MORE power needs to be devolved to the English regions to help bolster the United Kingdom, a senior Welsh Labour MP says this morning.
Oh dear, another one’s who’s od-ed on the Xmas Sherry.
In case you haven't noticed, devolving powers from the sovereign parliament has not help "bolster the United Kingdom" to date and as Ian Lucas himself admits:
...the current devolution settlement "plays into the hand of separatists".
Of course it does...so you're now going to solve the problem by "devolving" even more?
Baldrick’s obviously also now advising Welsh Labour in their own struggle with the separatists.
Labour needs to be clearer about the benefits of devolution and why it believes in it, Mr Lucas says, arguing that giving away some powers allows regional differences to flourish while a "common approach to problems we all share" can continue at Westminster level.
The only people who are now 100% absolutely and enthusiastically crystal clear about the "benefits of devolution" are Plaid Cymru, the SNP, Sinn Fein and the DUP; I wonder why?
"Devolution debates have played into the hands of separatists who see devolved powers as a precursor to the formal break-up of the United Kingdom,"
There's your answer.
The party can win the argument on devolution as an end in itself – rather than a stepping-stone to independence – by stressing it is an “efficient” form of Government that improves people’s quality of life, he says.
"Devolution" as an efficient form of government?
Creating another layer of governmental adminstration and bureacracy has led to more constitutional fragmentation, higher salaries for self-important, fat-cat politicians and made some stationary retailers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales a lot of cash- it has not cut red-tape, made "our" "local" "public" representatives more accountable, less corrupt or cost-effective; if "efficiency" is the basis that they’re planning to win the argument on devolution, then they’re cream-crackered before they’ve even started.
Economic growth has coincided with devolution for Wales, he says, and this is "no accident".
No, it isn’t an accident. The UK as a whole has done not too bad at all economically in the last ten years, although Wales, if anything, appears to be doing comparitively less well. That’s what Adam Price keeps on saying anyway.
He adds, "In Scotland and in Wales, Labour has been hamstrung by failing to present a compelling devolutionist alternative. We need to make clear that we believe in the United Kingdom and that we will improve the present settlement."
Quite possibly that’s because there isn’t one. Independence makes more sense (politically, if not socially and economically) than devolution. One sovereign parliament based at Westminster makes more sense politically, socially and economically- if you truly still believe in the concept of the United Kingdom that is. Three Mickey Mouse parliaments with varying levels of authority and responsibilities shared with Westminster makes no sense politically, socially or economically.
Mr Lucas sits on the steering group drawing up the terms of reference for the Convention that will test the public appetite for a further referendum on Welsh devolution. He recently argued that the union flag should be redrawn to include the Welsh dragon.
Ah right, so he was the one, not much more really needs to be said then about Mr Lucas and his wacky ideas to keep the UK a united kingdom.
3 comments:
A classic case of someone simply not understanding what the UK actually is - a 300 year old political union, not a simple nation state.
A key issue that almost everyone manages to ignore - or simply miss - is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it it's Sunday name)is pretty unique in the world of nation states. That's because its not a Nation state, in the sense that anyone else would understand. Its only accepted because its been around a long long time, and most other countries find this Britain/England/Scotland thing something for the too hard box.
The UK is a political assemblage of two Kingdoms (England, Scotland), a Principality (Wales) and a Province (Northern Ireland). It used to be three kingdoms and a Principality, but Eire choose to dissolve its political ties to the rest of the UK over 80 years ago.
The best way of looking at the UK is that it was a very early form of the European Union - formed in 1707 - and then added to in 1800, as a economic and political union to do two things - prevent war, and promote free trade through a single currency. Sound familiar? Yep - Jean Monet was 250 years late in coming up with the idea of free trade zones and economic growth through free movment of goods, services and people.
And what's the Pound Sterling - a 300 year old version of the Euro.
But the key issue is that Scotland - and England - remained - and remain - separate nations within a political union. Quite unlike anything you would see in the USA, although US states have many more political and economic powers over their affairs than anything that the current Scottish Parliament has.
There are a couple of crucial differences though - Law - quite separate, its Scots Law, and English law (no such thing as British law), and religion. Scotland and England have different National religions, which define both their outlooks on life. An the fact that the core bit of the UK (unwritten) constitution is the 1707 act of union, which defines the two nations separateness, at the same time as combining them politically.
