The Calman Commission was set up to review the workings of devolution to date and to make proposals for how it could be improved in the further. Or, actually, to be more accurate, to review the workings of devolution in Scotland to date and any proposals made are restricted to north of the Hadrian's Wall- that's its main weakness for me as a UK Unionist; if we are a unified nation, then even with the deeply flawed system of asymmetrical devolution, governance cannot be changed in any part of the United Kingdom without it having a knock-on (and usually detrimental effect) elsewhere. So when the Commission talks of devolution being a "great success", it's talking specifically about its outworking in Scotland and even there, that subjective judgement has been thrown up (possibly to keep the arch-devolutionists quiet) without a great deal of collaborating evidence.
Moving onto details; the assertion that in a nation state defence and foreign policy should remain unified should be so self evident as to preclude any further debate; Salmond's attempts to prove otherwise to date have reminded me of the nuclear-free zones set up the likes of Camden Council at the height of the Cold War, ie the propaganda effect at home greatly outweighs any tangible, minimal benefit in the big, wide world at large. Similarly, in an unified state, it is quite clearly nonsense to believe that any kind of effective autonomous immigration or employment-health and safety law is desirable or practical- in the former, unless the SNP decide to instigate their own border controls at Gretna, then immigrants entering the UK at any point of entry in the nation need, in the interests of fairness and security, to be treated in a consistent fashion. And in dealing with the latter,well, in the immortal words of Basil Fawlty, we're all apart of the "Common Market" (sic) now anyway and that's the legislature where those aspects of our everyday life are decided. Devolved civil service simply means devolved not less bureaucracy and so in terms of governance there is no evidence to support its beneficial effect- once again the Commission was merely stating the obvious.
(To be continued)
2 comments:
Concerning immigration, as you rightly say there is no point in having border control within a state. However this does unofficially operate within the UK already and has done so before devolution.
Hence "police control" on flights and ferries coming from (as they are now less interested in going to) NI. I know quite a few Scottish people - some with no Irish heritage - who have been subject to questioning by this procedure.
Even with the end of the troubles, this still goes on. The plods are particularly interested in picking up people who entered the Republic, crossed the border and is travelling to other parts of the UK from Northern Ireland. 1000 illegal immigrants have been arrested alone travelling from NI to Scotland on the Larne to Stranraer ferry this way alone.
So internal controls are very much in operation. As you should have noticed when travelling between NI and the rest of the UK with the goons from Met special branch standing at their desks in domestic arrivals for NI at Heathrow.
Strangely, in the last years of the union between Serbia and Montenegro there were different immigration laws in the two countries. Serbia for many years demanded visas from nearly everyone whilst Montenegro was visa free. Serbia enforced its laws by random checks on its border with Montenegro. Of course in the last years the two countries had different currencies as well (the Dinar and the Euro!).
Defence - fair enough no argument (although from 1871-1918 Germany had four seperate armies - Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Saxony - under the supreme command of the Kaiser - the Prussian army contained the units from the smaller states such as Hamburg, but these smaller states could award their own medals to their own units)
Concerning foreign policy - it should be the same. However there are some minor leeways. I would like the Scottish government (with the UK government's permission) to have the powers to make international treaties and sub-nations (a power granted to German states at the moment).
Also (already sort of in force with the Scottish rep in the Washington embassy) some seperate trade/skilled immigrant promotion officers assigned by the Scottish government within selected UK missions. Not controversial as Australian states have these guys - they are called "Agent-Generals" and operate out of mini-embassies in London - originally named "South Australia House" "New South Wales" etc. Usually they are accredited to the EU as well.
The Quebeckers also have one - called the Delegate-General.
(From 1871-1918 as part of the German union deal, Bavaria and Wurtemburg also had their own consular service operating alongside the Imperial foriegn service).
Concerning employment law, health and safety and most areas of commerce, then there should be one law within the UK.
Strangely environmental law - leaning into health and safety - is different in Scotland and was before devolution. For example fridges and freezers in Scotland in shops, resturants etc have to be 5 degrees colder than in England. As I say, this was the law in the those halcyon pre-devolution days! (My student-job as a kitchen hand!)
So internal controls are very much in operation. As you should have noticed when travelling between NI and the rest of the UK with the goons from Met special branch standing at their desks in domestic arrivals for NI at Heathrow.
Not so much today as during the Troubles, but yes, there are internal controls. However they're internal and so primarily not concerned with immigration, but security/defence which is dealt with and whatever happens will continue to be dealt with) at the centre. Actually, when i read this part of the report, in was scratching my head a bit, this immigration power is not something I've read the SNP as demanding. So why mention it at all?
(Part 2 coming soon)
Post a Comment