Scotland votes 'No': What happens now?

Scotland has voted "No" to independence in the historic referendum on the nation's future.

For now, that means it will continue to form an integral part of the UK - but for Scottish devolution, the process of granting powers from Westminster to the Scottish parliament, it's far from business as usual.

The focus will now be on how the UK government delivers its promise of more powers for the Scottish parliament, based at Holyrood, Edinburgh. Here's what's likely to happen next.

More power

The three biggest UK-wide political parties - The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats - agree that further devolution of powers to Holyrood must take place. During the referendum campaign, the partiessigned a pledge to devolve more powers to Scotland, if Scots rejected independence.

A timetable to deliver change was set out by former prime minister - and Scottish MP - Gordon Brown. It was quickly endorsed by the UK-wide parties.

Immediately after the result became clear, Prime Minister David Cameron aimed to show the UK government was grabbing the initiative by announcing Lord Smith of Kelvin, a former BBC governor, to oversee the implementation of more devolution on tax, spending and welfare.

He said draft legislation would be ready by January, as per the timetable laid out by Brown.

Under the former PM's proposals, a "command paper" would be published by the present UK government setting out all the proposals by the end of October.

A white paper would be drawn up by the end of November, after a period of consultation, setting out the proposed powers.

A draft new "Scotland Act" law would be published by Burns Night (25 January) 2015 ready for the House of Commons to vote on.

However, with a UK general election due in May 2015, the legislation would not be passed until the new parliament began.

Party differences

The Scottish Parliament is currently funded through a block grant and the amount it gets is defined by the Barnett Formula - an arrangement for adjusting funds to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on devolved policy areas, on the basis of population . All three parties are committed to preserving the essence of this mechanism in some form.

And in proposals set out by the parties earlier this year, each offered Holyrood considerably more income tax-raising powers than the Scottish parliament has at present. However, there were significant differences between the parties in the proposed extent of those changes.

Labour wants to give Holyrood the power to vary income tax by 15p in the pound - but not the power to cut the top tax rate on its own.

The Conservatives propose to give Scotland total control over income tax rates and bands. Holyrood would also be accountable for 40% of the money it spent.

The Liberal Democrats propose giving Scotland power over income tax, inheritance and capital gains tax. The party has also touted scrapping the Act of Union between Scotland and England and replacing it with a declaration of federalism.

None of this will suffice for the Scottish National Party, and its leader Alex Salmond, but just as the Edinburgh Agreement, committed Prime Minister David Cameron to honouring the referendum result, the same is true for the Scottish first minister.

Mr Salmond may not like it, but he still heads Scotland's devolved government, so he will play a pivotal role in ensuring the delivery of increased Holyrood powers.

He is expected to fight for a "devo max" - essentially far-reaching devolution - package of powers, likely to include total control over income tax, corporation tax, and air passenger duty, and extensive control over welfare.

The negotiations

UK political parties will have to work through their differences, and come up with a single proposal. But others will also be involved.

In the lead up to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the UK government laid out its devolved responsibilities in a White Paper in July 1997, before they were backed by voters and put into legislation.

Credit for paving the road towards Scottish devolution was given to the Scottish Constitutional Convention, an association of Scottish political parties, churches and other civic groups set up in 1989.

Lord Smith's new body on finalising Holyrood's new powers could in some ways be seen as a modern-day version of the organisation.

SNP future

Nicola Sturgeon could be in the running to take over from Alex Salmond

So what now for the SNP?

In the immediate future, it's back to government - the job to which the SNP was elected by a landslide at the last Scottish Parliament election.

But all eyes will be on its annual conference in Perth - delayed from its usual October slot until November.

For a party which hasn't always had the most harmonious existence, the SNP's shown a remarkable level of discipline since winning office in 2007 - but could that now be in jeopardy?

Alex Salmond has pledged to do his job as first minister until at least the next Holyrood poll in 2016 - but that's not likely to stop some rival politicians attempting to paint him as a sort-of "lame duck", to borrow an expression from US politics.

