A debate which will have an effect on everyone in the UK

15th January, 2013 3:48 pm

Rarely does Parliament stop to consider issues as fundamental as the future composition of our country, but this afternoon in the House of Commons that is exactly what MPs are being asked to do.

The title of this afternoon’s debate – on the draft Scotland Act (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013 –isn’t likely to inspire much interest among anyone except the most hardened of constitutional lawyers. However, go beyond the title and into the substance and this is actually a debate which will have an effect on every person living not just in Scotland, but across the whole of the United Kingdom.

This afternoon’s debate is the result of the agreement signed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond in October and will see power over the “Union of England and Scotland” passed from the UK to the Scottish Parliament.

It’s a move which we support. Like them, we want to see a referendum which is “made in Scotland”, with the terms and detail of the referendum set through a Bill in the Scottish Parliament. This is important so that the process and result of the referendum is wholly accepted by all sides. Putting the responsibility for the referendum in the hands of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament means that no one, including the SNP, can question the result. In the words of the agreement that was signed by both the UK and Scottish Government, the referendum will:

“deliver a…decisive expression of the views of the people of Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.”

In the Labour Party, we should take pride in the fact that the Scottish Parliament is being charged with this responsibility. It is worth remembering that in 1998, when Labour created the Scottish Parliament, many people (including a large number of Conservative MPs) said it would never work. With this agreement, we see another step in the evolution of Scottish democracy. The new powers also places a high responsibility on Scottish Government Ministers to rise to the occasion and act not just in the interests of partisan advantage, but in the interests of the whole country.

For those of us who have always seen constitutional change as a means to an end, and not an end in itself, this afternoon’s debate means that we might now be able to move further beyond process and into the substance of what affects Scottish people day in and day out. The debate ahead on the future of Scotland has to be more than an accountancy exercise. The tone and tenor of it has to match the high aspirations that people on all sides have for an event of this significance.

As we have been doing from the outset, we will continue to grasp the nettle and deal with the difficult and challenging issues that Scotland has to face with rigour and honesty. It has to be a debate that meets the ambition of the generations of Labour advocates for devolution. In the words of Donald Dewar, Scotland’s first First Minister:

“Introspection will not solve our problems. Nor will preoccupation with constitutional point-scoring. Responding to the needs of the Scottish people is what matters.”

For those of us who have spent a life time in Scottish politics, this is an important opportunity to settle this question once and for all. When Parliament’s debate concludes this afternoon, we will be one step closer to that end.

Margaret Curran MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • uglyfatbloke

    Not the most inspiring of debates really…the gnats are conspicuous by their absence in the chamber and Ian Davidson and Eleanor Laing have taken the opportunity to deliver lengthways doses of snide – and not very honest – party whingeing. A fine demonstration of sheer uselessness by both sides.

  • uglyfatbloke

    Unbelievably, the debate got worse as it went on..and on…and on….
    Wishart actually made a fair point about the undesirable tendency toward denigration (which did n’t stop him chucking the odd brick himself) but was utterly denigrated for doing so. The best contributions were from Lazarowicz and Robertson – let’s have more of the same.
    Thankfully, very few people listen to such debates so Davidson, Laing and McNeill etc. probably have n’t done all that much damage, but we really can’t go on like this, it’s offensive and counter-productive..

  • The only reason I can think of to refuse the people of Scotland a referendum to determine their future is that they may not deliver the right answer. Why should we be scared of the people being wrong?

  • Quite possibly one of the poorest debates I’ve seen and based on one of the most important issues. Please be more positive and don’t let Sarwar say frankly silly things (such as comparing Salmond to a dictatorship) or Davidson serve up such bile. The current tone will not inspire people to become active in the Labour Party or Better Together.

Latest

  • Comment Featured Cruddas asks the right questions – I heard them on the doorstep of a swing seat

    Cruddas asks the right questions – I heard them on the doorstep of a swing seat

        How did it come to this? That a Labour Party fighting an arrogant, out-of-touch Tory government who failed on their core economic targets, could go down to a crushing defeat despite carrying a healthy lead in the polls for not just a few weeks, but a few years. The answer, according to Jon Cruddas, makes for painful reading. Labour, the party of work, was deserted by socially conservative working class voters who value family, work and fairness. There […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured The message, the marginals and the media: Cruddas’ home truths explained

    The message, the marginals and the media: Cruddas’ home truths explained

    The result of Jon Cruddas’ independent inquiry into Labour’s general election defeat was published today, with a piece by the author on LabourList. Here are seven key lessons to take away from the report: 1 – Have we heard it all before? Lacking economic credibility, untrusted on welfare and immigration, unable to connect on issues like communities, and lacking a clear purpose. This is not an inquiry bursting with completely undreamt of reasons for Labour’s demise last May – and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Jon Cruddas: What we can learn from Labour’s crushing election defeat

    Jon Cruddas: What we can learn from Labour’s crushing election defeat

    Today we publish our Independent Inquiry report Labour’s Future. It looks at why we lost the 2015 general election and what’s happened since. It has ten messages and three lessons to learn from defeat. It’s a tough read because it’s about the challenges Labour faces. But its optimistic. We can be ambitious. We have the ability to change and shape our party and build a new election winning coalition. We need the confidence to learn the lessons of defeat and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Uncategorized Alice Perry’s NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online

    Alice Perry’s NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online

    National Executive Committee Report by local government representative Alice Perry Tuesday 17 May 2016 Leader’s Report Jeremy Corbyn spoke about the EU Referendum and the importance of securing membership of the EU to protect jobs, the economy and our rights at work. Jeremy spoke about May’s election results. He praised the various election successes, including the Mayoral election results in London and Bristol. In London hope trumped fear with voters rejecting racist, Tory smears to make history by electing Sadiq Khan. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Tristram Hunt: Labour must dispel the myth we are anti-English

    Tristram Hunt: Labour must dispel the myth we are anti-English

    There is much to regret about the modern condition of Tory England. And in the 2015 General Election campaign, the Labour Party lamented long about it. But while I encountered little enthusiasm for the Tories on England’s doorsteps, there was even more circumspection towards the Labour Party. Naturally, some of this was about policy. Some of it too, we should be frank, was about leadership. But operating at a deeper and more insidious level was a sense that Labour did […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit