The NHS Bill cleared the Commons last night with only several Lib Dems deciding to vote against the Government’s proposals, despite lingering fears that there is simply too much private involvement and profiteering in the suposedly public NHS.
I have not had a chance to see the exact vote breakdown but it seems likely that some Scottish Lib Dems MP will have voted for the proposal and some Scottish Labour MPs will have voted against, despite health being devolved to Holyrood.
This is, therefore, the latest example of the West Lothian Question, where Scottish MPs (and by extension Scottish citizens) can have a say on English affairs but English MPs and citizens have no say on Scottish affairs. It is, and has been for quite a while, an unsustainable and deeply unfair arrangement.
So, in one respect it is to be welcomed that the UK Government has set up a Commission of ‘independent, non-partisan experts’ to look into and hopefully answer once and for all the West Lothian Question.
Supporters of the SNP will suggest that the solution is only a few years away and comes in the shape of a Yes vote to independence. This would of course put the issue to bed but the UK Government has a responsibility to assume that the United Kingdom as it stands is for the long term and needs to find a lasting solution accordingly.
For me, there is only one answer – four devolved Parliaments for the four constituent nations.
The imbalance in Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) cannot continue. It’s not just votes in Westminster where problems arise, but a Parliament that spends money that it doesn’t raise is ultimately unworkable.
The only party that should fear a federal UK is the SNP. The balance and equity that such an arrangement provides will allow Scotland to crack on with free education for students, free care for the elderly, a renewables push and different levels of taxation to pay for it all, whether it’s Income Tax going up or Corporation Tax going down. There will be little disagreement that Nationalists can leverage to their own ends.
David Cameron going on the front foot on this issue, with rare support from Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, would finally put Alex Salmond on the backfoot and marginalise calls for independence, not that that should be the reason for advocating federalism, that’s just the politics of it.
A scaleable model for any part of the UK from council through nation through country up to the EU is a flexible solution that fairly and democratically meets the needs of every UK citizen, whether your issue is local, national or international.
It won’t be easy for a Prime Minister to relinquish so much power and many believe that it will be impossible, but for me there are only three choices that the UK has:
1 – Independence
2 – Scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly
3 – Federalism
I simply cannot envisage another and we’re certainly not doing ourselves any favours by having Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish issues to support a Prime Minister that we roundly rejected.
Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian Question has riddled us long enough. Let’s find a way to move on.
#1 by Aidan on September 8, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Of course, the tax situation is one addressed by the Scotland Bill, though it could be better (eg. varying the rates of tax individually, rather than in lock-step)
#2 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 2:26 pm
For me it’s not a lasting solution though, as you seem to admit yourself. Westminster knocking 10p off the rate here and saying you have to move basic in line with higher rates there; and we’ll keep Corporation Tax but you can change Council Tax but, oh, we might take that off the Barnett Formula, which we’ll get around to fixing one day………. No, I’m sorry, we need to start again.
Is this Scotland Bill going to make things clearer and easier or needlessly more convoluted? So far, it looks like the latter….
#3 by Aidan on September 8, 2011 - 2:39 pm
Corporation Tax and council tax are fundamentally different beasts. In particular, there’s a need to push Corp Tax up to the EU (probably in the form of a banding rather than anything else) to prevent the inevitable race to the bottom otherwise.
Reducing the block grant in line with the revenue being collected in Scotland seems a logical way to do this?
Scotland Bill could definitely be improved, but it’s better than the current situation IMNSHO
#4 by Doug Daniel on September 8, 2011 - 5:00 pm
Stephen Noon had some thoughts yesterday about why the proposed “race to the bottom” that would occur if corporation tax was to be devolved is arrant nonsense. It works in other federal countries and for smaller countries surrounding larger countries – why is Scotland unique?
#5 by Aidan on September 8, 2011 - 5:25 pm
he cites relativity small (~6% +/- 3%) variations of corporation tax, such as the banding system I proposed. Those small variations do not, by and large, lead to a race to the bottom because other factors are in play when deciding where to place headquarters.
What the SNP proposing is a massive cut , 12%, nearly double the average of cases he cites as support.
Arrant nonsense? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
#6 by Don McC on September 8, 2011 - 7:11 pm
As you said, Aidan, IYNSHO.
#7 by Aidan on September 8, 2011 - 7:52 pm
The Scotland Bill being better than the current situation is IMNSHO.
Stephen Noon’s conflation of small variations in Corporation Tax with the sort of the thing the SNP want to do is being inaccurate and inapplicable is rather more objective.
#8 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 10:23 am
DING DING!
Ahem. Well, does that mean you’re completely opposed to the devolution of corporation tax altogether, or just that you oppose the size of cut that you believe the SNP will make? The two are separate things. You seem to be admitting that variations of corporation tax in adjacent countries are not in themselves guarantees of a race ot the bottom, and that your objection is instead based on your perception of what the SNP would do with such a power. To me, that’s not a very good reason to oppose the idea of Scotland being able to set its own corporation tax.
You can be opposed to a 12% cut but still be in favour of corporation tax being devolved – if you want to be sure, you could always say “let them have it, but cap the amount they can vary it by”, which seems to be the norm when it comes to Westminster letting Scotland pretend we have tax “powers”.
#9 by Aidan on September 9, 2011 - 11:08 am
I’m unconvinced the cost of varying corporation tax in a band for Scotland is justified (it’s a big hassle for very marginal gain) and it’s going in broadly the wrong direction I think control of corporation tax should be going.
I think there’s a strong case to be made for devolving capital allowances, since those directly encourage actual investment as opposed to complicated brass plate tax dodges.
#10 by Angus McLellan on September 9, 2011 - 4:25 pm
The Herald here today quotes John Swinney talking about the benefits of a 3% cut in headline rate. That’s “relatively small”, so why the big song and dance?