However, given the enormity of the SNP's last election victory, it is quite possible the party will win the next Scottish parliament election, especially if voters feel Labour has not done enough to win back their trust as a party of government.

There will be an SNP leadership contest at some point - these are known for being interesting - with Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon the clear frontrunner.

But we might see former leadership challengers Mike Russell, Alex Neil and Roseanna Cunningham - all now members of the Scottish government - also throw their hats in the ring.

John Swinney though, Scotland's finance secretary, has ruled out a return to the leadership, a job he held between 2000 and 2004.

Rest of the UK

With increased devolution of powers to Holyrood, many will want to address the so-called West Lothian question: is it fair that English MPs have no say on devolved issues in Scotland, but Scottish MPs at Westminster can still vote on the same issues as they affect England?

A recent poll by YouGov for the Herald suggested 62% of English people believe Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on England-only laws.

Many in Wales and Northern Ireland will also ask whether they should be getting more powers too.

The other issue for Wales is the continuation of the Barnett funding formula, which sees Scotland get more spending per head than the UK average.

Plaid Cymru says the arrangement would leave Wales £300m poorer each year, while Labour has promised to address the issue if it wins the 2015 UK election.

Healing wounds

The Right Reverend John Chalmers wants all sides to commit to the future of Scotland

The debate over Scotland's future has electrified the public - but passion has turned to anger at times, so an early priority will be to bring the nation together.

A first step takes place on Sunday, when the Church of Scotland stages a "reconciliation service" at Edinburgh's St Giles' Cathedral.

The Rt Reverend John Chalmers, moderator of the Church's general assembly, says the idea of the service is "expressing our magnanimity in victory or defeat, or expressing our commitment to working together for the future of Scotland".

By Andrew BlackPolitical reporter, BBC Scotland
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29252899

Britain’s Strange Identity Crisis

LONDON — THE United Kingdom is lying on the psychiatrist’s couch. Suddenly the country seems uncertain of its identity, its place in the world, its relationships with its closest family members and its neighbors.



It is a bizarre moment in the history of an ancient realm, insufficiently grasped by its allies, especially across the ocean. Britain is having a kind of nervous breakdown, and its friends aren’t sure whether to say something or just look away.

Many Britons ask: Does Scotland still love us? Will it stay or vote for divorce? Even if we don’t love the European Union, do we really want to leave? And if we leave, will America still think we have a “special relationship,” or is it more committed to others, like Beijing and Berlin?

Britons wonder if they can still afford to sit at the high table of international powers. Even if they keep their expensive nuclear deterrent, do they really want an army smaller than it has been since Waterloo? Military intervention alongside the Americans after Tony Blair, Iraq and Afghanistan, is well, all a bit difficult now, so much so that the Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, can lose a parliamentary vote on a key issue — bombing Syria — and not feel he has to resign.

Queen Elizabeth II is a wonderful old trouper, in her fuchsia suits and matching hats, tromping along her dutiful path in sensible court shoes. But King Charles III? Divorced, impatient, meddling — some suggest skipping a generation and going right to that nice young William, with his pretty wife and perfect baby.

Then there’s the odd coalition government, the first in decades, and party leaders who all lack a certain gravitas. Plus all the heated agonizing about those Eastern European immigrants, let alone Muslims — Mr. Cameron was criticized for insisting that Britain remains a Christian country. The BBC is marred by scandal, and even the famous British tabloids, the “red tops,” have to be careful these days, after the phone hacking trials. And let’s not get started on England’s humiliation in the World Cup.

Along with institutions like the Church of England, the sense of nationhood is being diluted, many Britons say. Time, Mr. Cameron has said, for a restoration of “British values,” even if no one can quite define what they are.

