"Let me make it one hundred percent clear: I am passionate about the Union. I don't want to be the Prime Minister of England. I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - all of it, including Scotland."
Throw in his, by now traditional, pledge to stem the "ugly stain of separatism" "seeping through the British flag" and on the face of it, you’ve got a true-blue, no surrender to the nats, Unionist speech.
But he also advocated/hinted at:
1.Trading off the abolishment of Barnett Formula for greater fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
2.English MPs only to vote on English matters:
"I am confident it will be possible to develop an arrangement whereby, when the House of Commons considers matters that affect only English constituencies, it is English MPs who have the decisive say."
3.(Inevitably) more powers for Holyrood via the Calman Commission.
In other words, attempting to strengthen the Union by disuniting it financially and constitutionally?
Tom Griffin in Our Kingdom:
Taken together, these would add up to a radical alteration of the UK's constitution. If the Conservatives are the party of the union, it may prove to be a very different union from the one that exists today.
In the best scenario, heading towards a federal state.
Brian Taylor at BBC Scotland:
Mr Cameron is tendering "respect" to the devolved mandate presently held by the SNP. In return, he is asking Mr Salmond to respect the UK reserved mandate which is held by the prime minister.
But think on a little. By legal definition, the Scottish devolved government has no remit across the UK, across England. By convention, the UK Government agrees to restrict its remit in Scotland to reserved matters - while, legally, retaining full power.
In practice, Mr Cameron is envisaging a situation where he seeks to govern the UK without a majority of MPs from one of the constituent nations of the UK, Scotland.
He is offering, in effect, to respect the convention which lies at the heart of the devolved settlement. To take no steps at Westminster, including on finance, which might countermand that devolved mandate.
It is a substantive offer.
In return, however, he is asking Alex Salmond to raise no objections to the Conservatives, with a Scottish minority, exercising reserved power in Scotland.
Again, that is an intriguing, thought-provoking offer, given that, under the post-devolution rules, the UK remit runs in Scotland, whatever the First Minister of the day says.
So, if no objections from Salmond, then yet more power devolved away from Westminster?
However, unlike Donald Dewar in 1992, Alex Salmond does not believe that the UK should have any remit in Scotland. That may, I feel, influence Mr Salmond's response, should the matter arise.
At the very least, he might well be tempted to raise more of a fuss about Conservative rule in Scotland, if only to advance his own cause.
So, if Salmond does object, then what?
Having proven his Unionist credentials, Cameron, with the requisite amount of regret of course, can start to reposition the Tories away from their traditional all-UK base and start to become, again the natural governing party of England. Both Salmond and Cameron end up winners, the Union the loser.
Now, which of these two senarios is most likely?
9 comments:
Depends whether Dave has a Scotland Secretary or not. Any clashes between the Scotland Secretary and Holyrood will likely to be portrayed as quasi-colonialism, particularly if it is over a devolved matter than lets say a reserved matter where Salmond can only exercise his mouth i.e. defence.
Looks like more powers are inevitable. We are probably going down the road of Edinburgh getting hold of few non-controversial taxes (such as stamp-duty) and an assigned share of income, sales and corporation taxes. Possibly even a share in mineral royalties!
What do you have against federalism by the way?
All rhetoric, no substance or policy (like Cameron in general).
What do you have against federalism by the way?
Where it works efficiently (eg Germany),it does so because there are no parts of the system where there is a large minority or majority wishing to pull away.
The question, as a Unionist, I ask myself is whether a federal UK would lead to the strengthening of links between the constituent parts of the UK- the answer to that has surely got to be "no"?
You might ask yourself why Germany does not have any sepratist movements despite the dubious circumstances (in can be interpreted anyway) which Bismark united Germany.
He militarily annexed some parts into Prussia in 1866 (Hanover, Schweslig-Holstein, Frankfurt, Nassau and Hesse-Kassel) and bullied most of the rest into forming the North German Confederation. The four remaining states (Bavaria, Wurttemburg, Hessen-Dramstadt and Baden) were excluded from the Confederation but were militarily allied to it.
After the Franco-Prussian War Bismark bribed the governments and heads of state (particuarly the Bavarian king) to accept unification under Prussia. There was of course the threat of military action if they did not play ball.
Bismark however recognised that for the country to hold together it had to be a federation. I might add that Prussia in the new state had something like two-thirds of the territory and 60% of the population of the new nation.
The model he set up for the Confederation was largely adopted as the new imperial constitution. He gave concessions to sensitivities of the some of states allowing Bavaria, Saxony and Wuttemburg to keep their own armies (under the supreme command of the Kaiser during wartime), Bavaria and Wuttemburg kept control of their post-offices (only abolished under Weimar), Bavaria and Wuttemburg had their own dedicated consular service operating within the imperial embassies, Bavaria kept control of its own raiway, Bavaria, Hesse-Dramstadt and Wuttemburg maintained control of duties levied on domestically produced spirits and beer.