#11 by ReasonableNat on September 8, 2011 - 7:09 pm
Lets be honest, the Scotland Bill is deliberately designed to make it more difficult to understand Scotland’s financial position, not just for the average punter, but for the experts too. There are plenty of other far more logical approaches that would achieve its stated objectives without its appalling complexity. The complexity must have been the overarching objective of those who designed it, because no-one without a hidden agenda, would come up with a complex solution when so many simpler solutions are available.
#12 by Aidan on September 8, 2011 - 7:51 pm
Well, if the SNP had participated in the process maybe they could have arranged a better outcome. But suggesting it’s a Unionist Conspiracy is a bit paranoid.
#13 by ReasonableNat on September 8, 2011 - 8:29 pm
Mmmm, I think that’s a little unfair. This was Calman’s remit:
“To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.”
Could you really ask a nationalist party to participate in an excercise specifically designed to strengthen the union? And no, I’m not saying it was a conspiracy, the remit was (obviously) totally transparent.
What I’m saying is that if Calman’s remit had been to review the constitutional arrangement, without the bit about securing the union, the solution would have been simpler. I’m saying that the reason for the (otherwise inexplicable) complexity, was to ‘secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom’.
#14 by Aidan on September 9, 2011 - 11:16 am
So we’ve gone from “hidden agenda” to “overt remit”?
The SNP could have participated under protest but chose to remain ideologically pure but impotent, just as they did in the constitutional convention leading up to devolution.
A pure paying-in model where all revenue is collected in Scotland and sent to the UK rather than being collected by the UK and returned to Scotland would perhaps be more palatable to your nationalist instincts but given the bulk of revenue is collected from non-devolved taxes (eg. VAT) it doesn’t actually make much sense.
#15 by DougtheDug on September 9, 2011 - 11:57 am
Aidan, the Calman Commission’s remit was always overt, “and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.”, and was designed to keep the SNP out.
Having a go at the SNP for not taking part would be like having a go at the Labour Party for refusing to take part in a Commission set up by Conservatives to look at health funding whose remit ended with, “and continue to secure the position of private treatment, hospitals and PFI within the NHS.”
The original constitutional convention in Scotland refused to discuss independence as an option in the preliminary discussions so the SNP pulled out. The Calman Commission simply wrote it into the remit to make sure the SNP stayed out.
The funding recommendations from the Calman Commission as implemented in the Scotland Bill are simply a incredibly bureaucratic and complex way of increasing the limit of the current 3p in the pound variable rate limit to 10p in the pound.
#16 by James on September 9, 2011 - 12:08 pm
You are both right – Calman was restricted specifically for that purpose, which I’d say was a mistake, and yet I think the SNP should have taken part. Greens remain committed to independence, but still submitted to Calman on the basis that if we do get more powers short of independence they should be the ones that allow us to build a more equal and more sustainable Scotland. Just as Aidan’s said he’d take part in constitutional discussions about independence despite being personally against it.
#17 by DougtheDug on September 9, 2011 - 12:24 pm
James, the mistake was made by the Calman Commission. If they hadn’t written in that last line in then it would have been difficult for the SNP to stay out and distance themselves from the final recommendations whether or not they stayed in the Commission for the duration.
As it is they got an easy get out clause and have a clean pair of hands as the Scotland Bill starts to come under scrutiny.
I’ve read all the recommendations from the Calman Commission and if anyone can tell me how the convoluted and involved Calman Commission tax proposals with differ from changing the current 3p in the pound current variable rate to 10p and making it across all tax bands please tell me.
#18 by James on September 9, 2011 - 12:28 pm
I agree it was their mistake – and I also agree the tax proposals are bonkers and designed to be useless at best, expensive and pointless at worst.
#19 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 12:09 pm
Would the unionist parties take part in an excercise with a remit to ‘… secure Scotland’s position as an independent sovereign state.’ I think not! There was absolutely no need for the remit of Calman to include any reference to securing our position in the union, in doing this they gave what should have been an independently minded review, a unionist agenda, when all they needed to do, in truth, was limit the extent of it’s recommendations to anything short of independence.
I wasn’t saying that Calman had a hidden agenda. I was saying that an hypothetical commission designed purely to ‘to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, and improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament’ would not have come up with a complex solution, unless it also had an additional hidden agenda.
It would be necessary to implement FFA in order to achieve maximum accountability (short of independence), but increased accountability (which is all they were asked for) could have been achieved without creating a complicated solution. It’s not the extent of the devolution that I have an issue with, it is the unnecessary complexity of it, which to my mind serves to obfuscate rather than to clarify.
#20 by Daniel J on September 8, 2011 - 2:28 pm
If the union is to continue I probably agree that this would be the best course of action.
Still like you say I can’t see Cameron or any other PM willingly sacrificing a great deal of their power. Ultimately I think it would take more for the idea of proper federalism to take off, perhaps the rise of an English Nationalist party?
(Slightly spurious but I would argue that the coalition and it’s largely English MPs have bags of influence in Scotland 😛 )
#21 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 2:31 pm
There is an English Democratic Party that campaigns for an English Parliament but they have a long, long way to go. Most likely is that UKIP will adopt the policy and make a breakthrough in England.
As for English MPs having bags of influence in Scotland, I don’t follow. Cameron and Osborne make the headlines so they can influence us indirectly that way but they don’t get a vote on devolved issues in the same way that Scottish MPs vote on English issues. I suppose they can fix our budget but that’s as it should be really as we are, after all, still part of the UK.
#22 by Daniel J on September 8, 2011 - 2:52 pm
They don’t get to vote upon devolved issues but they do largely control macroeconomic policy, whether we like it or not they dictate the parameters within which Holyrood operates. Like you said we are still part of the UK so the ruling party – whether we voted for them or not – dictates such things.
