Daily Archives: December 26, 2020

This analysis was featured in Critical State, a weekly newsletter from The World and Inkstick Media.Subscribe here.

Last week, Critical State looked at how the distance between national governments and the people who actually implement their repressive policies both enables and limits the violence states can do to their own people. In the Philippines, the deadliness of President Rodrigo Dutertes ultra-violent drug war varies based on the political networks of the various mayors charged with carrying it out. This week, well look at a case where the distance has served an opposite function, making it very difficult for the national government to get its violence-implementers to stop repressing people.

Related: Federalism in violence: Part I

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate.

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate. In a survey of prisoners in Mexico, nearly 60% reported being beaten by police before being put in custody of a public prosecutor, and nearly 40% reported being beaten while in public prosecutor custody. Over 35% report being victims of simulated drowning before being turned over to public prosecutors and 25% were subjected to waterboarding or similar techniques by public prosecutors. Electric shocks, being crushed with heavy objects, and burns are also frequently inflicted on people unfortunate enough to come in contact with the Mexican criminal justice system.

Related:InMexico, the unendingdrugwar takes its toll

Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution.

All this is true, despite the fact that Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution. The national government, in other words, told its on-the-ground violence-implementers to chill. Twelve years on, that hasnt really happened. In a new article in the American Political Science Review, Beatriz Magaloni and Luis Rodriguez investigate why torture is so embedded at the implementation level of Mexican justice.

Related:Cartel gunmen terrorizeMexicancity to free El Chapo's son

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past.

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past. Mexico inherited an inquisitional justice system from Spain, in which confessions are a crucial part of securing convictions. Since inquisitional systems (as the name suggests) are agnostic about whether those confessions are coerced or not, torture to produce coerced confessions became an institutionalized aspect of how the justice system functioned. The 2008 reforms ended inquisitional justice by changing evidentiary standards to make coerced confessions functionally inadmissible. Magaloni and Rodriguez used data from the survey of Mexican prisoners to test the laws effectiveness. After the reforms, they found, there was a drop in torture, but the reforms were only responsible for between 4 and 8 percentage points of the drop hardly at the levels that might have been expected given the content of the new laws.

Reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

Part of the reason for the laws limited effect came from the durability of the inquisitional institutions even in the face of democratic intervention. Police forces and prosecutors had a way of doing things, and the states actual ability to change those practices on the fly was extremely limited. Over time, as judicial oversight threw out more and more coerced confessions, the reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids.

Another issue Magaloni and Rodriguez identified was the increasingly militarized nature of Mexican policing, driven in part by Mexicos approach to its drug war. In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids. These joint operations, the researchers found, increased police torture in the area by between 5 to 10%, even controlling for areas where high levels of drug cartel violence might make the war on drugs more war-like than usual.

A national government working at cross purposes to itself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Mexican justice had a hard enough time implementing reforms from the national level, but the militarization of the drug war created a set of mixed signals that, in some communities, wiped away the positive effects of the reform entirely. A national government working at cross purposes withitself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Critical State is your weekly fix of foreign policy without all the stuff you don't need. It'stop news and accessible analysis for those who want an inside take without all the insider bs.Subscribe here.

See the article here:

Federalism in violence: Part II - The World

The flags of Wales, Scotland, England and the UK. Picture by Joowwww.

Ioan Phillips and Jac Brown

It is highly ironic that the UK has established federal political systems around the world, yet remains reluctant to embrace this form of governance for itself.

With Brexit and Covid-19 underscoring the sclerotic nature of the British state, one of the most centralised in Western Europe, the federal ideal has been resurrected most recently by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who today promised a wave of decentralisation.

There is, however, the real danger that to channel the nineteenth-century historian, Edward Freeman advocates of a federal UK end up championing the concept without giving any meaningful though to what it actually means in practice.

Yet we should not be too hasty to condemn. The vacuity of some federalists does not mean a federal UK is necessarily an outright bad idea.

