The event horizon

Unkind souls – you know who you are – have been describing Johann Lamont’s latest contribution to the debate on Scottish self-government as devo-nano.  This is unfair.  A nanometre is a real unit of measurement.  It may be tiny, it may be invisible to the human eye, but it does actually exist and is an incremental step forwards.  Johann’s proposals don’t even go that far.  They’re more of a devo-event-horizon.

The event horizon, for those of you who don’t devour bad science fiction, is the region surrounding a black hole where the force of gravity becomes so strong that light is not able to escape.  A black hole is what is left after a massive star collapses in on itself, its mass falling inwards into a singularity where the normal laws of physics break down.  To the outside observer, anything falling into the black hole appears frozen for all eternity on the event horizon.  Meanwhile the person or thing falling into the black hole continues to plummet to its doom, and is crushed out of existence.  That’s the final destination of Labour’s devo-journey.

Despite being two years in the making, despite the constant assertions from Johann that she wants to listen to the people of Scotland and engage in debate about Scotland’s future, Labour’s devolution proposals have got nothing to do with responding to the long standing demand from Scottish voters for greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.  Instead they have everything to do with the Labour party attempting, yet again, to score party political points at the expense of the SNP.

Every single one of the increased powers which Labour would grant to Holyrood is motivated by a desire to stick one on the SNP.  What the party describes as all the powers that Scotland could ever want or need are in fact all the powers that Labour hopes it needs in order to make a campaigning point against Alex Salmond.

The much vaunted ability to vary the top rate of income tax exists solely in order to give Jim Murphy and his pals a point to make in interviews with friendly media hacks – to attack Alicsammin and demand he raises the top rate of tax.  It’s an unusuable power, but it provides Labour’s politicians with a few nice sound bites.  That’s its sole purpose.  The ability to vary the other bands of income tax by 15p instead of the 10p allowed by 2012’s Scotland Act is meaningless.  The tax varying powers have never been used because any increase in revenues will be eliminated by a corresponding cut to the Scottish block grant.  Holyrood has no ability to vary the tax rates, or increase the taxes paid by the rich but decrease those paid by the poor.  That’s not going to change.

Anyone who’s been paying attention over the past decade or so knows that Holyrood’s tax powers are cosmetic and will never be used.  Labour knows that better than most since they designed the system.  So you might think that the party could have made the headline catching offer to increase the powers of Holyrood to vary the tax rate by 100p in the pound, safe in the knowledge that the powers will never be used.  But they couldn’t even do that.  It might send the wrong message to voters south of the border, and that would never do.

The powers over the Bedroom Tax are in order to neutralise one of the strongest points of the Yes campaign – that Scotland gets benefits policies imposed on the country even though a large majority of our political representatives are against it.  Labour wants to treat the worst of the current symptoms to make the itch go away, but doesn’t propose curing the underlying condition.  And that’s before we start to consider the mechanics of the process.  Labour has not explained exactly how the new system will work.  It seems they don’t know.

The increased powers for local authorities exist purely in order to transfer power from a Holyrood where Labour can no longer be assured of power, to local councils which remain party strongholds.  The same goes for the powers over the Crown Estates.

There is absolutely nothing here which provides evidence that Labour has engaged with the electorate of Scotland in order to put forward devolution proposals which meet Scotland’s needs.  Instead what we see are the results of Labour arguing amongst itself about the best way to attack the SNP without damaging the status and position of Labour’s Westminster contingent.  This isn’t a devolution proposal.  It’s a security blanket for Jim Murphy.

Labour can’t help itself.  You might have thought that in the lead up to an independence referendum which threatens to bring the Westminster gravy train to a shuddering halt north of the border, that Labour would have raised its eyes from its party political navel and looked at the bigger picture.  But no.  Even when faced with a radically altered political landscape where the concept of independence has been normalised, Labour is still playing the Westminster game.  It’s the only game they understand.

We got the usual cant about the “redistributive Union”, as though the UK existed as a genuine mechansism for equalising the gulf between rich and poor, between London and the South East and the rest of the UK.  Yet when Labour was in power for 13 years under Blair and Brown we saw Peter Mandelson (remember him and his serial resignations amidst assorted accusations?) telling us that Labour was intensely relaxed about a small number of people getting filthy rich.  We saw the gap between rich and poor widen, we saw London and the South East continue to grow at the expense of the North of England, Wales and Scotland.

And now with Ed Miliband at the helm Labour is returning to its centralising instincts.  Ed’s slogan of One Nation – ripped off, without any apparent shame, from 19th century Conservatives – points to the past, not the future.  When the great hope for progressive politics in the UK rests upon aping the aspirations of Victorian Tories, you know that the Labour party has not just lost its way in the desert, it’s already dead from thirst and exposure.  The best we can hope for is a crumb of patronising attention from those who think of themselves as the great and good.  Labour’s redistributive Union doesn’t exist except in Johann’s imagination.

Even Gordon Brewer was roused from the torpor in which he’s spent the past few months, and tried, but failed, to get Johann Lamont to explain Labour’s thinking in a car crash of an interview on BBC 2’s Newsnicht.  Only to discover that Johann herself doesn’t understand Labour’s thinking, or indeed any thinking at all.  When the leader of the Labour party in Scotland doesn’t seem to understand either her new proposals nor the devolution settlement the proposals claim to build on, it’s clear to one and all that we are not being presented with an architectural blueprint for the future of Scottish government.  It’s more of a child’s scribble with a crayon.  But that’s what you get when you let Ian Davidson influence policy.