#23 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 3:13 pm
Fair enough, but I don’t see what the problem with that is. We are, as I say, part of the UK so the UK Government gets to call the shots on reserved issues. Anyone who doesn’t like that should get campaigning in favour of independence.
Note that what you are talking about is quite separate from the West Lothian Question.
#24 by Glyn on September 8, 2011 - 2:51 pm
Youre three choices for the UK don’t make sense.
Independence is not a choice for the UK but Scotland.
Are you suggesting that a UK parliament could Scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly and leave the Northern Ireland parlaiment. Wouldn’t this simply say that this they feared a return to the Troubles and that they only listened to Nationalist if they threatened violence.
The map you provided suggest federalism to involve seven devolved parliaments in England rather than the option of an English parliament.
Surely the former West Lothian Question should be renamed the England Question? To blame Scotland and to some extent Wales for answering theirs is hardly the solution.
#25 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 3:03 pm
“Independence is not a choice for the UK but Scotland.†– I didn’t suggest otherwise. I am saying that there are three appropriate lasting arrangements for the United Kingdom of which one is an independent Scotland – that’s a decision for Scotland alone but it has an impact on how the UK will be going forward.
“Are you suggesting that a UK parliament could Scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly and leave the Northern Ireland parlaiment. Wouldn’t this simply say that this they feared a return to the Troubles and that they only listened to Nationalist if they threatened violence.†– I’m saying it’s an option. An unlikely one, granted, and not one that I would prefer but it at least ensures that Westminster MPs have an equal say on the issues before them.
“The map you provided suggest federalism to involve seven devolved parliaments in England rather than the option of an English parliament.†– The map’s not great; I couldn’t find a better one on Google. Seven devolved Parliaments in England might not be so bad at all but that’s not what this post is about.
“Surely the former West Lothian Question should be renamed the England Question? To blame Scotland and to some extent Wales for answering theirs is hardly the solution.†– Noone’s “blaming†Scotland. It’s named the West Lothian Question because that’s where Tam Dalyell was the MP for. If we’re to rename it then I guess we should call it the Tam Teaser or the Dalyell Doozie. I don’t think we should get too hung up on nomenclature though.
#26 by An Duine Gruamach on September 8, 2011 - 10:17 pm
“The Tam Teaser” has conjured images to mind that I previously would have thought too horrible to imagine.
#27 by James on September 8, 2011 - 2:55 pm
The trouble is there are two federal options, neither of which works.
1. Four parliaments, as Jeff suggests. The problem here is that England is too large a constituent part of a federation. The First Minister of England (let us assume a Tory) would be more powerful than the Prime Minister of the Federation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (who might be Labour), and instability would ensue.
2. Ten parliaments, as the image suggests (ignoring the Channel Isles for now, and London, which isn’t shown, would be the eleventh). The trouble with this is that John Prescott tried to win votes for flawed regional assemblies early in the New Labour era and got rebuffed. Plus, as the map suggests, the Cornish would have to be run from Bristol, which won’t please them. Ironically, along with Yorkshire as the strongest regional identity, they would be amongst the least happy of all with smaller regions.
#28 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 3:12 pm
I envisage the first of those suggestions and don’t agree that it wouldn’t work.
The First Minister of England would have responsibility over the devolved agenda which, for the sake of arguments, we can say involves the same areas as what Scotland has (health, transport, education etc). The Prime Minister of the UK would be a largely Presidential figure dealing with reserved affairs.
Cameron and Salmond get on fine in terms of a working arrangement and US Presidents seem to do fine when there are fifty state governors with devolved agenda. I don’t share your expectation that it would be unworkable. Far from it.
#29 by James on September 8, 2011 - 3:46 pm
But none of the states, not even California, have anywhere near the relative clout that England would have. They’re more than 80% of the population, and there are good theoretical reasons why component parts should be of roughly equal sizes. If I find a better citation for that I’ll pop it here.
#30 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 4:02 pm
What clout? What would England have a decisive say over? It’s own devolved agenda?
Sure it would still have a majority say over who the Prime Minister is but if Scotland votes No to independence then it is generally accepted that a majority of Scots are ok with that.
#31 by Tom Cresswell on September 8, 2011 - 6:30 pm
I completely agree with James on this, it would be impractical and undesirable to attempt to apply a federal model to the four constituent countries of the UK, not only would it lead to the large power struggle between the UK PM & English FM, but also (as far as devolution goes) what’s the point in creating a seperate parliament to distinguish the areas that affect 65 million, and those that only affect 50 million?
Remember the 80s and all the “games” that were played by Ken Livingston to show his disapproval with the Thatcher government when he was head of the Greater London Council (he proved to be so frustrating to her that she eventually abolished it). Imagine that, but between two leaders that would (in the eyes of the English) have roughly equal status, and its safe to say that the English FM would have imensely more power and clout then Ken did back then.
#32 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 8:44 pm
I don’t see there being a problem other than the constructive disagreement between two leaders with different ideas. Of course, you could always hold elections at the saame time for each to pretty much ensure a Labour PM and a Labour FM (in England), or Tory for that matter.
But, ok, let’s say federalism (as I’m calling it) is unworkable. And let’s say the independence referendum returns a clear No vote. What is the preference then? What we have now with Scottish MPs voting on English matters? Do we want two-tier MPs at Westminster where Scots only get involved with nuclear weapons and foreign interventions? (sounds like an easy job to me)
#33 by ReasonableNat on September 8, 2011 - 8:57 pm
What we’d get is several more years of pretending that the problem doesn’t exist, followed by another referendum. We either need to fix this properly, or let it expire…
#34 by Gryff on September 8, 2011 - 3:42 pm
If Ten parlaiments are too many, and four too few, what about domething between. I’d suggest England be divied up into: Cornwall, North, South, and London. I’d say the Mayor of London would be just about as powerful a figure as the FM of Scotland, FMs of Wales and Cornwall would both preside over areas with significant, but not overwhelming national feeling, giving them a slightly different feel, but essentially identical role. North and South, once you take out London, and portion the midlands, (West to south, East to North?) woudl probably be relatively equal, less prominant than the Mayor of London, just as the Governor of Michigan is less prominant than the Governer of California, but equal in terms of their responsibilities.