The Constitution Reform Group (CRG) proposes a new act of union that would see the four nations of the UK given beefed-up powers as part of a federal set-up in which only a core handful of responsibilities over defence, foreign affairs, immigration, and currency, would remain at a UK level. Structurally at least, this would be a significant reshaping of the way politics in the UK is conducted, stripping power away from the centre.

Federalism also gives unionists and nationalists a chance to test their arguments. Unionists can argue that reform pacifies the nationalist yearning for independence, while bringing further autonomy. Nationalist governments could utilise new powers to diverge more from Westminster, preparing the ground for eventual independence.

Practicality

The fact remains, though: federalism is an unviable pipedream.

The most immediate obstacle is that those most in favour of a federal solution Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in the political wilderness, and will likely be for the foreseeable future.

To obtain a majority of one, Labour needs to gain an unprecedented 120 seats a task made more difficult by the partys ongoing struggles in Scotland.

Furthermore, the rise of independence in Welsh and Scottish political consciousness means that the constitutional debates there have shifted beyond areas federalism would be able to address.

Foreign policy is a case in point. Federalism would not have prevented Brexit. Nor would it have any mechanism for preventing some of the more ill-judged military interventions of the past two decades.

In addition, the successful realisation of federalism requires mutual respect between the different administrations of the UK.

Would a Conservative government in England work with its Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish counterparts in that spirit? The evidence suggests otherwise. It has regularly ridden roughshod over the views of the devolved governments on Brexit, while attempting to deliver COVID policy by diktat.

The other elephant in the room is that an English parliament would make a Westminster government fairly redundant, with the preferences of England still dominating this streamlined body.

Supporters of federalism retort that federal regions would guard against Englands preponderance although such an approach could well see power taken from councils, rather than central government.

Ultimately, the proliferation of pro-independence sentiment is not motivated by a desire for control over arcane pension policy rule. It is instead a question of identity.

Looking at UK politics today, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are on a very different path one where the main constitutional juncture is unionism against independence.

For unionists, federalism might be a comforting if abstract panacea, but it is an idea past its political sell-by date.

See original here:

Federalism is an attractive idea for unionists - but past its political sell-by date - Nation.Cymru

NewsOpinionColumnistsThe astonishing decline of support for Labour, once the dominant force in Scottish politics, has been once of the stories of devolution.

Sunday, 20th December 2020, 7:00 am

In the 2003 Holyrood election, under Jack McConnell, the party won 50 seats to the SNPs 27, while in the 2010 UK election 41 Scottish seats elected a Labour MP, compared to just six for the SNP.

Fast-forward to December 2019, and the SNP secured 48 Westminster seats to Labours one, a result that may have partly reflected confused messaging over whether the then leader Jeremy Corbyn would or would not agree to a second independence referendum.

So, for some, it might be tempting to write off Scottish Labour as we look ahead to next Mays elections. And indeed, both the SNP and Conservatives have sought to bill this as a straight-forward choice between two parties and two options: independence or the Union.

However, Keir Starmer is a considerably more formidable figure than Corbyn and it is clear he has identified Scotland as a place where the party must radically transform its fortunes to have a chance of success at the next UK election.

With that in mind, he, Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard and others in the party are attempting to add a third option to the mix with radical proposals for a modernisation of the British constitution that would see greater decentralisation and devolution to not just Scotland, but the whole of the UK.

In January this year, Starmer, who is due to give a speech on the issue this week, said: We need a new constitutional settlement: a large-scale devolution of power and resources. This will involve building a new long-term political and constitutional consensus. I believe that could best be built on the principle of federalism.

Right now, it seems clear that Labour has its work cut out to get this third option onto the ballot sheet in the event of a second referendum, let alone convince people of its merits. But, it could be that as the debate heats up that those on both sides of the debate start to see the merits.

