This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/09/millennials-snp-sunday-trading-laws-problem-independence

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The SNP is voting against Sunday trading laws. Here’s why that’s a problem The SNP is voting against Sunday trading laws. Here’s why that’s a problem
(35 minutes later)
In one sense, I completely agree with the SNP’s decision to vote against the government’s proposed changes to Sunday trading laws tonight. Even if they had previously told the government they would keep out of it, it’s their job to represent their Scottish constituents. Yes, the proposed changes will only directly affect England and Wales, but the knock-on consequences may be significant: if the laws are liberalised south of the border, the SNP argue, the premium wages that Scottish workers can attract on a Sunday will be jeopardised. In one sense, I completely agree with the SNP’s decision to vote against the government’s proposed changes to Sunday trading laws tonight. Even if the party had previously told the government they would keep out of it, it’s their job to represent their Scottish constituents. Yes, the proposed changes will only directly affect England and Wales, but the knock-on consequences may be significant: if the laws are liberalised south of the border, the SNP argue, the premium wages that Scottish workers can attract on a Sunday will be jeopardised.
Granted, there is something a little weird in the optics of voting to deny your neighbours the same set-up you maintain in your own neck of the woods. And fine, maybe there’s a whiff of cynicism about the rationale espoused by MPs like the one who told the Telegraph that his “default position is that we should maximise the government’s discomfort”. And I see that you may be perplexed by the way that the SNP indicated that they would oppose the measures last year, causing them to be shelved, then indicated that they would wave them through, causing them to be brought back, and then decided at the last minute to blow them up. But in the end, who can argue with the default premise that significant changes in England and Wales are bound to affect life across the UK, and that an MP’s job is to represent her constituents’ interests in such matters, come what may? Granted, there is something a little weird in the optics of voting to deny your neighbours the same set-up you maintain in your own neck of the woods. And fine, maybe there’s a whiff of cynicism about the rationale espoused by MPs like the one who told the Telegraph that his “default position is that we should maximise the government’s discomfort”. And I can see that you might be perplexed by the way the SNP indicated that it would oppose the measures last year, causing them to be shelved, then indicated that it would wave them through, causing them to be brought back, and then decided at the last minute to blow them up.
But in the end, who can argue with the idea that significant changes in England and Wales are bound to affect life across the UK, and that an MP’s job is to represent their constituents’ interests in such matters, come what may?
Related: Sunday trading: Tory MPs eye ‘unholy alliance’ with SNP and LabourRelated: Sunday trading: Tory MPs eye ‘unholy alliance’ with SNP and Labour
It’s just this: that in general, it’s sort of the SNP who argue with that premise. And so this decision puts them in an extremely awkward position. The party’s recent form on the question of what they will vote on is knotty, to put a charitable spin on it: first Nicola Sturgeon’s reiteration of a “long-standing position” that the SNP would “not vote on matters that purely affect south of the border”, then asterisks against that position, for varying reasons of principle and political advantage, on matters as diverse as the NHS and foxhunting. You can decide for yourself whether this was opportunistic, or a flexible response to a changing political picture; either way, it was perfectly consistent with the arguments for independence. It’s just that, in general, it’s sort of the SNP who argues with that premise. And so this decision puts them in an extremely awkward position. The party’s recent form on the question of what it will vote on is knotty, to put it charitably: first Nicola Sturgeon’s reiteration of a “long-standing position” that the SNP would “not vote on matters that purely affect south of the border”, then asterisks against that position, for varying reasons of principle and political advantage, on matters as diverse as the NHS and foxhunting. You can decide for yourself whether this was opportunistic, or a flexible response to a changing political picture; either way, it was perfectly consistent with the arguments for independence.
This looks a bit different. The reason for the SNP’s change of heart is that they have been warned by the unions that big UK-wide employers will look to set new cross-border rates of pay, jeopardising the premium that Scottish workers currently enjoy on a Sunday. So, fine, intervene to protect your interests. But by doing so, you’ve implicitly acknowledged a crucial fact: sometimes, the English economy is so big and so distorting that it is bound to be in Scottish interests to try to have a say in how it runs – even if there is no direct impact on Scottish budgets. Independence wouldn’t disentangle the Scottish and English economies just like that: with a shared language, a shared culture, a shared history, and, so the SNP hope, a shared currency, all sorts of decisions taken in Westminster are bound to still have weight in the north. The biggest difference will be that Scottish politicians won’t have a say in them. When they march through the lobby with the Conservative rebels tonight, the SNP will be admitting that this might be a problem. In this instance, I don’t suppose anyone will really notice. But if they make a habit of it, they might jeopardise their future hopes by becoming exactly what they claim to despise: creatures of Westminster. But this Sunday trading decision looks a bit different. The reason for the SNP’s change of heart is that it has been warned by the unions that big UK-wide employers will look to set new cross-border rates of pay, jeopardising the premium that Scottish workers currently enjoy on a Sunday. So, fine, intervene to protect your interests.
But by doing so, you’ve implicitly acknowledged a crucial fact: that sometimes, the English economy is so big and so distorting that it is bound to be in Scottish interests to try to have a say in how it runs – even if there is no direct impact on Scottish budgets.
Independence wouldn’t immediately disentangle the Scottish and English economies: all sorts of decisions taken in Westminster are bound to still have weight in the north. The biggest difference would be that Scottish politicians wouldn’t have a say in them. When they march through the lobby with the Conservative rebels tonight, the SNP will be admitting that this might be a problem. In this instance, I don’t suppose anyone will really notice. But if they make a habit of it, they might jeopardise their future hopes by becoming exactly what they claim to despise: creatures of Westminster.