The Green Ribbon

Banging on about Britishness

One might have expected that Gordon Brown's promotion of British identity would have found a ready audience among Irish unionists. However, his careful exclusion of Northern Ireland from the debate may have put paid to that.

In today's Irish Times, Dennis Kennedy of the Cadogan Group criticises Brown's discussion document The Governance of Britain, and argues for an alternative that would generalise the post-peace process Northern Irish model:

Behind the radical changes implemented in Northern Ireland might seem to lie a realisation that the the United Kingdom is not a nation state, and that there is no national identity that can be labelled British. The UK should be seen, rather, as partly a historical accident, and partly a convenient political arrangement within which people of varying identities can live together and organise their affairs in a manner which is beneficial to all. People live in it because they were born in it, because political or economic pressures forced them to migrate to it, or just because it suits them. It is pointless to agonise over Britishness - it is sufficient that those who live in the state recognise its legitimacy, respect its laws and join in the political processes of its governance. Or were the changes in Northern Ireland just part of the appeasement of terrorism, and further evidence of London's distancing itself? (Irish Times - subs required)

'pan-unionist coalition' meets at Holyrood

Scottish Labour, Lib Dem, and Tory representatives met today to discuss their alternative to the SNP's national conversation:

"We reject independence. The real conversation, and the one in which the overwhelming majority of Scots wish to participate, is about how devolution can develop to best serve the people of Scotland."

The joint statement added: "Today's exploratory meeting was to start that process. Our initiative will not be confined to MSPs alone, any single parliament nor to any one part of the United Kingdom. It will be open to everyone who shares our desire to improve government in Scotland.

"The three parties have agreed to continue to work together on this issue, and will now hold discussions with party colleagues across the UK with a view to meeting again when parliament has reconvened." (The Herald)

If these parties are interested in opinion throughout the UK, why are all of them ruling out Scottish independence, which has 59 per cent support in England according to one poll last November? Why don't any of them support an English Parliament, which has majority support in both England and Scotland according to the same poll?

They may be interested in opinion beyond Scotland, but are they interested in opinion beyond Westminster?

Scottish Labour's show of unity

Des Browne has just completed his first set of engagements north of the border since his apppoinment as Secretary of State for Scotland in June. It seems there are high hopes that he and Wendy Alexander can overcome the Westminster - Holyrood tensions that have dogged Scottish Labour in recent years.

Jack McConnell regularly proved himself unable to work with Labour in London, so sensitive was he to claims he was doing London's bidding. Alexander, however, has long had a foot in both camps. Thus, the optimists insist, she and Browne will work in tandem, yielding to the other when appropriate, neither seeking the limelight for its own sake.

Clearly there is some truth in this. Browne may be focusing more attention on Scotland but his real energies will still be on his defence portfolio. As for Alexander, while she has gone out of her way in the last week to emphasise the Scottish-ness of her plans, she is clearly not the type, a la McConnell, to spurn advice just because it comes from Whitehall. (Scotland on Sunday)

The article goes on to point out the flaw in this benign scenario, the fact that Alexander and Browne have recently made contrasting statements on the issue of further devolution. However, the Secretary of State now seems to have shifted his rhetoric much closer to the Scottish leader-elect:

Ashcroft, Alexander and independence

It seems that Pat Kane's video of Brian Ashcroft has hit the headlines:

WENDY ALEXANDER has been dealt an embarrassing blow in her first week as Scottish Labour leader after footage emerged of her husband making a case for independence.

Professor Brian Ashcroft, policy director of the pro-Union economic think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, was filmed arguing that Scotland would be more prosperous as a separate country than having full tax-raising powers as part of the UK. (Sunday Times)

Update 29 August: Pat reports that the clip is now available on youtube:

100 days of a new Scottish Government

The Scottish Executive today today marked what it pointedly called 100 days of a new Government, by publishing Reporting on 100 days: Moving Scotland Forward.

In a typically sober assessment, The BBC's Brian Taylor suggests its still too early to make a definitive judgement.  I think the SNP has made an impressive start but we will have a much better idea of how well the party can cope with the realities of minority government once the current recess ends and parliamentary business gets underway again.

Indeed, this autumn may be a crucial testing period for all of the devolved administrations, not least Stormont, where the Paisley-McGuinness love-in has caused some rumblings in the DUP grassroots.