Just the other day, Mr. Cameron went on about Magna Carta, which turns 800 next year, and how he wanted to ensure that all students were taught its lessons of citizenship and parliamentary power. Two years ago, Mr. Cameron couldn’t translate Magna Carta into English for David Letterman. (Great Charter, by the way.) But now he admonished that “we should not be squeamish about our achievements, or bashful about our Britishness”; he called “belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law,” as “British as the Union Flag, football and fish and chips.”

Of course, those are essentially French and German values too, minus the flag and the fish and chips. The lukewarm attitudes of a growing immigrant population to national symbols and ideals, from the monarchy to the military and the troubled BBC, are also echoed on the left, as they have traditionally been.

A recent survey of social attitudes was particularly revealing about what it means to be British these days. In 2003, 86 percent of respondents thought it was important to speak English to be considered “truly British”; now, 95 percent do. And while 69 percent in 2003 thought it vital to have lived in Britain “most of your life,” now 77 percent do.

“I don’t think we’ve had such a rocky ride in a very, very long time, since your lot parted company with us,” said Martin Woollacott, an editorial writer for The Guardian, referring to the United States. The Scottish referendum in September, the general election next May and Mr. Cameron’s promise of a referendum on British membership in the European Union “will greatly affect our future,” he said. “They could break up the state or take the state out of the E.U.”

No matter what happens in Scotland, Mr. Woollacott said, “there will have to be a new start for British politics.”

If Scotland leaves, it will be a radical new start for all four countries of the kingdom; if Scotland stays, there will be further federalization.

 

It’s all quite a departure from the poorer, far less cosmopolitan Britain I encountered more than 30 years ago, when I first lived here as a journalist. Then, Margaret Thatcher was fresh off her military victory in the Falklands; she was sometimes referred to as Boadicea, after the Celtic queen who fought the Romans, and sometimes as “the Leaderene,” and sometimes as Tina — as in, there is no alternative. A verb was created for her management style — she attacked, or “handbagged,” institutions and even the members of her cabinet, nearly all men, one of whom, John Nott, expressed his love for her.

 

MORE important, she had a plan. She changed Britain from the inside, and not always to everyone’s liking, humbling militant unions and forcing the Labour Party into a necessary confrontation with modernity. Internationally, too, she was admired, from the Reagan White House to the Kremlin. It was Mrs. Thatcher who identified Mikhail S. Gorbachev as a comer and invited him to London in December 1984, four months before he became Soviet general secretary.

 

Britain then “punched above its weight,” its counsel sought eagerly, if not always happily, by Reagan and his successor, George Bush, whom she admonished after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that “this is no time to go wobbly.”

 

Britain today is far richer and more sophisticated, with London’s having become an almost impossibly expensive global capital, a hot spot and sanctuary for money and power, culture and art. Yet London can seem a country of its own, an empire sucking in workers and money not just from the rest of the world, but from the rest of Britain, too, where life goes on in a more traditional, modest fashion, but where people are less happy with the sense of flux.

 

Simon Jenkins, a British political columnist and historian, thinks that even though the country is going through a puzzled period, it has become a more self-assured place than it was in the 1970s. “Then Britain was seriously in a mess,” he said, before Mrs. Thatcher began to alter political life. Then the clichés were about “the British disease” and “the sick man of Europe,” and that’s gone, he said.

 

Still, he added, Britain has made serious errors — “allying itself too closely to the United States in its neo-imperialist burst” under President George W. Bush, for one thing. Then “we became drunk on money and ignored inequality and the provinces and the downside of borrow and spend, and we never made our peace with Europe.”

 

When I raised the diagnosis of national neurosis recently to a group of establishment Britons, there was something of a collective sigh. David Howell, now Baron Howell of Guildford, a former Conservative cabinet minister, was prompted to respond in “The World Today,” a magazine of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

 

“A London-based American correspondent,” he wrote, referring to me, said that Britain these days appeared to be having an identity crisis. “Unfair?” he wrote. “Definitely. Irritating? Very. Yet with a maddening tinge of truth. Somehow, on a fast-shifting world stage, the British story does seem to have become more confused.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/sunday-review/britains-strange-identity-crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=1