For unionists, a home rule or devo max option might just keep the United Kingdom united. For nationalists, it could be a halfway house towards their ultimate aim of independence. Devolution may have contributed to the rise in support for independence so more of the same could boost support.

With polls showing record levels of support for independence, that might not seem like an attractive option, but if the numbers narrow as during what will be a hotly contested election campaign, it could become more appealing.

And for those not completely wedded to the status quo or the idea of a new nation, it is an option to consider, it does at least deserve a hearing as part of what we hope will be a reasoned and civil debate about Scotlands future.

For anyone in any doubt, the 2014 referendum showed this is an issue that people care most passionately about and that is absolutely fine, but we all must learn to control our emotions and respect those with whom we disagree and the outcome of the democratic process.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read more:

Scottish independence, the status quo or federalism: Why Labour's third way deserves a fair hearing Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 23

Calling for a united nationwide initiative for a federal structure in the country, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) today extended solidarity with West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chairperson Mamata Banerjee for the TMC kisan rally.

SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal said here today that Punjab and West Bengal had always led the nations fight for political autonomy to the states for making India a strong federal country. We must continue with this tradition and invite more like-minded parties to take a stand for the genuine federal structure in the country, in keeping with the sentiments of our Constitution makers. We have allowed the powers of the states to be eroded in one way or another, due to which things have come to such an extent that the Centre has also legislated on a state subject agriculture. This has resulted in the ongoing mass kisan movement in the country.

Badal also applauded Banerjee for sending a five-member team of TMC MPs to hold talks with the protesting farmers and interact with the farmers leaders directly today. You have strengthened the farmers agitation by announcing a series of protests from the next week to demand revocation of the three agricultural laws. This will go a long way in making the farmers movement a national movement, he added.

The SAD president also informed the TMC leader that the party had formed a three-member sub-committee, comprising senior leaders Balwinder Singh Bhundur, Prof Prem Singh Chandumajra and Sikander Singh Maluka to coordinate with like-minded parties on the issue.

See the original post:

SAD: Will work with TMC to strengthen federalism - The Tribune India

Guy Parmelin will assume the rotating Swiss presidency for the first time on January 1. He will have the difficult tasks of guiding Switzerland through the Covid-19 pandemic and defending the institutional agreement with the European Union against the wishes of his right-wing party.

Journalist and deputy head of the swissinfo.cheditorial group for German, French and Italian. Earlier, worked for Teletext and Switzerlands French-language national broadcaster.

More about the author| French Department

The 61-year-old economics minister spoke to SWI swissinfo.ch during a ten-day quarantine, which he was forced to enter after returning from London on December 14.

swissinfo.ch: In recent months economic interests have played a major role in Switzerlands policy against Covid-19. The magazine Foreign Policy, for example, ran the headline Switzerland is choosing austerity over life. Did Switzerland choose austerity over life?

Guy Parmelin: No, Im opposed to this view, which presents Switzerland as a selfish country in its handling of the coronavirus crisis. We have always put the health of the population first. That said, balancing health measures and their economic effects is obviously necessary. So far, weve managed to do that pretty well.

We regularly review our system. In recent weeks the cantons have begun to coordinate better and to apply stricter measures than the national standards allow. This demonstrates the responsibility they have taken in managing this crisis.

Guy Parmelin was born on November 9, 1959. He comes from the village of Bursins, on the shores of Lake Geneva in French-speaking western Switzerland.

Trained as a farmer and winegrower, he focused on politics early on. After being president of the Swiss Peoples Party for canton Vaud, he joined the House of Representatives in 2003.

In 2015 he was elected to Switzerlands seven-member government. He was given the defence and sports portfolio. In 2019 he took over at the economics ministry.

swissinfo.ch: But in Austria and Germany, two neighbouring countries with comparable health systems, relative mortality rates are much lower. How do you explain this?

