Friday 16th October marked Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s first significant visit to Scotland, apart from to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, since omitting the country on his “UK listening tour.” Burnham has been a controversial figure in Scotland — viewed both as an obstacle and an opportunity for a second independence referendum — and this event only helped to exacerbate issues.
His first stop was to Motherwell to deliver a speech, specifically on the site of the old Ravenscraig steel factory, in a bid to connect to the working-class demographic Burnham tries to emblemise. He focused on the need to devolve power to communities, and how freer agency would help better rejuvenate communities that have still struggled to transition from their pasts as manufacturing towns. This comes at a time when a proposal to change the current Scottish council and regional structure is already under review.
The Prime Minister called Scotland “one of the most centralised nations in Europe” and offered “a model of localised employment support… shaped by Holyrood” as a fix. Clearly, Burnham knows to treat Scotland as separate in his nationwide plans, yet he ignored our voices and opinions during his tour.
The fence-sitting continues to be a divisive issue for Scots, as Burnham repeatedly dodges questions or answers vaguely regarding another referendum. This follows his allowance of Scotland’s agency in determining their future during Prime Minister’s Questions in September:
“It is to be considered [in Northern Ireland…] when there is a clear consensus […] I would say exactly the same situation in Scotland.”
He subsequently reverted his opinion, and publicly denied the possibility of a second independence referendum after a call with Scottish First Minister John Swinney.
During his speech, Burnham attempted to pull focus away from the issue of national independence to one of regional or local agency. Instead, he requested that we move on from “constitutional questions” in order to collaborate against “a challenging world in a more confident and stronger way.” Ironically, all he said of the independence question was:
“[Swinney] has a different view, but let’s accept there’s a different view there and then work on together what we can agree on […] my view won’t be changing, but let’s now move forward where we can make some progress.”
A distinct lack of collaboration is present when it comes to an outcome Westminster wouldn’t like. In fact, the Prime Minister’s view won’t change since, as evidenced by his initial opinion at PMQs, Burnham agrees with Scottish independence. The reason for his backpedaling was most likely due to criticism from Parliament or he didn’t realise a majority support independence — being his major stipulation for another referendum — which would only serve to reveal his ignorance for a people he attempted to befriend.
Take one second to think about how hypocritical Burnham’s devolution campaign is whilst he minimises the freedom of Scotland from Westminister’s leash as political drama, and you may be confused why he is against it. One obvious answer comes with the news that Burnham’s government has approved the Jackdaw oilfield — a supply in Scotland’s North Sea, next to the Shetland’s, which will add an estimated £2.6b to the economy. Scotland is an important resource for England’s economy.
The Prime Minister may have positive intentions for the improvement of Scotland and its councils, but only in a way he consents to — within the Union, where England may directly benefit from the majority’s discontent. If Burnham wishes to have a true partnership, he can’t avoid the questions of independence from his “true north” forever.
Image “Official portrait of Andy Burnham MP crop 3” by House of Commons is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Related
Partnership or Subordinacy: Burnham’s Scotland
Friday 16th October marked Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s first significant visit to Scotland, apart from to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, since omitting the country on his “UK listening tour.” Burnham has been a controversial figure in Scotland — viewed both as an obstacle and an opportunity for a second independence referendum — and this event only helped to exacerbate issues.
His first stop was to Motherwell to deliver a speech, specifically on the site of the old Ravenscraig steel factory, in a bid to connect to the working-class demographic Burnham tries to emblemise. He focused on the need to devolve power to communities, and how freer agency would help better rejuvenate communities that have still struggled to transition from their pasts as manufacturing towns. This comes at a time when a proposal to change the current Scottish council and regional structure is already under review.
The Prime Minister called Scotland “one of the most centralised nations in Europe” and offered “a model of localised employment support… shaped by Holyrood” as a fix. Clearly, Burnham knows to treat Scotland as separate in his nationwide plans, yet he ignored our voices and opinions during his tour.
The fence-sitting continues to be a divisive issue for Scots, as Burnham repeatedly dodges questions or answers vaguely regarding another referendum. This follows his allowance of Scotland’s agency in determining their future during Prime Minister’s Questions in September:
“It is to be considered [in Northern Ireland…] when there is a clear consensus […] I would say exactly the same situation in Scotland.”
He subsequently reverted his opinion, and publicly denied the possibility of a second independence referendum after a call with Scottish First Minister John Swinney.
During his speech, Burnham attempted to pull focus away from the issue of national independence to one of regional or local agency. Instead, he requested that we move on from “constitutional questions” in order to collaborate against “a challenging world in a more confident and stronger way.” Ironically, all he said of the independence question was:
“[Swinney] has a different view, but let’s accept there’s a different view there and then work on together what we can agree on […] my view won’t be changing, but let’s now move forward where we can make some progress.”
A distinct lack of collaboration is present when it comes to an outcome Westminster wouldn’t like. In fact, the Prime Minister’s view won’t change since, as evidenced by his initial opinion at PMQs, Burnham agrees with Scottish independence. The reason for his backpedaling was most likely due to criticism from Parliament or he didn’t realise a majority support independence — being his major stipulation for another referendum — which would only serve to reveal his ignorance for a people he attempted to befriend.
I Forgot the Lib Dems Exist
Take one second to think about how hypocritical Burnham’s devolution campaign is whilst he minimises the freedom of Scotland from Westminister’s leash as political drama, and you may be confused why he is against it. One obvious answer comes with the news that Burnham’s government has approved the Jackdaw oilfield — a supply in Scotland’s North Sea, next to the Shetland’s, which will add an estimated £2.6b to the economy. Scotland is an important resource for England’s economy.
The Prime Minister may have positive intentions for the improvement of Scotland and its councils, but only in a way he consents to — within the Union, where England may directly benefit from the majority’s discontent. If Burnham wishes to have a true partnership, he can’t avoid the questions of independence from his “true north” forever.
Image “Official portrait of Andy Burnham MP crop 3” by House of Commons is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related