Now Germany has become centralised since then. However there has never really been any serious sepratist discontent in the country despite this because Bonn/Berlin has always granted large measures of autonomy and does not go out to bully states.
Of course this is helped by the fact that the state governments collectively sitting in the upper house the Bundesrat can veto government legislation if it annoys them. Best to keep them sweet.
Also Germany has never been as centralised as the UK (except during the Nazi period when Adolf shut the state governments down taking precedent from one of his predecessors who closed down the Prussian government when he did not agree with it).
Berlin/Bonn has never demanded complete politcal and economic obedience like London has. Indeed whilst London dominates the UK politically (particularly before devoultion), transport-wise, shipping-wise, financial services wise and media wise, this has never been for much of the time the case in Germany - particularly not the old West Germany.
In Germany apart from the state governments, the federal government is shared out between Bonn and Berlin (preventing M25itis) with a number of important institutions (such as the Federal Police) headquartered in other parts of the country.
The media is shared out regionally. The main media hubs are Frankfurt, Mainz and Hamburg. Munich also has great influence.
Transport - flying from Frankfurt. Shipping from Hamburg and little brother Bremen.
Finance - Frankfurt.
I might add (this might shock you) that the Laendar governments control something that Salmond has not demanded yet. Control of the internal intelligence services.
In Germany the federal government (due to their control of foreign affairs) control the German equivalent of MI6, the BNS (Federal Intelligence Service).
However the tasks of MI5 are controlled the intelligence services of the state governments. The are uniformally called "Deparment/Office for the Defence of the Constitution". Intelligence gathering inside Germany is largely left to them.
There is co-operative body in Cologne where these 16 spyrings can share information. The Federal government has been wanting for years to get control of all internal intelligence but the state governments keep telling them to sod off.
Now you think that this is crazy - that the Mayors of Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen run their own spy outfits but that is the way it works. The state governments point out that having a national internal service has not been a happy experience - i.e. the Genheime Staats Polizei (work out the acronym) and the STASI in the old east Germany.
I am sure you will say that West Germany/unified Germany does not face the threats or problems the UK has/does face. Well remember the Cold War, the Red Army Faction, Neo-Nazis, possible radicals in the Turkish community etc
I am sure you will say that West Germany/unified Germany does not face the threats or problems the UK has/does face
The threats you mention (with possible exception of the Cold war which was externally imposed anyway) did not weaken the unity of Germany.
Federalism doesn't threaten the unity of the nation in some cases(Germany the US, Australia), in others it does (Spain and Canada).
The differences between the former and the latter is the non-existance of regional nationalism- that being the case would a federal system in the Uk strengthen or weaken the integrity of the state?
Federalism did not weaken Canada, it was the problems over language. It is only the last forty years that French has had parity with English in Canada, even in Quebec where in Montreal the city was dominated economically by an Anglophone elite.
Throw in various problems such as the extremely malign influence of the Orange Order in Canadian for much of the country's history which spent its time beating on French-speaking Catholics. Indeed several early Tory Canadian Prime Ministers were Orangemen including Sir Alf Tupper who was Grand Master.
You would agree hardly a happy arrangement. During World War I was there was conflict in Canada over Francophone Canadian soldiers being put into English-speaking regiments after the military chief (yes an Orangeman) refused to create more battallions of the standing Francophone regiments as considered Francophones to be disloyal - apparently.
This eventually caused a mutiny amongst Francophone troops.
For the record federalism was the reason that Canada came together in the first place. Most of the provinces would have not signed up for unity if there had not been federation.
John A McDonald, the first Prime Minister and father of Canada, wanted devolution with the central government giving and taking away powers from the provinces as it saw fit. The Quebeckers led by George Cartier demanded and got federalism as he pointed out that Quebec wanted guaranteed powers in the new state, not autonomy that could be taken away at the stroke of a pen.
Vis a vis Spain, Spain is not a federation. It is devolution just like the UK. The only difference is that autonomy is guaranteed under the constitution unlike in the UK where powers can be given and taken away at a whim.
Do I think federation would be more stable than devolution. Yes. As it guarantees some sort of equality and autonomy. On the other hand I am ambivalent whether it would prevent independence. That is up to the actions of future.
Federalism doesn't threaten the unity of the nation in some cases(Germany the US, Australia), in others it does (Spain and Canada).
Not so with Canada, if anything federalism has kept the state together against the odds. With Spain it's a little early to say, but federalism didn't cause separatism - it was a reaction to.
Agree that federalism is more stable because it's not the 'slippery slope'. The limits and limitations of power for the peripheries and the centre are set out in a written constitution (which devolution does not require).
I'll bow to your superior knowledge re Canada. I'd welcome any suggestions on books relating to that part of their history.
A good reference point. Also Wikipedia gives a good chunk.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-History-Canada-Kenneth-McNaught/dp/0140149988/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212680067&sr=8-11
Post a Comment