So now we know.  All those voters who were holding out for devomax, a federal UK, a means of rebalancing the UK to prevent London and the South East devouring the rest of the country – you can forget it.  Labour’s told you it’s not going to happen.  And if it’s not going to happen now, when Labour and Westminster are facing a Scottish electorate for whom the concept of independence has become normalised, when we are in a tightly fought campaign a few months away from an independence referendum that could bring Ian Davidson and Jim Murphy’s careers to a shuddering halt, you know it’s never going to happen at all.

It’s not Scotland which is frozen on the event horizon.  It’s not Scotland which is plummeting to certain doom, crushed by the forces of gravity from Westminster and the City of London.  It’s the Labour party.

The Labour movement remains a force for good and for progressive social change, but the Labour party is not fit for purpose.  There’s only one way in which the Labour movement in Scotland can get a political party that truly represents the aspirations and desires of the Scottish Labour movement.  When you put a cross beside Yes in September, you’re not just voting for the independence of Scotland, you’re also voting to make the Labour party in Scotland independent.  For Labour voters in Scotland, that’s the only way they’ll ever get a Labour party that represents what they believe in.

I’m fed up with crumbs from the table.  I’m fed up with promises of jam that never materialise.  I’m fed up with a Labour party which has collected the cash for my order for sweet and sour pork with fried rice but which delivers a tiny wee bit of stale prawn cracker and tells me I should be grateful.  I’m not grateful.  I want the banquet.  I want independence.

0 thoughts on “The event horizon

  1. very stange interview by Newsnight, not across a table and the lighting was different were they even in the same building or was it set out to allow Oor Sadie the chance to get it right of course she failed time and time again a real secret weapon in the YES side how can anyone with an ounce or even 28 gramme of common sense still cling to the Klingons at Westminster ???

  2. Pingback: The event horizon - Speymouth

  3. Well that is it. Anyone holding out for something / anything from Labour prior to Sept. 18th can forget it. Vote Naw and get he haw. Zilch. SFA. Nuhin. Bugger all!

    Yet there will still be some of the party faithful that will put their cross in the box marked NO.

    Vote Yes and confine this embarrassment to Scotland into the history books.

  4. I have been a lifelong trade unionist and labour voter. Never again. I look forward to our independence and the formation of a REAL socialist party of Scotand there-after..

  5. “a singularity where the normal laws of physics break down”.
    In the case of Labour in Scotland,the normal laws of economics also appear to break down.
    As you rightly say Paul,this is entirely about the British Labour party and nothing to do with improving the lives of working Scots.
    The USS Armageddon,it’s 5 year mission,to go where no socialist has ever gone before,to seek out irrelevant policies and eradicate the politics of the left in Scotland.

  6. two interviews this week that cheered me up somewhat…..Gordon Brewer’s and Haley Miller which caught Johann & Jim Murphy in the headlights………..they deserve to be run over to put them out of their combined misery…….’Ashes To Ashes’………a certain David Jones once sang 🙂

  7. Pingback: The event horizon | Scottish Independence | Sco...

  8. Pingback: The event horizon | pictishbeastie

  9. It is difficult to understand JoLa at the best of times but she was quite incomprehensible in the Brewer interview.

    Muddled thinking , incomplete sentences
    lacking any syntax and of course the usual obfuscation . In short she was speaking pure mince . It beggars belief that she was an English teacher .

    Keep writing in order to bring some sanity and your own brand of Glaswegian
    humour to an otherwise serious subject .

  10. Pingback: Winning the Peace (part deux) | Fairfurth

  11. Another great blog! but back to the BBC bias the nicht and their latest tactics, showing Scottish parliamentary questions, directly after newsnight?. Never seen that in the schedules before – it looked like all three ‘whips’ had choreographed the script into a better together choir? sic a sight!!!

  12. Listening to her I think that she has been coached by the same person that coached Jim Murphy. I wish I could slow her down a bit. I am sure that they would both sound the same.

    Anyway I thought an event horizon is when you wake up face down in the mud at T in the park.

  13. “…, you’re also voting to make the Labour party in Scotland independent. For Labour voters in Scotland, that’s the only way they’ll ever get a Labour party that represents what they believe in.”

    My gut feeling is that the Scottish Labour hierarchy will mostly find it difficult to really accept a Yes vote, switch their loyalty from the UK to Scotland, and start working to build a better, fairer society. Former MPs, and MSPs displaced to make room at Holyrood for Labour’s returning A team, are likely to be bitter about their loss of status, salary and perks. They may be tempted to be obstructionist, knowing that if this causes problems for Scotland, they can always claim that these are the result of independence and say “we told you so”.

    One thing which could almost give me second thoughts about voting for independence would be the possibility that we might end up with someone like Johann Lamont or Ian Davidson as First Minister.

    I hope, that following a Yes vote, the Scottish Labour party implodes and makes room for a decent, left of centre, party which will be what Labour once was – a party which does not think that ‘socialism’ is a dirty word.

    • I hope and half expect that “The Labour Party in Scotland” (No such thing as Scottish Labour) will implode before the referendum.

  14. I loved the description and I too wonder at the state of education in Scotland if this woman actually earned her two degrees and became an English Teacher because I would not have wanted her teaching any of mine ( if there were any).
    As for not voting yes in case she became First Minister, surely much more likely if you vote no. All Better Together are waiting on is the chance to demoralise Scotland again and then they have free reign to do as they wish which is turn the clock back to the time when we were all in their hands again.

  15. Pingback: Winning the Peace (part deux) | OWEN JOHN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.