Actually if you take Scotland out of the equation, following an election, the importance of some kind of federalisation of England becomes even more important, as the distorting effect of London will only grow.
#35 by Iain Menzies on September 8, 2011 - 3:24 pm
As a mental head banging unionist….I have to tell you I’m all for a federal UK.
I don’t see how it would cause instability if there were different types of leadership at a UK and English level. Unless the English leadership was of an Alex Salmond/English National Party type.
Assuming that the only substantial social policy that was reserved was welfare that gives Westminster a good bite of domestic politics.
It would let a British PM act much more like a pre WW2 PM, in so far as Westminster would effectivly become an Imperial parliament again.
The only area where i diverge from the outline above is that i think 4 regional power centers is wrong. I would go for 5. The Fifth Being London.
This is for two reasons.
1) There is a legitimate concern that an English Parliament would simply represent too large a chunk of the UK population (unless canada/australia want to join the uk ;))
2) I do rather like the idea of a ‘capital territory’ and London, from what people tell me isnt so much english as either british or international in terms of its make up.
#36 by Gregor on September 8, 2011 - 3:41 pm
It’s not often we agree so much Iain 😉
The only comment I must make though, is that Independence for Scotland doesn’t solve the West Lothian Question, it will still continue, albeit in a smaller guise, for the people of Wales and Northern Ireland.
#37 by Iain Menzies on September 8, 2011 - 5:20 pm
not at all….the west lothian question is about a disparity of powers. if were talking federalising the UK then you would be looking to equalise powers across the board.
you might end up with debates about ‘states rights’ like in the US but it would kill the west lothian question.
#38 by Paul Cairney on September 8, 2011 - 4:25 pm
The 4-nations option discussed is not federalism. Or, at least, my understanding of federalism is that you have a set of states/ regions of similar size with the same responsibilities, protected by a constitution, but interacting with a separate federal/ central government which often has the power to intervene in the policy areas of the states. I think what you are really describing is further decentralisation.
#39 by Jeff on September 8, 2011 - 5:00 pm
I’m no Politics student so you may well be correct that strictly speaking this is not ‘federalism’ Paul. However, it sounds like the only thing that gets in the way of your understanding of federalism is the size of England relatives to Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, I see no specific problem with this supposed imbalance as long as no one nation is treading on another’s devolved toes so, whether you want to call it federalism or not, I don’t see what the problem with this arrangement would be.
#40 by Alister on September 8, 2011 - 4:25 pm
I cannot see any circumstances in which the UK becomes a federation. The key point is the relative size of England. In addition for most, if not all English people, Westminster is the English Parliament. There is no evidence that they are remotely interested in another (Federal) parliament. The present set up suits most English people most of the time. If they really felt the need for a change, then I strongly suspect they would go for independence for England. Which would suit me just fine.
#41 by ReasonableNat on September 8, 2011 - 7:38 pm
It is kinda difficult to put this in words, and I hate generalising in this way, hopefully I’ll be forgiven… I get the feeling that most English people are slightly disappointed and saddened that we feel the need for devolution; despite accepting that it has to be there simply because we feel the need for it. I don’t think there is anything approaching active resistance to changing UK level political structures; I just don’t think that they actually feel any great pressure to do so. I suspect they’ll continue to put up with an essentially broken system, only tinkering with it a little, largely because the change required to actually solve the problem would be worse than the problem itself.
#42 by Hendre on September 8, 2011 - 4:37 pm
Is Northern Ireland a nation now? Technically-speaking?
The problem for a federal UK isn’t so much England’s size but the mindset of the London establishment. We already hear about the Celtic tail wagging the English dog so it’s difficult to imagine that London would ever allow itself to be ‘outvoted’ by the other constituent parts on defence and foreign policy issues, for example. Let’s face it … London can’t even accept that when the FAW/SFA/IFA say ‘no’ to a GB football team, they have the autonomy to make such a decision.
#43 by Nikostratos on September 8, 2011 - 4:46 pm
option four-stay as we are and moan a lot suits most people
#44 by Doug Daniel on September 8, 2011 - 4:50 pm
“The only party that should fear a federal UK is the SNP”
I take it you remember George Robertson’s infamous quote about devolution killing nationalism stone dead, Jeff? 😉
#45 by Paul Cairney on September 8, 2011 - 5:24 pm
All I am saying is let’s not call it ‘federalism’ because the term is misleading in this context. It conjures up the image at the top, not the option provided. Calling it ‘Glenda’ would be less misleading. It sounds like a pedantic academic point (guilty) but it is also a useful point if we want to engage with people outside of the UK who want to understand its setup. ‘Quasi-federal’ is in vogue.
The imbalance is important when the 4 parts have to cooperate or solve disputes, particularly in the UK system where the UK Government often represents England in discussions with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The separation might work, but reforming the civil service to make it England-only in some departments and UK in others is more complicated than the West Lothian question.
#46 by Gryff on September 8, 2011 - 6:20 pm
The civil service already is england only and uk only in different departments. Consider that DH broadly relates only to England, and so could be transferred wholesale to an English parliament. Consider further that the Scottish Government, and DH are essentially the same, both have a permanent Secretary that answers to the Cabinet Secretary, the only difference is that one takes its direction from Ministers constituted out of a devolved parliament, and one is run by ministers from the westminster government. Devolution did not require new government apparatus, merely for civil servants to work for a different political master, that same process could easily be replicated for DH etc, whilst the Treasury and FCO continued to answer to a uk government.
