Democracy Sanctioned and Maxing Out on a Burnt Out Planet

Tracking the extraordinary monoculture of Unionist commentators, editors, columnists and gate-keepers is a job in itself. In this story Chris Deerin, John Rentoul, Kenny Farquharson and others combine to come to the very same conclusion. At first Kenny was galled by the Labour stalling on the two-child benefit cap. He wrote in The Times: “When arguing with nationalist friends about independence, I keep a killer argument up my sleeve. I wait for the right moment and then I ask: why rescue 250,000 children from poverty in Scotland when you can rescue 4.2 million children from poverty across the UK? … So I have a question for Sir Keir Starmer. After your comments at the weekend on the two-child benefit cap, what do I now say to my friends?”

It’s a good question.

Kenny’s own argument is shot to shreds.

The cosy consensus Kenny and his pantone friends have is this: Scotland should at no point veer from Westminster orthodoxy; any attempt to deviate from UK policy is wildly challenged (even if it its *checks notes* creating a recycling scheme); any such deviance will be discounted and castigated. We are one island and one country goes the argument. There are a tiny few exceptions to this iron law. If the UK government create absolutely disgusting legislation (insert multiple examples here) – then it suddenly becomes incumbent on the Scottish Government to create and fund an alternative. It becomes a moral imperative to counter the government we didn’t elect.

The logic is sublime:

1) Any referendum should be opposed and thwarted

2) The UK is on the brink of radical reforms (except when its clearly not)

3) Scotland should never veer from UK policy

4) If they do it’s an abomination

5) Scotland must veer from UK policy

6) If they don’t it’s an abomination.

Are you following?

Chris Deerin wrote in the P&J: “It’s worth pointing out that the Nationalist government could use its devolved powers to tackle the child cap if it so desired. That would require finding a few hundred million quid, either by diverting money from core public priorities such as the NHS or the education system, or by raising taxes even further above UK levels than they are at present.”

Are you following?

Can you imagine if the SG used money from the NHS or education to do this?

The entire Unionist commentariat are visceral in their hatred anytime the SG does as Deerin suggests here.

So the very people who argue that Devolution is The Best, that reform is immanent won’t (and can’t) even defend the most astonishing attacks on the present settlement. The hypocrisy is staggering and transparent.

Deerin writes: “Tony Blair was never accepted by the purists. He understood he never would be and, instead, to appeal to the middle ground of voters…”

Yet where is the centre? You can see it here:

Chris continues: “The suggestion that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories is pathetic.”

“And what did New Labour achieve? Well, it’s a long list, but it included the Good Friday Agreement, the creation of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly …”

Are you following this?

Maxing Out on a Burnt Out Planet

It gets worse. New plans wrestle control on environment away from Holyrood just as the British parties abandon even the weakest policies.

Unelected Labour Lord urges unelected Tory Baroness to stop ELECTED @scotgov planning path to indy. But no fuss fm George Foulkes or @ScottishLabour when Lords amend bill to let WM overturn Scottish eco-laws. Why has Labour abandoned @scotparl it created? https://t.co/GGQ6Ym3el6

— Lesley Riddoch (@LesleyRiddoch) July 25, 2023

If passed, devolution is dead.

Wales: UKGov need consent
Northern Ireland: UKGov need consent
Scotland: UKGov need only consult

25yrs of devolution wiped out in a sentence. For most people, democracy trumps both yoon & nat. In the long term this kills the UK.#ScottishDemocracy pic.twitter.com/GawuWCy4U7

— Simon Forrest (@SimonForrest11) July 25, 2023

As the world burns the British government vows to ‘max out’ North Sea oil – a resource that those of you with any kind of memory will remember being told was about to disappear in 2014.

To recap, Devolution is a major success, an example of the Union’s brilliance. Devolution is under attack, but that doesn’t matter. Despite all of the overwhelming evidence we have to believe an incoming Labour government will transform Britain (again). The House of Lords will probably be abolished (soon) but in the meantime should rightly over-rule elected Scottish politicians. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

The self-styled “party of devolution” no longer supports devolution.

And, in response to Deerin’s claim that “The suggestion that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories is pathetic” here’s Ashok Kumar:

The article says Labour received £5.8m from the City in first 3 months of 2023 by promising to cut spending, cut programs, never nationalise and bolster profits in public utilities, reduce regulation, reduce corporate taxes – in sum: be better servants to the city than the Tories pic.twitter.com/BE3Cc1YCMK

— ashok kumar 🇵🇸 (@broseph_stalin) July 25, 2023

We live in a state that cannot create viable democratic options.

The irony of this is that ditching the two child policy would be popular. It is not, as commentators claim, some shibboleth to be smashed. The country is on its knees. As Patrick Butler writes (‘Ditching two-child limit is a no-brainer. Why doesn’t Labour commit to it?‘):

“The row may have gone eerily quiet, but the assumption among anti-poverty activists is that a Labour government promising to be “laser-focused” on addressing poverty will inevitably have to confront the issue at some point. “If you are going to promise you will tackle child poverty, then you cannot do anything other than scrap the two-child benefit limit,” said one campaigner.

Abolishing it is a policy that unites left and right of the party. It is seen as low-hanging fruit policy-wise, at least compared with the vast investment needed to fix the broken social security system. Scrapping it would help tens of thousands of struggling families and burnish Labour’s anti-child poverty credentials at a relatively modest cost of £1.3bn a year.”

The reality is that the Scottish Child Payment mitigates the Two-Child Benefit cap, just as Discretionary Housing Payments mitigate the Bedroom Tax. But the hypocrisy of the scribes is that they demand a government they despise in Scotland (that we elect) to mitigate the worst practices of a government (that we do not). Then they tell us this is an ideal, even a globally unique situation.

In a new development, the IPPR has suggested that the Scottish Government should scrap the benefit cap. Philip Whyte of the IPPR has said Holyrood has a “moral responsibility” to intervene after Labour leader Keir Starmer said he would not axe the Tory policy. He said the Scottish Government had to act if Westminster did not. He has argued: “If the current, and a hypothetical future, UK Government refuses to scrap the cap, then who else can? The obvious answer is the Scottish Government.There’s a political opportunity here for the Scottish Government – using the powers available to the Scottish Parliament to demonstrate leadership, prove how devolution empowers different choices, and set themselves apart. But most importantly, there’s also a moral responsibility.”

He said higher income tax on earnings between £84,400 and £125,140 would raise an additional £110m and be able to fund “mitigation” of the cap. Whyte said the move would possible within the powers of the devolved Parliament, adding: “The necessary powers were fought for and won in Scotland – we should use them.”

There’s a deep irony that it was the former director of the IPPR that created the policy of the Scottish Child Payment, but we will see how the unionist commentariat respond should this come to pass. Will the SG be vilified for ‘high taxation’ and demonised for deviating from UK policy as they have under all other circumstances? And if the SG has to scrap the most brutal aspects of British rule, why would you continue to defend that Union?