Much of the debates and talks may be found here and I plan to post up a fair bit of the material during the next couple of days.
To begin with, the most interesting speech for me was entitled ”The Future of the Union” delivered by Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit.
He starts by making this undoubtedly true statement:
For the first time I think the Union is in danger: but the danger to the Union lies from within, from clumsy defence by unionists, more than the challenges from the nationalists without.
Gordon Brown and Labour’s ham-fisted attempts to define Britishness, the disaster over Alexander unilateral attempt to "bring it on” and the never-ending PR losses at the hand of Salmond and the minority SNP adminstration are just three examples of where panic over the Union’s present direction has resulted in ill-thought out strategies and actions, which have had the opposite effect intended.
Hazell finishes by highlighting the five Cs required if the Union is to be defended: consent, custodianship, constitutionality, consistency, and confidence.
Is there consent for the Union to continue?
The only way to find that out is by having referendums asap in all parts of the UK.
The UK government is the “main custodian of the union” and as such, should start thinking more critically at the best methods (irrespective of the effect on either the party or personal political careers)with which they may carry out the obligations and responsibilites associated with that role.
Hazell says “It needs to uphold the principles of constitutionality in the path to
independence for Scotland.” I don’t think they really have any choice on that one, but we should have a closer impartial examination and publication of what would be the constitutional effects in the event of a break-up of the UK; e.g. let’s get a clear opinion from the EU on the scenario in the event of Scotland declaring independence.
The last 2 "c"s are for me the most important:
Consistency and Confidence.
Hazell translates “consistency” as treating fairly all the devolved governments- I’d widen that- there needs to be a greater consistency between all four parts of the UK in areas such as health, educational fees and also in constitutional rights (ie the granting of a referendum on devolution for the one part of the nation so far denied it, England).
And last of all, "confidence"- why on earth do Brown, Straw, Alexander and co give the impression that the Union is on its last legs? The Union does not depend on the survival of Mr Bottler, nor indeed Labour winning the next election. Barring a miracle, both Wales and Northern Ireland are not going to plump for separation anytime soon and even if Salmond gets his wetdream of an "English" Conservative government he still has to win the referendum, but the impression that the political elite are running scared of even putting the question to the electorate is doing the SNP's work for them. As Hazell points out, the Union rests "on much broader and firmer foundations than the government seems to realise". Time for them to stop the headless chicken act and start preparing for something that is going to happen sooner or later- another truism from Hazell is that the greatest danger to our nation is not that the nationalists will win the referendum, but that the Unionist establishment will lose it through their incompetence and downright cowardice.
8 comments:
I think we can safely assume you don't like the Devolution Experiment! :-)
Tim
there needs to be a greater consistency between all four parts of the UK in areas such as health, educational fees
Um....doesn't that basically mean abolishing devolution! Bit hard to say "Yes you can have your devolutions, but you can't change anything unless England changes it first"
No, it doesn't mean abolishing devolution - but it does mean that if any part of the UK want to provide better services such as reducing or scrapping education fees then they will have to do it out of their own resources, and not just expect the English to cough up.
The English don't resent better services elsewhere in the UK, they resent paying for the better services elsewhere whilst simultaneously being denied simple requests for parity.
The only way some form of United Kingdom will continue is if the English stop being treated as second-class citizens whose views can be ignored.
Right now of course Alex Salmond who is playing an absolute blinder by weeping mock tears at the injustice done to the English. We're not stupid, we know full well it's a cynical act, but crucially, it's still far preferable to the colonial attitudes of the Scottish Raj under Gordon Brown.
Gordon Brown is a typical Scots Unionist in that he believes that the Union benefits Scotland and so he is in favour of it purely out of Scottish self-interest. There is no Unionist "We", just a Scottish "We" whose interests are paramount.
If Oil had been discovered off the coast of England in the 1970s do you think the first reaction of the English would have been "Sod off the rest off you, we don't need you any more so we're leaving"? And yet that seems to have been the immediate response of a sizeable portion of the Scottish population. Let's just say it speaks volumes...
Ach if only oil was never discovered, we would be happy to be tame northern Englishmen. Aye right!
The level of intellectual absolutism hits even greater highs with these comments;
"and not just expect the English to cough up."
"The English don't resent better services elsewhere in the UK, they resent paying for the better services elsewhere"
Seems like someone is under the mistaken impression that the English pay our way. Oh dear, and the extra 4 billion from recent oil price rises is only on top of the rest of of Scottish money going to subsidise UK inc. Are you even aware that a tiny nation of 5 million subsidised the greater part of 60 million throughout the eighties and into the nineties?
"a tiny nation of 5 million subsidised the greater part of 60 million throughout the eighties and into the nineties"
Care to comment on the other nearly 3 centuries?
Or that preceding the creation of the Barnett Formula Scotland had a privileged position for over a 100 years thanks to the Goschen Formula?
My point still stands.
Your point stands in the mire auld pal. You were miffed that the English have to pay for us. Shows your level of knowledge on the subject though doesn't it.
>>Care to comment on the other nearly 3 centuries?<<
Certainly!
Think if you will that much of everything we use today, and take for granted was invented by Scots. Our brains and often our brawn has meant that Brittania really did rule the waves. The clydebuilt trademark and Scottish engineers. The fact that Scots, de-facto ran the British empire, for good or ill. Though it is rather unfair that the stigma is solely placed at England's door. Our fighting men, though at times no match for the Irish in numbers in the British army, are renowned for winning many a battle, in fact saving the day all too often.
I'd say we have more than payed our way. Wouldn't you?
The barnett formula ensures that under populated parts of Scotland still has the barest of services. They are much more expensive to run in under populated areas. Put it this way put us in charge of our own income, no arguments then.
"You were miffed that the English have to pay for us."
Re-read what I said.
I don't object to paying for the same services, I object to paying for superior services that are simultaneously denied my fellow English.
You can see why Neil Ascherson (sp?) had to tell Gordon Brown that "Fair Play" was an English attribute and not a "British" one.
>>Re-read what I said.<<
Funny I'd recommend the same to you, and just to help I've quoted the pertinent bits in my opening comment.
Bit early for revisionism, surely?
On your current point, it is not the fault of the Scots, Welsh or even *gulps* Irish that our governments/administrations are catering to their people, and yours is not. Vote English democrat.
Post a Comment