Words by Peter A. Bell The great deception continues! The big lie of the referendum debate is that a No vote is a vote for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. It not only isnt, it cannot be. The lie is so blatant and transparent the wonder is that anybody is taken in by it at all. But it appears that some are. And that can only be because they fail to ask the critical questions. How can a NO vote be a vote for something that those advocating a No vote have explicitly rejected? The British parties were offered the opportunity to put a devo-whatever proposal on the referendum ballot. They were vehement in their denunciation of the very idea. They demanded that the only choice offered to the people of Scotland should be between independence and nothing. They insisted that a No vote must stand for nothing but the status quo. How can they plausibly now pretend that a No vote represents a vote for further devolution? How will the British parties in Scotland come up with a common set of proposals for more powers? To the limited extent that any of the British parties has a clear and consistent position on the issue of more powers there is no indication of any agreement among them. So, even is we suppose that a No vote could be a vote for more powers, which proposal is it that we would be voting for? How will the British parties in Scotland get their bosses in London to agree to any more powers proposal? We have already seen how British Labour in Scotland was slapped down when it hinted at increased tax powers. And David Cameron has a habit of contradicting everything that Ruth Davidson says in a way that she would find insulting if she had a modicum of self-respect. Is it really conceivable that the parties at UK level will agree to whatever proposals the parties in Scotland devise? How will the British parties make any proposals for further devolution binding on a future UK government? Even supposing all previous impossibilities are overcome, there seems no way around this one. There is simply no way that anybody can guarantee that Westminster wont simply renege on any promises made by the British parties. Why should we trust the British state to deliver something which it has been assiduously trying to avoid giving Scotland for decades? How can any proposals that the British parties might come up with be a satisfactory substitute for independence? After fighting to prevent the people of Scotland having a say on the constitutional question, the British parties now pay cynical lip service to the idea that it is for the people of Scotland to decide what powers their parliament should have. But devolution denies then that power. Devolution leaves that decision in the hands of the British political parties and the British state. Only independence gives the people of Scotland the ability to decide what powers should be exercised in Scotland by a parliament that they have elected and which powers might be delegated to some other assemble. How can devolution ever be anything other than a denial of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland?
Posted on: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:45:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015