activist, I have seen how bloated and arrogant the public sector has become at all levels under the generous funding settlements of Gordon Browns cheap credit fuelled spending spree. We in Scotland never complained about that nor about rising house prices nor about cheap credit. Grown up politics means accepting that we all are in this mess together.

7. Above all, I think the coalition that has emerged offers more for Greens and other smaller parties than that which might have been forged with Labour who, as was apparent from their own unreconstructed dinosaurs, are implacably opposed to working with others and hostile to real political reform.

I make the above observations from the standpoint of one who is in terms of political philosophy about as far removed from the politics of the Lib Dem/Con coalition as it is possible to get.

Following the confirmation by the Treasury Committee that the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) do not own the seabed around Scotland (Scotland has always owned the seabed though it is “administered” and “managed” by the CEC), a key question arises - how much is it worth? If the Scottish Parliament were to abolish the Crown rights in the seabed what kind of revenues might be anticipated? What might a Scottish marine renewables sovereign fund look like?

I don’t have access to the rental agreements signed by the CEC but I found a report in the Times in 2008 in which industry insiders claim that the sums could be around £100 million per year - and that’s for offshore wind alone. It does not include wave, tidal, carbon storage or subsea cabling. The Scottish share of wind is probably only 20% or so according to this map from CEC but including the other developments, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds.

The Daily Mail claimed earlier this year that plans for gas storage under the North Sea are being delayed because of “excessive demands” from the CEC.

I have been contacted by an SNP MSP who describes my criticism of the Scottish Government as “not fair” and that the CEC is “work in progress”. I don’t buy this. Back in March 2008, the SNP’s Westminster Energy spokesperson Mike Weir was complaining that the fees generated by the CEC represented a “clear power grab” which the “SNP will oppose tooth and nail”

But that was 2 years ago and since then, Alex Salmond and his government had been cosying up to the CEC when they could, instead, have abolished these Crown rights and stand now to set the terms of this marine bonanza that will make Scotland “the Saudia Arabia” of renewables. What’s more, all the evidence and facts were set out in December 2006 when the Crown Estate Review Working Group published its authoritative report.

I don’t know much about Saudia Arabia but I bet all the revenues from their oil deposits don’t head off to Tel Aviv or Cairo!

Interesting announcement today by the English Housing and Planning Minister, John Healey. He proposes that Parish Councils be given powers to build affordable housing by extending the scope of permitted development rights. Individual planning applications would not be needed for amaximum of 10-15 houses where the Parish Council backs the development.

This is quite radical.

Of course it is only possible because England still has a local level of “local” government. Parish Councils in Scotland were abolished in 1930 by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929 and Town Councils were abolished in 1975 by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

It is time to resurrect these vital levels of local democracy so that the parishes, towns and villages of Scotland can play a proper role in local development.

In an article about marine energey in the Sunday Times business section titled “Alex Salmond’s bid to rule the waves”, Jane Bradley writes the following.

According to Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, this is the first step in a plan that could turn Scotland into the “Saudi Arabia of marine energy”. Salmond, who is running the scheme in league with the Crown Estate, which owns the first 12 miles of seabed round the British coast, is determined to take bold steps to achieve his targets.

Wrong. The Crown Estate owns nothing (see March 18th) - it is a bundle of property rights. We, the Scottish public own the seabed and Alex Salmond is giving it away….