G.P.: Each country is dealing with the crisis in its own way. Germany, which is a federalist country comparable to ours, was less affected at the beginning of the crisis this spring. Austria acted very firmly at the beginning, then opted for liberal measures in the summer before tightening them again.

Switzerland is constantly carrying out its own analysis of the situation. One can always criticise the governments decisions and feel that it should have acted differently. But we are taking responsibility for our choices, which were made in coordination with the cantons. We have clear rules and criteria thats how things work here.

swissinfo.ch: This autumn a lot of noise was made about the measures of varying sizes decided by the cantons, which caused a fair bit of irritation. Will federalism emerge unscathed from this crisis?

G.P.: Im convinced that its not a question of a failure of federalism, even if its necessary to have a look certain aspects of it. Federalism must work not only in good weather but also in a storm. There have sometimes been delays and poor coordination between the various levels of the state. Lessons must be learnt. But its not true that methods used in centralised countries have been better than ours. We are all committed to federalism and national cohesion; were not going to throw them away at the first crisis that comes along.

swissinfo.ch: Confidence in the government is at an all-time low, according to polls. How do you intend to win back the hearts of the Swiss?

G.P.: What is really difficult in this crisis is to enable people and businesses to plan for the future. This leads to growing dissatisfaction with our decisions which I completely understand. I also sense a certain fatigue among the population. The arrival of the vaccines should help relax the atmosphere and gradually return things to normal. But lets be clear: the damage has been done; it will be long-term. Our role will be to minimise it and ensure that Switzerland is ready when the recovery comes.

swissinfo.ch: The crisis has already cost the government more than CHF30 billion ($33.7 billion). But at just under 30% of GDP Switzerlands debt ratio is still very low by international standards. Isnt it time for the state to play a greater role and develop an investment plan to revive the economy?

G.P.: Economists are almost unanimous: a stimulus package would not make sense at the moment. The financial stimuli and the billions of francs that have been freed up allow the economic machine to continue to function and to withstand temporary difficulties.

At the same time, we are investing heavily in the future. Parliament decided in its last session to grant a credit of CHF28 billion for research and education over the next four years. Measures were also decided to support the export industry and SMEs [small and medium-sized businesses] that want to invest in research and development projects.

The government has set up a special innovation promotion programme worth CHF130 million for the next two years. This means that up to 2024 a total of CHF260 million will be made available to encourage companies to invest in innovation by relieving them of part of their costs. Tourism, sport and the cultural sector will also benefit from other specific types of support.

swissinfo.ch: Is the Swiss economy resilient enough to recover quickly from the crisis or is it likely to suffer serious damage?

G.P.: The damage has been done. Itvaries greatly from one economic sector to another. Within a single industry, the situation is very uneven. For example, hotels in cities are suffering much more than those in the mountains.

However, the latest statistics show that the bankruptcy rate in 2020 was lower than in previous years. This proves that the state has intervened in a targeted and effective manner, even if it may be keeping economic structures alive artificially.

The way out of the crisis will depend on the rate at which we can vaccinate the population and regain control of the epidemic. I believe that the best recovery plan is one that allows people to work.

swissinfo.ch: You place a lot of hope in vaccinating the population. However, compared internationally, the Swiss are particularly sceptical about the Covid vaccine. Are you going to get vaccinated in public to set an example?

G.P.: Of course Im going to get vaccinated, and Im prepared to do it in the middle of a football stadium if necessary (laughs). Vaccination is a civic act towards people at risk and it is the best way to quickly return to a certain normality.

That said, the fears and questions of part of the population are perfectly legitimate. The Swiss authorities will demonstrate maximum transparency over the coming months, both on the composition and effectiveness of this vaccine and on its possible side effects.

swissinfo.ch: As president, you will also be expected to report on the institutional framework agreement with the EU if this is successful. Are you ready to put your signature at the bottom of this document in Brussels?