#47 by Tris on September 8, 2011 - 5:56 pm
This of course works two ways.
When the SoS brings forward legislation for Scotland relating to issues which are reserved to him, do only the Scottish MPs vote on it? If so, in the present parliament, unless there is a rare moment of convergence of ideas, would the government not lose every single Scottish Bill it presents?
I suspect that the Tories call upon their English and Welsh votes to force Conservative legislation upon a country which clearly voted for nothing of the sort.
But I agree, it was asking for trouble that the English parliament and the UK parliament were one and the same.
It means that most people see Westminster as the English parliament. it is, after all, in England; it spends a great part of the week discussing English matters, and these matters are widely disseminated through the media, particularly the BBC and ITV as if they were the only parliament, and these were the only Bills, or Acts.
Of course Scottish people are, by and large, not that stupid. They know now that when they see something from Westminster, it is unlikely to apply to them.
I think the mess came about partly because of the strange make-up of the UK (added to the fact that Blair wanted shackled parliaments for the small Celtic states for which he had little liking (despite his Scottish birth):
1 large kingdom with its own legal system;
1 small kingdom with its own legal system;
1 principality with no legal system of its own, sharing the laws of the larger of the too kingdoms, and thus more or less a part of it for law making (until recently);
1 province, which is in reality a part of a different state, retained by the UK, but which has perforce to attune its laws to the neighbouring republic, as much as to the UK, or England.
It would have been difficult to construct a federal system with all the inequalities of these countries/provinces and Blair didn’t want to be bothered much with it.
Clearly in a federal structure, all the states should have equal powers, otherwise, who, or what, will regulate for the powers in the smaller states where power is denied to their “government”.
A further problem is the inequitable size of the participating states. A federal parliament in the case of the UK would simply be a second English parliament with a few extra people thrown in.
As at present England can always vote for what is best for it.
#48 by Hendre on September 9, 2011 - 9:49 am
Why do you think Wales is a principality?
#49 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 12:04 pm
Probably something to do with the fact that the historical constitutional monarch of Wales is a Prince (thereby making it a Principality), rather than a King (which would make it a Kingdom) or even a Duke (which would make it a Duchy).
#50 by Hendre on September 9, 2011 - 12:40 pm
The princes of Gwynedd had ambitions to create an all Wales polity but a certain Edward I disagreed and dismantled it. The revival of the use of the title Prince of Wales was not matched by any ‘principality’ governance arrangements of substance (even though the term was sometimes used).
Yesterday on this blog there were some rather sniffy comments about how Welsh national sentiment manifests itself. I suppose for Scots it’s difficult to imagine being a stateless nation with no constitutional settlement underpinning your cultural identity.
For the record, the previous Labour Counsel General for the National Assembly for Wales issued a statement declaring us a non-Principality. So it’s official!
#51 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Oh well, “I stand corrected”, said the man in the orthopedic shoes.
#52 by Hendre on September 9, 2011 - 3:08 pm
It might appear rather a petty point to make but it relates to one of those shadowy little parts of the British constitution which the establishment would be more than happy to see remain fuzzy. I mean how else would you explain the Union Jack –
Wales isn’t represented on the Union Jack because Wales is a principality (of England)
or
Wales isn’t represented on the Union Jack because it was incorporated unilaterally with a stated policy of extirpation?
You can see why the establishment might favour the former explanation!
#53 by Ben Achie on September 8, 2011 - 6:39 pm
Federalism won’t work, but confederalism might. For example, it’s the only guaranteed way of getting rid of Trident, which in the event of any nuclear exchange could put the people of West Central Scotland at huge risk. The same applies to participating in starting conventional wars.
I cannot really see the difference between confederalism and pooled sovereignty, although perhaps it suggests a more general formal structure rather than ad hoc arrangements. It provides an element of balance where there is so much disparity in size in the sharing member states such as with Scotland and England.
There is simply no interest in setting up regional government within England, which only functions through a healthy sense of anarchy and disrespect for Westminster and its centralised institutions. I’ve often pondered why this should be the case, and especially why the northeast and northwest of England are willing to accept a status quo that is inherently so damaging to them.
The English have a huge problem with Westminster, and are stuck with political parties there that have almost entirely lost touch with the electorate in that they are not reflecting the variety of views of their voters. Why is there so much convergence of view between their three main parties? At the end of the day, I put it down to Oxbridge and their class system. It is still a conundrum, though.
#54 by DougtheDug on September 8, 2011 - 6:52 pm
Federalism is a lovely word but it means nothing without putting some flesh on the bones. All it means is that the powers of regional assemblies/parliaments are protected by the constitution. If the powers of the Welsh Assembly were constitutionally protected then it would be a federal parliament even though it would have less power than the devolved parliament in Holyrood.
What, “federal”, means in the context of this article is that four regional parliaments are created for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and that the British State actually gets a written constitution which protects the powers of these parliaments.
A lovely idea for a unionist but what are the problems with this? First of all if all the regions are to have the same powers then Wales will have to be split off from England and given control of its own legal system and education system along with all the other powers that Scotland had even before devolution.
Then you have to write a British constitution and create a federal parliament somewhere which will involve recreating Westminster as a federal Westminster Parliament and finally getting rid of the Lords as an unelected chamber with no Lords and no Bishops.
However the real problem with the four nations plan will be the idea of England as a separate entity from Britain because that switches off the idea of Britain as an enduring historical nation which has existed from the beginning of history. Britishness has been built on the twin tracks of unionism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and integration of immigrants in England and it’s been the holy grail for both Labour and the Conservative party for decades.
That’s why the nations and regions devolution plan of Labour and idea of a federation of regions is so attractive for the British establishment. The four nations idea splits the British state back into the original historical nations and the concept of Britain as a single nation loses validity but the idea of federal English regions plus the celtic bits only splits the British nation into various regions while keeping the idea of Britain as a nation healthy and alive.
