There is a widespread assumption that a win by the Conservatives at the next general election will make it easier for the SNP to achieve independence, but the contrary view is that Calman will have reported long before then and may well recommend significant power transfers that will take the heat out of the separatists' argument. In addition David Cameron has made it plain that he is determined to safeguard the UK by not pandering to his "little Englander" wing and by putting the Union first.
In addition, an answer to the West Lothian Question - Scottish MPs voting on English domestic issues - may well be brought forward by an incoming Tory government proposing a further reduction in the number of Scottish MPs; their number has been cut from 72 to 59 since the establishment of the Parliament and a further significant decrease could assist in minimising English complaints.
According to my Nat friend, taken together these issues could yet prevent the break-up of the UK. "A few more concessions and independence might yet be a very long way off," he said.
My problem with this analysis is that if concession is piled upon concession about how Scotland is run, will we still be able to recognise it as part of the United Kingdom?
“No” is the simple answer to that question.
My main problem with the above analysis, from the Unionist point of view, is its pessimism:
We can only hold the United Kingdom together by constantly throwing out bribes and titbits to the rebellious Celts, whilst simultaneously keeping the restless English quiet by compensating them constitutionally and economically for the damage they’ve suffered under the Devolution Experiment?
Leaving aside the rather inconvenient conundrum of how we, as a collective body of taxpayers, manage the impressive latter financial juggling act, the nation described wouldn’t really be any longer United Kingdom would it?
There is, of course, an answer to all these problems, but it’s one that for the sake of political expediency you’re only hearing from a very few honest politicians and journalists...and me, of course;)
4 comments:
O'Neill
The two other major states )which use the term "united" are the USA and the UAE and they are federations.
And of course the laws within those countries differ from one part of it to another. For example Dubai is one the most liberal part of the Gulf whereas Sharjah is pretty ultra sharia (no booze allowed whilst Dubai allows you to buy the stuff at 18).
And of course the laws within those countries differ from one part of it to another
I don't know about the UAE, but surely in the US the Senate and the Congress have the ultimate authority over what the individual states legislatures? In the scenario Cochrane paints would that still be the case in the UK?
Back from short break -
You do not seem to grasp the concept of federalism. The US Congress is restricted to legislating only on certain areas in the constitution.
These powers of course deal with peace and war, currency, bankruptcy law etc.
Otherwise Washington has to keep its nose out of state affairs. States outside what powers they have delegated to the federal authorities are soveriegn. Hence the "Sovereign State of" etc.
Of course the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court can extend or contract federal power. Particularly in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
Hence one set of judges condemned the death penalty as "cruel and unusual punishment" - thus cancelling all death penalty statutes in the US at all levels - only for another court a few years later to declare the death penalty constitutonal as long as the way the death sentence was concluded to was carried out in fair manner - i.e. this meant that states could not have a mandatory death sentence for murder/certain types of murder like the UK had before abolition - but rather after guilt being ascertained, a second trial (a penlalty trial) heard a hearing on whether the person should be executed or not.
Another noted case was the court interpretating against segregation laws - once considered constitutional - allowing Lyndon Johnson the authority to challenge state laws.
Devolution is different from federalism. It assumes there is a leviathan body which delegates its powers down to subordinate bodies to carry out its tasks. The crown delegates its powers to the UK Parliament - the UK Parliament in turn delegates its powers to the Scottish Parliament, other devolved legislatures, UK government departments etc through statute.
You do not seem to grasp the concept of federalism.
There are many different federal systems throughout the world, you've defined merely the US, one which allows more autonomy to the States than for example occurs (I believe) in the German or Austrian system.
Post a Comment