Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
5 comentarios:
Tenemos que luchar por una Admón y una función pública, de todos, regida por la Ley y la norma, que respete los principios de legalidad, igualdad, capacidad, mérito,…. Queremos que se destierre la arbitrariedad de unos pocos elegidos.
No puede ser que la mayor preocupación del funcionario que busca su promoción y carrera administrativa consista en la búsqueda del “padrino” protector. Toda la vida administrativa tiene que estar sometida al principio de legalidad y no sujeta al arbitrio de ningún designado, hombre de confianza por muchos carnets apropiados que tenga o lazos con quien ocupa la poltrona.
Y los sindicatos, ¿donde están?. En la Administración no sólo han abdicado de sus responsabilidades reivindicativas en pro de una Función Pca regida estrictamente por las normas, objetiva, transparente, limpia y profesional, sino que se han sumado a la carrera de la discrecionalidad, del reparto del botín de la Admón, del intercambio de cromos... Nadie representa menos al funcionario honrado, profesional y amante de la legalidad que los sindicatos. Es deprimente enterarse por el heraldo de que en 2009 percibieron 15 millones de la DGA, de la patronal, de los dineros de todos, y observar la situación funcionarial como está.
Los principios que deben caracterizar un Estado de Derecho, como el principio de legalidad, la seguridad jurídica, son con frecuencia ignorados,y en la función pública están sencillamente ausentes. Discrecionalmente parece ser la palabra clave. Los poderes públicos actuan habitualmente con unas grandes dosis de arbitrariedad y ésta debería ser administrada con mucha prudencia, sirviendo objetivamente a los intereses generales y con estricta interdicción de la arbitrariedad y del abuso de poder
NO OS PARECE INTERESANTE O INTERESADA LA PREOCUPACION DE LOS EMPRESARIOS -DE CEOE, CEPYME, ETC POR LA PRODUCTIVIDAD DE LOS FUNCIONARIOS. ¿SERÁ CORTINA DE HUMO PARA IMPEDIR QUE SE VEA QUE EN SUS EMPRESAS PRIVADAS NO SABEN RESOLVER ESE PROBLEMA?, ¿DE VERDAD CREEN QUE EL PRINCIPAL PROBLEMA DE LA FUNCION PUBLICA ES LA INDEFINIDA PRODUCTIVIDAD?..Y LA LEGALIDAD, LA EFICACIA, EFICIENCIA, DIGNIDAD , ETICA PUBLICA , CONDICIONES DE TRABAJO MERITO , CAPACIDAD , DERECHO DE ACCESO, POLITIZACION , ¡NO LES PREOCUPAN!!SORPRENDENTES DIRIGENTES EMPRESARIALES. ¿HABRÁ QUE DIRIGIRSE A ELLOS PIDIENDO QUE NOS EXPLIQUEN BIEN LO QUE PIENSAN.?....SIN MALOS HUMOS...
Publicar un comentario