To the chagrin of quite a few Jacobites - both then and now - in many ways Scotland benefited from the Union on the 18th and 18th century - it had access to huge markets for goods and service, free movement for its labour and the ability for its politicions to drive the growth of an empire without having to take full responsibility for its serious downsides.
However many of the old supporters of the Union - for the reasons above - are now questioning the need for the UK in a modern 21st Century Europe. The sort of benefits that the UK used to supply - especially access to markets and capital, and free movement of labour have long gone, subsumed within a much wider European trade zone.
It's also clear that smaller EU nations - such as Ireland, Finland, Sweden and even Iceland have many more fiscal and economic tools at their disposal to ensure that their populace are ready to face up to the challenges of of developing modern, open, knowledge based economies than anything that can be seen coming out of Westminster. Look at some of these Nations - Finland, 600 years under Swedish rule, then Russian, then existing almost as a Soviet satellite - now one of the worlds most progressive countries. If you follow the logic of UK Unionist politicians it should be clamouring to for full economic and political union with Sweden, Or Russia.
If you follow that same reasoning Canada and Mexico should also be beating at the doors of the White House, desperate for membership of the US. Oh, and not much eveidene of Ireland wanting to re-join the UK.
As we say in Scotland - Aye Right.
That's what is really annoying more and more people in Scotland today. The argument that Scotland needs to remain in the Union to ensure that we get the cash that the Union brings, and that Independence would bring fiscal ruin.
This same Union that has ensured that Scotland has lower growth, lower GDP and lower population growth than any comparable northern European country! Some benefit - particularly on the back of 30 years of oil revenues that have been pissed away supporting UK political agendas (how else did Margaret Thatcher manage to "restructure" the UK's economic base in the 80's). Look at what Norway has done with its resources over the same time frame. Or look at what Iceland has done without Oil - a country so poor 50 years ago that most people were simply focused on simple subsistence...
The basic point here is that the vast majority of folk within Scotland consider themselves Scottish before British (and have increasingly done so since WW2 - the last time people felt "British"), and they more and more are starting to wonder as to the real advantages that the Union brings.
This same Union that has ensured that Scotland has lower growth, lower GDP and lower population growth than any comparable northern European country!
You're blaming the Union for the fact that Scots are having less babies ??!
Scotland (like NI) is too public-sector heavy, imo that's the reason for its less than sterling economic growth, whatever the country's future constitutional status that fact needs to be tackled first surely? And in order to do that as painlessly as possible the greater resources of the UK as a whole are needed.
The basic point here is that the vast majority of folk within Scotland consider themselves Scottish before British (and have increasingly done so since WW2 - the last time people felt "British"), and they more and more are starting to wonder as to the real advantages that the Union brings.
Unlike Gordon Brown, I see Britishness more as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-faith umbrella that we can all shelter under, to that extent how "British" people feel themselves to be is not that important as long as they still see some kind of political/economic/social benefit to that umbrella. And actually I also welcome the fact that people are questioning the worth of the United Kingdom, debate is good and I would also welcome "independence" referendums in all four parts of the UK because that will really concentrate minds on exactly what we all "get out" of the Union and what we would lose by going on our own separate ways.
I agree somewhat with part of Tearlach's thinking, but even though the union may have started out as a purely political and economical system, it evolved into so much more. The four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, over the past 300 years have a shared history that is interwoven into almost every corner of the country. The European Union may last 1000 years, but it will never ever become like the UK. Cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh have far more in common culturally with Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield or any other big British (English/Welsh/Northern Irish) city than they do with, for instance, the Western Isles or even Inverness, so I do invite any shade of nationalist (English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish) to show me what is so culturally different about their part of the UK. In the larger urban areas there is little to distinguish them as being vastly different, other than local quirks which make the UK almost unique, but could that be said of Paris and Berlin? I speak as a person who has spent time in all four constituent parts of the UK, but now lives away, so I have much experience.
There is nothing wrong with being Scottish, English etc. as well as British. The UK may have started out as a typical nation state made up of different countries, but I believe we became a country made up of four nations.
As for Canada and Mexico not beating down the door to join the US, well, I live here and I can tell you that a large minority of the Canadian business community would love to see political and economic union with the US. As for Mexico, I have little doubt that if a referendum was held down there tomorrow a huge majority of all the people would vote in favour, but the Mexican government knows the US does not want that, so it is not on the agenda.
Britons truly are unique in that we can celebrate our differences, but also understand our similarities, and long may that continue.
Post a Comment