Federalism will never happen in the UK because it’s just too difficult to do and most people in England simply can’t understand why it’s needed and it’s got no popular support. Within the political parties the idea of the UK as unified Anglo-Britain means that only the Lib-Dems support federalism and after 23 years all they’ve managed to produce is an absolute failure to support the idea of an English Parliament within a federal UK and the Steel Report which is six years old and whose only plan is to have another constitutional convention so someone else can work out what they should do.
#55 by Gavin Hamilton on September 8, 2011 - 8:19 pm
A federal solution for the UK has always ben the one I have been in favour of.
Intuitively I think it is also by far the most logical one for the way Britain is and the way all its constituent parts hang together – wit a sort of mix of identities.
I don’t think it should be four parliamnets as part of this ia about decentralisation and England is just way too big – so ideally England should break down to a few parliamembts eg Yorkshire or the South West.
Having said that I think the appetite for this is pretty limited so to bust the West Lothian Question some sort of assembly for England where England only decisions are taken may be what comes to pass.
And this would leave Westminster as a proper Federal Parliament a la USA, Germany, Australia and Canada.
#56 by Barbarian on September 8, 2011 - 8:20 pm
How about this:
4 devolved parliaments, each having the majority of powers but only sharing defence and foreign policy? Defence is tricky when it comes to nuclear weapons, but that should be an individual decision and one that is separate from the core defence policy.
Foreign policy likewise has a core policy, but with get-out / get-in clauses for Europe (my pet hate!)
#57 by Tris on September 8, 2011 - 9:20 pm
So Gavin, what you are suggesting is that Scotland, a country in it’s own right, with a legal system apart from England’s, would have the same level of parliament and the same level of responsibility as NE England, or Yorkshire, or The Midlands?
Would you then give these parliaments power to make their own laws? If so, under what system? They would start off with English law, but might want to adopt something entirely different?
#58 by Brian Nicholson on September 8, 2011 - 11:59 pm
Scotland an independent country with bilateral agreements on defense etc with England
Wales- give them the choice of independence similar to Scotland or full assimilation into the English government.
NI– either an independent country of their own similar to Scotland or full amalgamation with Ireland.
England — full independence from the UK with bilateral agreements with its neighbours
Bilateral agreements can be administered by one of the parties under agreement or by a new body established for the purpose.
End of the concocted West Lothian Question.
#59 by Barbarian on September 9, 2011 - 12:25 am
Just found a comment on a website about the West Lothian Question: the common is “any spare change pal?”
#60 by Indy on September 9, 2011 - 7:20 am
This whole discussion is far to Scottish-centric. Looking at things from an English perspective there is no great requirement to come up with a solution to the UK’s constitutional set-up because it is not any kind of priority. Yes you might get Daily Mail or London Evening Standard articles now and then having a go at the thieving Jocks but the idea that the whole of the UK would consider adopting federalism in order to solve the Scottish issue is almost laughable. In fact it is laughable.
#61 by Jeff on September 9, 2011 - 11:44 am
61% of English people were found to be in favour of an English Parliament in a recent(ish) poll. That hardly makes it a “laughable” policy.
#62 by Indy on September 9, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Aye, right. For heavens sake AV was rejected as dangerously radical. And how many decades has it taken to bring some element of reform into the House of Lords? In fact is it even reformed? I have lost track. But you seriously think they will just casually do away with parliamentary sovereignty and centuries of constitutional tradition just to settle the West Lothian Question?
I can just imagine making that case to the Conservative Party, Lol.
And I wouldn’t blame them one bit for laughing the idea out of court. Why the heck should they change the way that England is governed just because of one anomoly?
#63 by Jeff on September 9, 2011 - 1:07 pm
Hang on, are you saying it’s laughable because it’s a bad idea or are you saying it’s laughable because it’s unlikely to come to pass?
You’ve moved from saying there is “no requirement” for this from an English perspective to saying the Tories wouldln’t allow it. Bit of a shift there, and I suspect the reason for that is what I was alluding to in my title – It’s the SNP who has most to fear from federalism, because it would work and it would arguably be just the right amount of change for most Scots out there, irrespective of how likely it is to come around.
And while I agree that Cameron wouldn’t be keen to do it; he has to follow the people to a certain extent and I wouldn’t be surprised if that 61% support since 2007 hasn’t increased since then. At what point do the Tories bite the bullet and make this policy? 70% support? 80%?
The West Lothian Question is more than an anomaly, something the Prime Minister has recognised with this commission. You can laugh inside or outside of whichever court you please Indy, but the end is nigh for Scottish MPs voting on English matter and, if it isn’t independence that ends it, you may not like the alternative.
#64 by Indy on September 9, 2011 - 1:30 pm
I am saying it will never happen. Never. It would mean tearing up the whole British constitution. It would mean the end of parliamentary sovereignty – a concept which has been central to English politics since the days of Oliver Cromwell. Ask the English people how they would feel about that in a poll and you’d get a very different answer!
Scottish independence would be much less traumatic.
I am not in the least bothered about abolishing the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English matters btw. I don’t think they should ever have been allowed to, post-devolution. The only reason the UK Govt tolerated it is because it was a Labour Government, therefore the majority of Scottish MPs would always vote their way. It seems to me to be a relatively simple matter to resolve without the need for a revolution – because that is what scrapping Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty would mean for England.
#65 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 12:32 pm
Type your comment here
Fair point, but we’re talking about denying your raison d’etre here. Would the greens enter into a commission with a remit to ‘secure nuclear power as part of our national electricity generation mix’ or, ‘secure landfill as our primary waste disposal strategy’. Again, I think not (god, I hope not!).
