Scottish Labour’s ‘People’s Convention’ would be shallow and inconsequential

It has become absolutely clear from their conference that reality contradicts the beliefs of the “Scottish” Labour Party, so consequently they have to deny reality.

The spectre of the hapless Kezia Dugdale pledging a “People’s Convention” to recycle Gordon Brown’s broken promise of federalism was gut-wrenchingly awful. This involved giving Scotland powers over everything except defence and foreign policy but the oil revenues, capital gains and inheritance tax would also stay with Westminster.

Tony Blair gave us the “People’s Princess” and “People’s Peers”. The “People’s Convention” would be just as shallow and inconsequential.

Dugdale then swore fealty to the British regal union and vowed to help Theresa May and the Tories continue to rule Scotland. The most pathetic sight was them pleading with the Tories not to make Ruth Davidson head of the new Better Together campaign.

The fragrancy of the union on the nostrils of Labour delegates comes from the prospect of a seat for life in the Lords. They will use any method to protect this sense of entitlement. It should not be forgotten that Labour buried the Mccrone report on North Sea oil. Or that during its passage of the 1979 Devolution bill through parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a further requirement that the approval at the referendum be by 40 per cent of Scotland’s total registered electorate rather than by a simple majority.

Labour is heading for oblivion in England also. The prospect of them winning at Westminster in the next 15 years are virtually nil. Labour leaders Kezia Dugdale and Ian Murray are calling for a new Treaty of Union.

But, if they had been paying attention during both recent referendums, they would know that treaties can only be agreed and signed by nations with sovereign parliaments. Therefore, Scotland cannot enter into a treaty, being currently only a devolved parliament: this is why we could not apply to be an EU member or remain after Brexit.

If their argument is that the Scottish Parliament could negotiate terms or be a signatory to a new Treaty of Union with Westminster, why would Westminster honour such a treaty since it has demonstrably failed to honour the current Treaty of Union signed by the sovereign Scots Parliament in 1707? Those proposing a federal solution to the constitutional question undoubtedly believe they are promoting a compromise that could reduce the divisions that have so dominated Scottish public life over the last decade.

Yet all the evidence of the SNP attitude to concessions is that they are never sufficient to appease them, and are used instead as a lever to generate more grievance in pursuit of their ultimate goal.

There is also a fundamental problem with a federal answer in that as powers are devolved to the maximum across all parts of the UK, the need for fairness increasingly demands that each component part lives within its means.

Just now the combination of the continuing aftershocks of the 2008 financial crash, the SNP’S populist universal giveaway policies and the fall in oil revenues leaves Scotland’s underlying public finances in serious imbalance.

A £15 billion fiscal deficit represents 9.5 per cent of GDP and is unsustainable as a separate nation, an issue that the SNP leadership for all their daily rhetoric continue to avoid.

Within a federal United Kingdom the current financial reliance of Scotland on the rest of the UK would be clear and the mechanism of the Barnett formula scrutinised like never before.

Surely a clear case of “be careful what you wish for”.