G.P.: Before signing this agreement, the negotiations and discussions currently underway must be completed. The government will take note of this and then decide on the way forward. If there is the outcome you mention, the Swiss president should in principle initial the document.

swissinfo.ch: You will then be completely at odds with your party, the Swiss Peoples Party, which steadfastly rejects this agreement.

G.P.: Every cabinet minister represents the views of a political party. But then discussions take place, decisions are taken and they are supported by the entire government. This is called collegiality. In this particular case, it will be no different. When you are elected to the government, you know the rules of the game. If you dont want to stick to them, you shouldnt run for election.

Translated from French by Thomas Stephens

See more here:

New president says Switzerland 'always puts the health of its population first' - swissinfo.ch

The outcome of elections of 1967 gave a staggering blow to Congressdominance and generally considered as an important turning point in Indiaspolitics by putting an end to the era of one Party dominance. In this electionalthough Congress retained a bare majority in the Parliament-284 in a house of520 but it was unseated in eight out of sixteen state Assemblies including thepopulous heartland States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Party lost itsdominance in other six States- West Bengal, Orissa, Madras, Kerala, Rajasthanand Punjab. Latent social forces were coming to the fore in the states. It wassignificant that new tendencies were appearing not at the national but at theregional level. This shift of centre of gravity of public life from the centreto the periphery marked a qualitative change in politics. Integrative politicsof the kind that was needed for nation building in the past at the all-Indialevel is now needed in the states. In other words, they required politicalleadership of a high order in terms of vision and skills.

Beginning ofchallenges for federalism

In this newenvironment the issue of federalism came to be affected more by the ideologicalposition, political strategy and support base of the new governments. It wasfound that many of the coalitions, in the face of urge for power of theirpartners, joined hands only in opposition to Mrs. Gandhis government, but weresharply divided on the vital issue of Centre- State relations. In regards twoschools of thought were identified; one stands for a thorough re-examinationand introduction of amendments of far-reaching importance in the Constitutionso that Centre-State relations could be rearranged to suit the needs of thechanged political context and its unitary bias could be shed. The other school,however, does not consider all this necessary, and was content with a generalreappraisal of the Constitution which may admit of a broad review ofCentre-State relations within the existing Constitutional framework. Adescriptive hypothesis which perhaps best summed up the then situation was thatcooperative federalism in India having lost support base in the Congress systemwas in search of a new anchorage amidst pressures of democracy, nationaldevelopment, regional growth and State autonomy.

But above all the emergence of coalition politics had brought forward anew power equation in which smaller states have found important position in thefederal governance. Without going into the theoretical position of greaternationalism, lesser nationalism, little nationalism, and the like one candraw the conclusion that in the newly created political arrangement, smallerstates with greater political capability in the field of power manipulation canplay a very decisive role in the federal process. The experiences that theIndian state has gained over the years show that all types of regional or localissues create situations for the emergence of new types of demands-sometimesdemand for autonomy and sometimes the creation of the state. Among the pointsof growing tension in India federalism is the feeling in some communities thattheir cultural message for the world at large is not being promoted. Someothers have grievances in economic matters. In the changed situation the Centremust learn to play an effective mediatory role even as it continues tosafeguard the countrys integrity and independence. But since regionalmovements struggling for greater expression also wish to uphold the nationalidentity, the country is now in a position to move forward constructively inre-ordering CentreState relations. It can also play a more creative role infurthering the emergence of new global institutions and values.

Relation amongparties

From thefunctional point of view it may be noted that there have been sharp changes inthe relationship between the Congress Party and other non-Congress regionalpolitical parties. It is true that in most of the cases, before the emergenceof coalition politics and because of the dominant position of the Congress Party,the local or the regional parties did not enjoy any influential authority inthe total political process. But there have been significant changes since 1967and a climate of bargaining politics had taken its roots and in this processlocal or regional parties have been able to come forward with their agenda ofaction. It was for the first time that the hegemonic position of the Congresswitnessed opposition from regional or local political parties. It may not be anexaggeration to say that the seeds of regionalization of Indian politics hadbeen sown during the 4th General Elections. Looking from the pointof view of socio-economic configuration, it may be seen that a new social andeconomic class, mostly in the middle order, emerged and began to exercise theirinfluence in the policy making process. No longer the issue of relativeautonomy of states found favor with the national political parties and in itsplace the politics of bargaining came to the surface in which states began toassert themselves in the federal governing process.