#66 by James on September 9, 2011 - 12:42 pm
I’m not talking about entering into the Commission, merely putting in a submission to it. You don’t have to accept its premise to do that, and we take part in all sorts of processes whose objectives we .
Also, a move towards more powers for Scotland (while denying independence) can be seen as a step towards independence, or at the very least not a step away, flawed as the process was. Effectively the SNP said “we don’t care what additional powers you offer Scotland – it’s entirely irrelevant to us”. It’d be like us not responding to an energy proposal because it’s not green enough – that’s exactly why we would respond!
#67 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 1:50 pm
You do have a point there, especially with that last bit. However, I suppose the SNP getting involved would have felt like they were endorsing a blatant attempt to scupper their own plans for independence. Looking back and seeing how poorly turned out the Scotland Bill is, I imagine the SNP perhaps wish they had taken part in some way.
On the other hand, I can just imagine Unionist MSPs saying “well you took part in it, so you can’t go saying you don’t like the Scotland Bill now”, or some such rubbish along those lines. Just as with the trams, the previous abstention means they can sort of swoop in and make it look like they’re trying to clean up the mess made by the unionists. A bit cynical perhaps, but then the commission’s very purpose was cynical in the first place: scupper independence at all costs.
#68 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 2:02 pm
“but then the commission’s very purpose was cynical in the first place: scupper independence at all costs.”
Precisely. James, I genuinely take your point that they should have made a submission, but expecting them to take part (Aidan) would have been asking way too much. The commission was disingenuous, it was a ‘show commission’ if ever there was one, and the SNP staying out of it was understandable. (I’m not an SNP member or support btw.)
#69 by Aidan on September 9, 2011 - 3:30 pm
it was a response to the independence referendum that we were supposed to have had by now… independence was on the table because the SNP said they’d put it there.
I’m not arguing the SNP should have given up on independence, I’m arguing that they should have taken part in what the scottish parliament would look like in the future.
They’re doing that now, but it’s really rather late in the day, all of these objections could have and should have been made much earlier.
I think there are substantial problems with the Scotland Bill, particularly the way the tax powers are formulated (varying rates independently for instance) but I don’t think Calman was set up to “scupper independence”, but to do some thinking about what happens if the Scottish people decide to remain part of the union.
#70 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 3:59 pm
Look at the wording though: “to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.” That’s as explicit a statement of intent as you can get, short of actually saying “to try to stave off independence by offering the public a few scraps of power to satiate their clear appetite for the Scottish Parliament to have more accountability, thus keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom.”
You’re quite right that it was a response to the looming independence referendum, and it’s this very fact that proves the point that the Calman Commission was a reactionary measure that would not have otherwise come about. I’ve seen it argued before that the Scotland Bill is proof that unionists have no problem with giving Scotland more powers and are doing so in the best interests of the country, but the fact remains that if it wasn’t for independence suddenly becoming a realistic possibility, the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill would not have existed. Therefore, like I say about federalism below, it was not that unionists thought giving Scotland more powers was a good idea in itself; merely that they thought it would be a way of swaying people away from independence. This is why the very premise of the commission was flawed: it wasn’t about giving Scotland more powers; it was about trying to deny them full autonomy.
Why did the unionists not take part in the National Conversation? It would have been a perfect forum for them to present a positive case for the union, if indeed such a thing actually exists. No, instead they chose to try and undermine it by launching their own version of a constitutional debate, which was just childish. It was the stage where Labour still couldn’t admit it no longer ran the country, and couldn’t bear to let someone else lead the debate. The SNP could arguably have tried to be the more mature party and taken part as well, but in the tit-for-tat environment our politics resides in, why should they?
#71 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 12:57 pm
This is an excellent discussion by the way. Personally, I’ve long felt that turning the UK into a federation would at least be a step up from the current situation, and anything that gives Scotland more powers is fine by me. However, as it’s not my real preference, this is the first time I’ve really given thought to how a federal structure would work, and the answer is becoming pretty clear: “it wouldn’t”.
The size issue alone means federalism looks like a complete non-starter. As others have stated, the scenario with four parliaments is clearly unworkable, since you need a semblence of uniformity for it to work. The fact that council areas and parliamentary constituencies follow this rule points to the fact that this is an inherent wisdom. Splitting England up into ten or so federal states doesn’t really solve it either, as you would still have imbalances of Scotland and the English regions having around 5 million people each, Wales with about 3 million and Northern Ireland with about 1.8 million.
But even if you ignore that, you still have to sell the idea to England in the first place, which would be no mean feat since regional assemblies were soundly rejected. Even if you manage that, how do you account for Scotland having its own laws, education system etc, while England and Wales share them? You can’t have one federal republic having more autonomy than the rest.
The fact is if we had a federal structure, it wouldn’t be because UK parties believed in federalism as the best way to run the UK (except the Lib Dems, although I now wonder just exactly how much thought they have ever really given to how it would work in practice); it would be because they believed it would save the union. Like devolution and the Scotland Bill, it would be just another in a line of flawed measures introduced not because they are inherently good in themselves (not to say that they aren’t, of course), but for the sole purpose of preserving the union. It’s like having children to save a marriage – it papers over the cracks for a bit, but the schism is still there. All you’re doing is delaying the inevitable, thereby making things worse for all involved when the paper eventually breaks and the now massive cracks can no longer be ignored. All these measures do is answer one question, then bring up another, just as devolution did with the West Lothian Question. They do nothing to solve the root cause.
The real issue here is that the Union is an artificial construct that tries to join disparate nations together, and the flaws in that union are becoming ever more apparent. There is only one solution that will work: shake hands, admit it just wasn’t to be, and decide just to remain friends in the future.
DIscussion like this can hopefully highlight exactly why independence is the only viable solution for Scotland. Shame it’s only being read by Better Nation readers, who by and large are already pretty enlightened.
