The case was made for Scottish Devolution by portraying it as strengthening the Union. Those who made that case should have added a caveat – Devolution will only strengthen the Union if it is applied to every nation, and the longer we go on with Westminster as the de facto English Parliament, the longer we go on with the rot of resentment and misplaced umbrage.
A Scottish Conservative making a Unionist case for more powers for Holyrood and the establishment of an English Parliament is not something you read every day of the week- Andrew Morrison on Conservative Home does make a strong carefully considered argument for both; the "English Question", in particular, is something Unionists from the other three part of the UK tend to run away from and the more debate engendered by the likes of his post the better. The arguments for and against an English parliament (as with Scottish "Independence", further powers for the Welsh Assembly and even Irish "Unity") need to be heard more often and on a much more wider basis. I'd even go so far to say that in a democracy these arguments ultimately should be placed before the electorate in the form of referendums.
However, looking at it from a purely Unionist point of view, I believe he’s wrong in his main assertion and Unionists looking at any proposals to (as Morrison delicately puts it) further "tinker around" with our “constitution” need, I believe, to ask themselves two questions:
1. Will this add to the national cohesion of the United Kingdom?
2. Will this contribute to the better (efficient and effective) governance of the United Kingdom as a whole?
Would the addition of a fourth "parliament" and the inevitable further demotion of the status Westminster give a postive answer to these two questions?
In my opinion, no to both:
1. As Chekov points out here, the inequities inherent to the system of assymetrical devolution will not be solved by creating a new state of governmental imbalance. An English assembly or parliament would be catering for 85% of the population of the UK- would that lead to a stable federalist system or the slow petering out of the Union?
2. Michael Kenny and Guy Lodge in their contribution to “Breaking Up Britain” state that in "constitutional terms England is a state of mind not a state". What they mean here is, especially with the onset of devolution, England’s interests and needs are adequately reflected within the government of the United Kingdom as whole. Sort out Barnett and this will become a much stronger argument.
3. The earlier Devolution Experiments, as carried out in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, have failed in both creating a stronger national bond and in making the governance of the UK as a whole more efficient or effective. Can anybody seriously dispute both contentions?
4. An English parliament might be an answer to the present political lop-sidedness (sp?) of the UK but intra-English economic and social imbalances (eg between London and regions of the North-East) are as strong as the imbalances which exist between England as a whole and the other three components of the United Kingdom. Would an English parliament (with a natural bias towards the South-east in terms of population and representation) solve these imbalances any better than Westminster?
5. More layers of conflicting legislatures naturally create less, not more, efficient and effective governance.
But as I said before, it should be the public, not the politicians or political anoraks who must be deciding on this. Perhaps CEP and others should be concentrating more on that fundamental right, the right for the English electorate to express their choice via a referendum on the topic?
12 comments:
Your points are well made and you highlight most of the poingant issues. And you reach the right conclusion - whatever happens should only happen once endorsed by referendum.
In relation to the faulure of devolution mark 1 to settle the issue though, you fail to consider if this is not just down to nations, once they have tasted a little power, quite naturally wanting more? And whilst England joins the debate from a different starting point, the Unioists' problem is that, once England rediscovers its identity as a political unit its people might like it = so much so that they might be more than willing to trade more for them in excahange fro more for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland: The union might slowly dissapeear in all but name through this quite natural, civivlised, process.
So I kind of agree with you. Unioists should be wary of an English Parliament. But should you not be asking yourself why? Why your beloved union so relies on denying the biggest nation within it a autnomous political voice? Requires people in England to continue to regard Englishness and Britishness as the same thing (the cause of so much resentment in Scotland and Wales - and I guess even NI these days.)
And just intellectually wrong. A union based on a fundamental misunderstnding by its principal member!
The Campaign for an English Parliament are campaigning for a referendum to be put before the people of England giving us the same choice that was given Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, i.e. the right to rule ourselves as we see fit without outside interference.
And you're right about the loosening of the bonds of the Union - but wrong that the creation of a federal state will automatically mean that the Union is doomed.
I happen to think if England isn't granted equality soon then the Union is doomed, in which case I will get what I want automatically, namely an (independent) English Parliament.
We weren't the ones who let the devolution genie out of the lamp. We shouldn't be the ones forced to suffer the consequences. And you really are indulging in wishful thinking if you think that reform of the Barnett Formula will mean a return to sweetness and light!
Oh, and your assertion that the "English problem" can be solved by sorting out the Barnett Formula isn't just grossly insulting to our demands for democratic equality, it is also likely to be extremely problematic in more ways than one.
Hear! Hear!Wildgoose,tell it like it is.
"Oh, and your assertion that the "English problem" can be solved by sorting out the Barnett Formula isn't just grossly insulting to our demands for democratic equality, it is also likely to be extremely problematic in more ways than one."
I didn't say it would be "solved", I said that the argument that the Westminster parliament is de facto the English parliament (not a sitaution I would welcome) would stand on firmer ground. My impression is that the funding question is presently a hotter potato than the constitutional imbalance- the proof I'd offer for that is the fact that the Conservatives are putting it as top priority and political parties only generally prioritise those things which they think are vote-winners. At the minute they don't think the English parliament falls into that category- it's surely not insulting to point that out?!
On what the Conservatives will do if they form the next government, you have it back to front. The Conservatives are unlikely to deal with the Barnett formula because it is just too much of a hot potato with respect to Scotland, and they have given no commitment to do so. Certainly last year Cameron said it was broadly satisfactory - I am not aware that he has changed his tune on that (as you think he has, it is possible I have missed it).