Federalism andviews of parties

The newenvironment encouraged political parties of the time to speak in favour andagainst of the nature of Indian Constitution. Among the parties the erstwhileJana Sangh and present Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has stood for a centralisedfederalism. By its theory of Hindu revivalism it favoured a strong nationalgovernment. It was of the view that only a powerful national government was thesolution for checking the fissiparous tendencies threatening nationalintegration and encouraging foreign invasion. Therefore, the BJP propagated theidea that in the interest of nation and preserving national unity it stood forsome kind of a decentralised unitary system in place of federal set up. TheLeft Parties wanted a system of governance which would ensure substantialautonomy to the states. The Socialists, despite their awareness of the need forsubstantial regional autonomy, were in favour of a strong national governmentboth for the maintenance of national unity and the accomplishment of concrete,time- bound socialist programme. Of all the regional political parties, DMK andAIADMK, the Akali Dal and later on AGP in Assam demanded more devolution ofauthority for the regions. The changes brought about since 1967 had created asituation where there have been radical changes in the party positions all overthe country. With the emergence of the Non-Congress government in severalstates and reduction in the Congress strength in Parliament after the 1967General Elections the position of the states vis-a-vis the Union wasstrengthened. In 1968, the Communist Party of India stood for changes in thefederal constitution of the country so as to divest the union government of itsoverriding powers to interfere in the affairs of the states and in order towiden the autonomy of states especially in the matter of finance and stateeconomy. In line the CPI (M) favored widest autonomy for the various statescomprising the Indian federation.

(Author is Professor and Head, Department ofPolitical Science, B.N.Mandal University, Bihar)

Read the original post:

Relation between Federalism and Indian Party System - Rising Kashmir

BBC Scotlands newly appointed political editor, Glenn Campbell, wasted little time in signalling his gratitude for his lofty new position. In a tweet on Monday, he provided the future coordinates for the corporations tongue in respect of the UK Labour leaders fundament. This will get lost in the turmoil of today but Keir Starmers speech on redesigning UK could come to be seen as a hugely significant moment in our constitutional debate, which is why the staunchest Unionists/nationalists will seek to trash it.

Campbell is a classic BBC apparatchik whose main qualifications for the job (as with all his predecessors) are longevity,obsequiousness to senior politicians, and the ability to walk and read an autocue at the same time. Hell not be expected to break any new stories; no fresh or original political perspective will be demanded of him. Like those who went before him, hell have been given a standard issue pen-knife for the purposes of extracting skelves from all the fences upon which hell be expected to sit.

Campbells tweet afforded Starmers speech on re-hashed federalism (part 67 in a series) a respect it failed to merit. Worse than this, it channelled the kind of supercilious contempt that Scotlands political classes reserve for those who exhibit any kind of passion about politics.

READ MORE:'Blatant propaganda': BBC slammed for pro-Tory 'bias' in climate change story

If you are pro-Scottish independence and feel, after many years of incoherent ideas about federalism, that it fails to meet your aspirations for Scotland, you now know where you stand with BBC Scotlands political department: you are to be considered staunch and your opinions thus deemed to be worthless.

Starmer, of course, is a dream come true for the BBCs political journalists on either side of the Border. He is of Tony Blairs vanilla left, which is to say that his radicalism stretches no further than being sufficiently left of the Conservatives to justify the role of opposition leader. And thence to retain it until such times as the electorate simply tires of the Tories and makes him prime minister instead.