#72 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 2:28 pm
I pretty much agree with the gist of this. I don’t generally give federation much thought though, as I just don’t see it ever happening (mainly for the reasons that Indy articulated so well). Logically though, I don’t see why the size differences are a problem. Apologies if I missed something in all these comments, I see a lot of people saying that the size disparity is a showstopper, but I’ve not seen any explanation as to why, and I can’t think of any reason myself. I can understand that there might be a fair bit of agro at times (a la Westminster v Holyrood) but it doesn’t exactly cause the system to implode. If certain governments have power over certain issues, and the boundaries are clear, then the shouting doesn’t matter, the government with authority wins and that is that.
Personally I think that some new formal structure for the governance of shared institutions (call it confederation if you like), shared by four sovereign states (or two, Scotland and rUK), would be preferable to federation. I think this would be better, not because federation wouldn’t work, but because it (confederation) is an inherently better way to organise cooperation between countries, since it is designed for that purpose, whereas federation is better suited to fulfilling its purpose of devolving authority to regions of the same country. This is how, imo, it should have been in the beginning.
I accept Jeff’s argument in principle, that the SNP have most to fear from federation, but I don’t think that federation would ever kill the argument for independence completely. Personally I’d love to be in a position of arguing for independence from an already achieved state of FFA, which is as close to federation as I imagine we’ll ever get (call it assymetric federation, lol). The arguments would probably just be different…. look how much they are charging us for defence – we could do it cheaper ourselves, for example.
#73 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 3:30 pm
The problem with the size disparity is that you have, say, four federal states with equal say, but with vastly different populations. It would mean the English federal state, with about 80% of the population, having just as much (or as little) say as the Northern Irish federal state, with just 2% of the population. Suddenly, that 80% of the population could find itself being beaten in every vote by the combined forces of the other federal states, who despite having a sum total of just a fifth of the population, would have three-quarters of the power. That’s possibly even less fair than the current position, where Scotland finds itself governed by a government it almost unanimously rejected.
But that aside, it just feels wrong. If you’re sharing things, surely it’s better to share them equally?
#74 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 3:32 pm
My maths has clearly gone a bit askew there, but the point remains the same…
#75 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 3:44 pm
Would it work that way? I don’t think there would ever be a situation in which each government would have a vote over something. The federal parliament would be elected separately from the national parliaments, the federal government would be drawn from those elected to that parliament. The problem you are describing would never exist in a federation.
It could be a problem in a confederation, but (I think almost) all international organisations operate in that way, and everyone seems to accept, for example, that the US gets the same voting power as Luxembourg, in such situations (I guess because states only enter into them voluntarily and always have the right to opt out).
#76 by Doug Daniel on September 9, 2011 - 4:08 pm
I’m assuming that creating a Federal Kingdom (would I be right in thinking all federalised countries are republics?) would lead to the creation of a federal government akin to the US senate, where each state sends two senators, regardless of population size. Size disparity isn’t such a problem when you’re talking about 50 federal states, since clearly no one state is going to have four times the population as the rest put together; but it would be a problem with 4 states.
Of course, I could be committing that age-old sin of taking the US or UK implementation of a political system and wrongly assuming it’s the same everywhere… I’m fairly sure the Reichstag is the same, though.
#77 by Angus McLellan on September 9, 2011 - 5:34 pm
Well, no, but you can get close enough, even today. No need to consider Austria-Hungary or the German Empire.
How about the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which, although the Netherlands has almost 95% of the people, is actually made up of four countries – Netherlands (including Netherlands Antilles), Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten – which share various responsibilties, notably defence and foreign affairs. Some might say that it’s not a “proper” federation since the government of the Netherlands is also, to a large extent by not entirely, the same as the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Alternatively there’s the Kingdom of Denmark, made up of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes and formerly Iceland too. Or the Realm of New Zealand.
Wikipedia Is Your Friend.
#78 by ReasonableNat on September 9, 2011 - 7:15 pm
Obviously that would be just daft in our case, but I see absolutely no reason why we would have to follow these examples. There is no reason why our ‘senators’ could not be elected in FPTP constituencies or under a PR system for that matter.
#79 by Gryff on September 11, 2011 - 10:06 am
With only four countries one could have a council of FMs for matters of mutual compilation, with the, much stripped down, Westminster government, running foreign affairs etc. No need for a full blown senate
There are already mechanisms for cooperation between FMs, and for the relevant ministers in different portfolios. So that could be easily formalised.
You don’t want to be making overblown institutions for the sake of it…
#80 by Indy on September 9, 2011 - 4:32 pm
Exactly. OK supposing you do somehow manage to set up an English Parliament (where? Which would have what powers?) If you gave it the same as the Scottish Parliament currently has – health, justice, education and so on, what difference would it make?
It would not make a blind bit of difference to the current situation would it?
So what would be the point? I can see that when Labour were in government and used its MPs to push through certain policies which were opposed in England then, yes, there is a democratic deficit there. One which could be addressed by quite simply removing the ability of Scottish MPs to vote on matters which are England and Wales only.
But in the situation we are in now – where the largest party in England is the largest party in Westminster – where is the problem that can only be solved by having an English Parliament within a federal structure?
ARe we really going to say to English people look we are going to scrap Westminster and create a new English Parliament which will do EXACTLY THE SAME THING as Westminster currently does.
I mean it’s not like England needs its own parliament to stop the Scottish Government forcing unpopular policies like free tuition on it, is it?
It just doesn’t make sense .
#81 by Gryff on September 11, 2011 - 10:10 am
Isn’t the point to remove the area of contention, resentment represented by the block grant. If each nation either had its own block grant from the centre, or if each nation raised its own funds and paid into the centre to maintain the military and foreign office, as well as the westminster parliament, then it would be impossible for the Daily Mail et al to whinge about the arrangements. Regionalising England would be even better, to ensure a fair crack for all of the UK.