On the other hand the last two Conservative manifestos have committed to dealing with the West Lothian Question, and their manifesto for the next general election is almost certain to do the same, by reference to something like the Ken Clarke proposal.
In the Hansard Society's Audit of Political Engagenment for 2008 (sorry no link but it is on their website) the WLQ came out top in dissatisfaction out of a number of questions put to survey participants (46% dissatisfied, 17% satisfied, remainder no preference/don't know). The survey seems to have been conducted in the UK as a whole, so one can presume that for England the figure for dissatisfaction would be higher - probably many of the no preferences were from those outside England and neutral on the point.
In due course something will have to be done about it. The spectre which haunts all this is what happens if there were a UK government of one party (or coalition of parties), and a different party holding a majority in England. I think it would be immensely destabilising if the government were to spend its five year term promoting laws for England only on housing, education, health, local government, etc which were opposed by the majority of members representing English constituencies and which could only be passed by whipping Scottish members in one division after another. People rightly would not stand for it. As unionists, we should be concerned about it.
WV
"Certainly last year Cameron said it was broadly satisfactory - I am not aware that he has changed his tune on that (as you think he has, it is possible I have missed it)."
Cameron said this last year:
http://tinyurl.com/l2hegw
Also Owen Paterson, their Shadow Sec for NI has recently dropped a similar big hint.
"As unionists, we should be concerned about it."
What would your solution be?
OK, thanks for the link. My bet though is that they would funk it, but let's see.
What would I do about the Barnett formula? Nothing. I think it is close enough to what a needs assessment might give - Scotland would lose something at the margins perhaps. What is need? A subjective tool for politicians to manipulate. In any event, getting a political consensus on how a needs formula would work would be next to impossible - certainly the SNP are not going to play ball.
What would I do about the WLQ? The Conservatives have the Ken Clarke proposal. My view is that the best solution is to provide that where a Bill or separate Part of a Bill relates to only a portion of the UK, it cannot pass its Third Reading in the Commons without both a majority in the House as a whole and a majority in the portion of the UK to which it relates, or unless it is passed again in the next session.
This is analogous to the power of the House of Lords to delay a Bill for a session. It is not a perfect solution but it would avoid the most egregious problems of policies being forced on people in England on devolved matters against their wishes.
Some political dimension for England is needed if we are ever to have a Prime Minister from Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland) again. Certainly the Calman Commission thought that some political identity for England was required - see paragraphs 2.13 to 2.15 of their report. My solution would be to make the S/S for Culture, Media and Sport the S/S for England with an additional portfolio of representing the views of England on UK issues. He would be something of a figurehead on that, but that doesn't fuss me particularly. It may fuss others.
I do not think an English Parliament is necessary, though I suspect that in the end - say 20 or 30 years - it will happen.
O'N:
By the way, you think an English Parliament is not necessary (a point on which I agree) but you also said in your earlier comments that "the argument that the Westminster parliament is de facto the English parliament" is "not a situation I would welcome". On the face of it these two positions contradict each other.
What is your "third way"?
WV
Sorry for the delay. I'm an integrationist (more positive than saying anti-devolution!) so I believe that westminster should be our only parliament, hence the lack of contradiction. Obviously at the minute devolution looks reasonably embedded so the short-term hope is that it doesn't get any worse with the creation of more or additional competing layers of governance
As an Englishman who believes that my country has borne the burden of Barnett for far too long, I would like to see us reclaim our independence. From the overbearing beaurocrats of Brussels and from the death rattle of the "long past it's use by date" of the UK. There will only be a healthy and normal relationship between the people of this arcane federation when we are responsible for our own well being, political, economic, cultural and social. I would call witness to this assertion by reference to the maturity and coherence of the relations we currently enjoy with the people and polity of the Republic of Ireland. Eire now paddles it's own canoe and for good or bad, takes the consequences of it's own policy successes and failure with a maturity which is in complete contrast to the puerile bleating that we get from the Scots and Northern Irish in particular. I say they are pests feeding off the goodwill of the English taxpayer and infesting our politics with their petty squabbles. Enough and be gone. Get up of your knees and take responsibilty for yourselves and let us get on with our own journey.
Anon:
The "burden of Barnett" as you put it is nothing compared to the economic consequences of withdrawing from the EU. If you are concerned about financial issues, the idea is just absurd.
So far as you are concerned about finance, because of the effects of scale, the consequences for people in England from any change to Barnett will be small. That does not mean it should not be done, but it will not result in a bonanza of cash for people in England. The public spend per person in Scotland and England for the year 06/07 was £8,623 and £7,121 respectively, a difference of £1,502 per person. Were the sums to be equalised throughout the UK, this would only result in an increase in England of about £280 (and significantly larger losses to people in the remainder of the UK). But any change from Barnett is not going to result in per capita equalisation of spend - instead it will be based on some highly manipulable assessment of "need".
The great advantage of the Barnett formula is that it is exactly that - a formula. I distrust "needs" assessments because I distrust politicians, and I distrust the present Cabinet in particular. The real losers at the moment from the absence of a needs based assessment are the northern parts of England, which have lower wealth than many parts of Scotland but less public spend.
However, as I have mentioned I do not think there is any realistic chance of a needs based assessment being adopted in the near future. It is politically unachievable. The Scots government will not agree to anything reducing block grant. The Welsh government will not agree to anything which does not result in an increase of their block grant (they consider themselves disadvantaged compared to people in Scotland).
Post a Comment