Bloomfield on Irish unity

Slugger points us to a very significant speech by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield at the Merriman Summer School in Lisdoonvarna, former head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, in which he raises some practical questions about the possibility of a united Ireland:

some fundamental questions remain unanswered or even unaddressed. What would be the costs falling to be borne by the Irish Exchequer in the event of a pattern of Irish unity guaranteeing no reduction in the standard of services and benefits in Northern Ireland? Would the consequence of such a guarantee be an increase in the burden of taxation currently borne by taxpayers in the Republic, and an increase from British tax levels in the North? Or would there have to be recourse to substantial borrowing for an extended transitional period? Would the British government of the day, in light of shedding a continuing indefinite burden, ease the transition by some kind of tapering "dowry"? (I may say that I heard this canvassed at a conference years ago, and drawing gales of sceptical laughter from a very senior English bureaucrat). If these costs were fully investigated and openly revealed, would all those concerned be willing to meet them? We have before us, I would remind you, the history of Germany since the removal of the Wall and the collapse of communism. The assimilation of the former DDR has proved neither easy nor inexpensive. (ireland.com)

One doesn't get the sense that Bloomfield is raising this and other questions simply as an argument for the status quo, although he makes it clear he's quite comfortable with the current devolution settlement. These are exactly the kind of issues that will have to be addressed to make a united Ireland a realistic prospect.

More than meets the eye?

The latest issue of Private Eye features two very interesting stories that, in subtly, contrasting ways, raise the issue of covert political manipulation by intelligence agencies.

On page 6, the HP sauce column tells us that Gordon Brown is currently reading Who Paid the Piper? by Frances Stonor Saunders, a study of 'CIA secret funding and manipulation of intellectuals and writers in the cold war.'

Stonor Saunders told the Eye she was 'dumbfounded' to learn that Gordon Brown was using the book, which she intended as an exposé, as a source of ideas for the war on terror.

The second story 'Whistleblowing in the Wind' on page 7 concerns a Foreign Office diplomat who is currently waiting to hear whether he will face charges under the Official Secrets Act, after leaking documents about government relations with organisations connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rabbitte resigns

The leader of the Irish Labour Party, Pat Rabbitte, is to announce his resignation this afternoon:

The Labour Party press office announced earlier today that Mr Rabbitte would make a major announcement at a 3.30 pm press conference.

Mr Rabbitte, who became party leader in 2002, signalled a major internal inquiry into the party's direction after what he admitted was a poor general election performance, which saw the party return to the Dáil with 20 seats, one fewer than in the previous election. (Ireland.com)

There's a discussion underway at Politics.ie which seems to have broken the story.

Alexander says yes to fiscal autonomy

Pat Kane of Scottish Futures has a very interesting post over at OurKingdom on Wendy Alexander's first press conference as Scottish Labour leader elect.

The old Labour slogan of “Scottish solutions for Scottish problems” became “Scottish solutions for Scottish aspirations”, explicitly recognising how the optimistic, democratic-nationalist agenda of the SNP has tapped into a desire for positive politics, and how Labour failed when it tried to portray independence as a potential plagues-of-locusts disaster. More interestingly, in subsequent discussions Alexander pronounced herself “relaxed” about the repatriation of broadcasting and media to Scotland, an increase in fiscal autonomy for the Parliament, and other increased powers picked out by chapter two of the SNP Government’s  White Paper on Independence. Or at least, relaxed about the “national conversation” around these issues  taking place. (OurKingdom)

The Scotsman has a particularly intriguing account of Alexander's position on the financial issue:

Battling Boris

Left of centre pressure group Compass has put out a document today that seeks to expose Boris Johnson as a member of the hard Tory right.

I doubt whether that will come as much of a surprise to many people. The tactics of this report are debatable, but it is certainly right to argue that "The battle lines of future political wars between left and right are going to be fought in London over the next ten months."

Underneath the media circus, a Livingstone-Johnson contest would be one of the most ideologically polarised elections in recent history. If Johnson's right-wing populism is a threat to Livingstone, it also risks undermining David Cameron's faltering attempts to reposition the Conservatives towards the centre-ground, and the Bullingdon Club connection might make it difficult for the Tory leader to distance himself if the Johnson campaign implodes.