He wont exhibit any of Jeremy Corbyns alarming tendencies actually to promulgate core Labour values around collectivism, trade union rights and seeking a fair share in the nations wealth for those who produce it: the actual workers. The BBC, chiefly through the grotesque and unprofessional bias of its UK political editor, sought to portray Corbyn as an extremist while failing to show him any measure of the respect, bordering on sycophancy, she accords Conservative administrations. This permits her unfettered access to those fabled Downing Street sources. Her predecessor, Nick Robinson, deployed a similar degree of unprofessional partiality in his coverage of the 2014 referendum.

Thus, Starmer is a sufficiently safe Labour leader who will give no cause for alarm to the BBC or those print barons who control the right-wing press and whose duty it is to assemble firing squads when anyone gets dangerously close to threatening the UK legislature with something approaching socialism.

He is also a gift to those within the Labour Party who seek an easy life and the opportunity to solicit greasy handshakes on their progress through Parliament for the purposes of ensuring a tidy wee lordship or a few non-execs. Over the last two decades, these have been the ultimate career goals of most of Scotlands Labour grandees.

Federalism neatly encapsulates Labours race to the middle without making a nuisance of itself to vested interests. It sounds interesting and a little thrilling, implying as it does a radical challenge to the existing constitutional arrangements. Of course, its not really. Proper federalism brings parity of esteem economically and culturally and rests on the willingness of an enlightened government to reinforce it with the instruments and finances for regional authorities to flourish.

Nothing in the present Tory administrations direction of travel suggests theyd grant anything like this. Meanwhile, the presence of London, a city state behemoth whose population alone swallows up that of the second-largest constituent country of the UK, renders the concept obsolete. In the hands of a Labour Party absolutely committed to employees rights in the workplace and trade union activism, then who knows perhaps it might be made to work after a fashion.

But Starmer, and those other fake Labour politicians, have already shown us what they were all about in this respect. Even as Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 was securing more votes than Tony Blair did in his last two elections, they were seeking to undermine him. Against all odds and the combined forces of the UK establishment, the BBC and most of the press, Corbyn destroyed Theresa Mays seemingly impregnable majority and came within a whisker of defeating her. If Starmer and Stephen Kinnock and the rest of their treacherous gang had shown loyalty to their leader instead of actively campaigning against him, theres every chance that under a Corbyn premiership the UK would already have departed Europe with a statesmanlike deal with the EU.

READ MORE:Covid variant border chaos has exposed Brexiteer's 'sovereignty' as fantasy

Nor did it take long for Gordon Brown to be wheeled out again to reinforce Starmers message. Brown, the former iron chancellor, is now reduced to the role of an old performing circus clown whose old-fashioned act sparks feelings of nostalgia among the grandparents. That the centrists of London Labour still believe him to be a touchstone for pro-Union sentiment in Scotland betrays the fundamental ignorance of the party about Scottish politics and the dynamics which have produced 17 successive opinion polls indicating clear majority support for independence. The reliance on Brown is just part of this long flight of ignorance. The other is that Labour simply needs to get its act together in Scotland to reclaim its hinterlands and thus skewer the SNP. That ship, though, sailed a long time ago. It fails to acknowledge that the SNP first defeated Labour in Scotland 13 years ago, when Blair was still in power.

The political dynamic of the UK has changed so radically in the space of six years that ideas around federalism are now about as radical and profound as a department stores 10% discount. In terms of a serious challenge to the embedded corruption at the heart of the UK gangster state, Scottish independence is the only game in town, as it has been since 2014.

Starmers federalism intervention came after he had failed to urge Boris Johnson to seek an extension on trade negotiations with the EU. Of greater concern to Labour voters across the UK is their leader continuing in his role effectively as Boris Johnsons minister without portfolio.

Read the original here:

Kevin McKenna: New BBC political editor wasted no time taking seat on the fence - The National