The issue we raised when William Hague visited Helensburgh on Thursday (8th April) has been picked up by David Cameron – but focused on Tam Dalyell’s enduring ‘West Lothian question’ rather than confronting the underlying problem with constitutional structure.

This is the problem with election campaign politics – there’s no time for research and evidenced proposals. It’s all down to the recognition of a problem and a quick fix solution to attract a few more votes – the immediate need. But such half-baked mid-campaign promises come home to roost for whichever party wins; and they roost most heavily on the lumpen electorate whose circumstances they amend.

England alone

Mr Cameron is scoring predictable party political points in highlighting the indefensibly advantaged devolved administrations in comparison with England – a situation the Labour government, in 13 years, has done nothing to ameliorate.

The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish can, in varying degree according to the form of devolution they enjoy, control their affairs within the authorities devolved to them. At the same time, their MPs at Westminster are voting to shape those same affairs as they apply to England. And England is constitutionally impotent.

Also at the same time, the three devolved administrations together form a united lobby group, further distancing English interests from the negotiating table.

England has always been held to be the ‘default’ nation, the core culture defining the UK. It may now be more accurate to see England as the ‘discount’ nation.

The Cameron hot-shoe proposal

Mr Cameron now says that a Conservative administration will block MPs representing constituencies in devolved administrations from voting on matters already devolved and which therefore, in considerations at Westminster, can apply only to England.

He will create a English Grand Committee which will vote on such matters as the Speaker of the day identifies as ‘English-only’.

The membership of this Grand Committee is unspecified but the implication is that it will consist of MPs representing the English constituencies.

This proposition is no more than short term blue tack – in every sense of both of these words.

Its shortcomings are likely only to heighten England’s awareness of the extent to which the current constitutional lean-to discriminates against it; and thereby to generate increasingly focused aggravation.

So what are the problems?

Look at the picture. We would see:

• constitutional chaos. There would be three devolved administrations – a parliament and two assemblies, each of a different nature and with a different scope; and one grand committee – adding a level of decision-taking which would not even be properly devolved.
• the specific interests of England defined by a degree of unacceptable subjectivity. These would be identified – not by legislation assigning specific areas of authority as is the case with the devolved administrations, but on the judgment of the Speaker of the day. If Nigel Farage does not dispatch him, the first of these could be the present incumbent, John Bercow, an ill-equipped and egotistical Tory outcast, elected in an outrageously ill-found and irresponsible act of cheap points-scoring by the dying Labour administration.
• disparity in workloads. Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would be freed from some of their existing responsibilities while English MPs, while technically carrying only their current responsibilities, would, in practice, have an additional and major committee structure to service.
• disparity in value for money. Presumably all MPs would continue to be paid the same salary? Who, seriously, would not anticipate a row over this, with the English MPs working more and the others working less?
• inequality in representation. Voters in the devolved administrations elect two levels of representatives – one to deliver on devolved regional responsibilities and the other to deliver on matters deemed to be of national interest and reserved to Westminster. The English voter would elect only one representative to do both these jobs -  and this representative might well be someone from far outside the constituency, imposed by party HQ as a favoured political careerist.

The nettle to be grasped

Given that what has been devolved cannot realistically be taken back, the only constitutionally sound solution – and the only just one for England, is to recognise that major constitutional revision is now not only inevitable but an immediate imperative.

The sole unassailable logic is that we have a devolved parliament for England and that the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies are elevated to that status. Each of the devolved governments would, of course, have the borrowing powers already held by local authorities.

The national parliaments do not have to be the same size. Where there are regional disparities – tensions even – between the English regions, these are no different from those existing in any country between the peripheral regions and the seat of power. Scotland has such tensions between the cultures of the relatively well resourced and certainly populous Central Belt and the remote rural areas of the Highlands and Islands.

The alternative of establishing a series of regional assemblies to include new ones representing the English regions would, in another way, disadvantage England by diminishing the integrity of its cultural identity.

There may be residual colonial tensions between Scotland and England but, for that very reason, Scots know well how important is the maintenance of cultural identity. By defending the similar rights of others, Scots validate their own position and underline their essential largeness of spirit.

Consequences

The creation of the outstanding devolved administration – for England -  means that the House of Commons would become a very much smaller body, dealing only with matters agreed to be reserved.

This would be served by MPs from very much larger constituencies established to produce a representation reflecting the size of population and the territorial responsibilities of the regional assemblies; or by nominated representatives of the national parliaments. Such responsibilities as the House of Commons would carry would not require it to be constantly in session.

Given that England’s representation would be the largest, certain reserved matters would, for the smaller nations, need the ultimate protection of a veto.

From Scotland’s perspective, issues around defence establishments, nuclear armaments, nuclear power and the storage of radioactive materials would fall into this category. Without this protection the largest nation could simply – as is effectively the case at the moment, force through a vote to dump on its neighbour.

A fully elected House of Lords might well become the larger and the superior institution. As well as being the revising house for legislation with a confederation-wide impact, emanating from the House of Commons, it might become the mixing bowl, keeping together all of the elements of the confederation in agreeing common policies and strategic development.

A very British disease – the politics of make do and mend

None of the parties want to be bothered with taking the time, making the effort and receiving the inevitable flak to revise properly the constitutional arrangements of the UK.

If they do not do so, however, there won’t be a United Kingdom, as there could be in a sensible confederation.

We make this argument on the grounds of political analysis and as a plea for political good practice.

We have sufficient belief in Scotland to be confident that whatever happens – a confederation based on fairness and mutual respect or Scottish independence,  this country will emerge from it strongly.

The one certain thing is that the current UK system is unfair, discriminates indefensibly against England, lacks any logical or intellectual foundation and remains dangerously asymmetrical.

Mr Cameron’s on-the-hoof campaign-driven proposition could only make things much worse.

Related Posts

• Gary Mulvaney – no standard Tory (11)
• Televised leadership debates at the General Election – as Cameron calls for ban on Salmond (4)
• Cry me a win: Brown and Cameron (2)
• Gordon Brown, in political desperation, hits a new moral low (1)
• The first For Argyll debate: Gary Mulvaney on Scotland and the UK financial crisis (9)

---

The Latest News from ForArgyll delivered via email, weekly or daily. You know it makes sense!

---

Comments (rss) | Respond | Ping | | Print This Post