Someone called Mark Field, who is apparently a Tory MP and so can't have anything else to do these days, has excited sections of the blogosphere by calling for an English Parliament. The Tories' cack-handed attempts to play the "English" card become more hilarious almost by the day. Nobody cares. Perhaps they should. But they don't. The Tories predicted (and the SNP was also largely relying upon) a torrent of English hostility to Brown as Prime Minister. Where is it?
At the end of the day, the English know, like and respect the Scottish doctors or bank managers whom Brown so resembles. Cameron, by contrast, is a posh Scot: English public school, Oxbridge, married into the English baronetage, Southern English seat, sense of entitlement to be Prime Minister instead of some state school and Scottish university son of the manse from the old Fife coal belt.
That intra-Scottish class conflict is the key to understanding why he and Brown detest each other quite so much. And I think we all know which side of that conflict is more agreeable to most of the English.
Good grief, imagine who would stand for an English Parliament (and yes, I am aware that I might well be eating my words if it were ever actually to be set up), or who would turn out to vote for such a thing! The latter would be very few in number, but that would only make them all the more dangerous. And the former would be "elected" from party lists. NOOOOO!
Support for independence itself in Scotland is now at pre-Braveheart levels, though continuing to decline; that is why the SNP is not even attempting to hold a referendum on independence, following an election specifically on the Union which returned vastly more Unionist than separatist MSPs, with the Unionists taking nearly seventy per cent of the vote.
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru doesn't know what it thinks, and isn't worth thinking about.
So let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go.
A key part of this would be for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to avail itself of its undoubted right to legislate in matters where the devolved bodies may also legislate, there being no doubt whatever that the former would prevail over the latter wherever the two conflicted (which is why there is, in fact, no West Lothian Question).
After all, one does rather suspect that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have certain views on, say, health, or education, or transport in their own constituencies. And now they have the chance to give legislative effect to those views.
The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly could carry on enacting subordinate legislation if they so chose, but after a while people would start questioning what on earth they were for. And after a few years of that, they could just quietly be wound up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David
ReplyDeleteYour views are interesting but wrong. Gordon Brown voted for the Scotland Act and has a long history of support for devolution. The answer is for the Union to continue as a federation of the 4 countries with their own parliaments and a State Parliament for the UK with the same MP's sitting in both.
What we cannot have is Gordon Brown beating his "British" chest in England and his Scottish chest north of the border.
As far as your suggestion of Westminster passing legislation on Scotland; Alex Salmond would love it.
Don't be silly David.
ReplyDeleteYou can't divide the citizens of the UK into first and second class, then expect the union to survive.
Campaign for an English Parliament, there's a nice chap.
If the Scottish have the 'sovereign right' to decide on their form of government then it follows that they have the sovereign right to self-determination.
ReplyDeleteSo whilst Westminster has the theoretical legal right to overturn the subordinate legislation passed by the Scottish parliament it would be suicidal to legislate on devolved matters unless it was at the behest of the Scottish Parliament (Sewel Convention).
What we have in the UK is two incompatible and irreconcilable forms of sovereignty: In Scotland, a 'sovereignty of the people', and; in England, absolute sovereignty of the Crown in the Imperial Parliament.
Devolution was a hatchet job.
Dee is correct, Alex Salmond would just love it if Westminster overturned Holyrood legislation. It would be a denial of the Scottish nation's 'sovereign right'.
Insofar as devolved matters are concerned the absolute sovereignty of Westminster is theoretical only; there can be no justification for Westminster overturning the democratic wishes of the Scottish people as expressed through their parliament.
Terry, how many more politicians do you want? A much better solution is readily at hand, which would lead quite rapidly to fewer, rather than more, politicians.
ReplyDeleteToque, the only authority that has determined, or can determine, the form of government in any part of the United Kingdom is the Crown in Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Dee, Gordon Brown has a long history of a lot of things. From before he became Prime Minister. Which is what he now is.
The Scottish Labour great and good at Westminster have always despised devolution really. Only Donald Dewar ever availed himself of it, and he would have got out of it if he could have done. The election of the SNP has only entrenched that view even further.
And anyway, what I propose would be within the terms of the Scotland Act. Indeed, it would be the implementation of the Scotland Act, in full, for the first time. Even if Brown were as pro-devolution as anyone could possibly wish (which he isn't), then this would still be in keeping with that sentiment.
Alex Salmond can love what he likes, but there would be nothing that he could do. And anyway, the sort of legislation that Brown, Darling et al would seek to enact in Scotland would be very popular there, so there would be no bother from, say, the STUC. On the contrary, the STUC would have written the Bills, pretty much. Not something that it could ever expect from the SNP. Is not the democratic will of the Scottish people not exercised by returning MPs to Westminster, in the full knowledge that these are their powers?
And what if the SNP were to do well out of this after all? Of course, Westminster could legislate for a referendum on independence. But it won't. It simply won't. After all, is Gordon Brown to introduce this Bill? Come on!
Indeed, the same point can be made by reference to any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, since it is made simply by reference to that office, regardless of who might hold it at any given time. The idea of the holder of that office standing up in the House of Commons and introducing such a Bill is somewhere between preposterous and obscene.
And anyway, would a resolution calling for such a Bill be passed at Holyrood? Even now, it would only take a disgruntled Green, or someone at death's door in hospital, or someone caught in traffic, and the answer would be no.
Furthermore, no British Government would ever sign up to anything less than a 50/50 split, if not a per capita split, of the oil and gas revenue for ever. Have you got that? It just wouldn't sign. Indeed, politically or morally, it couldn't sign. So that would be that: no treaty. In other words, no independence.
The same is true of preserving within the Union any discernable unit of Scotland (and the votes would have to be counted somehow) which failed to deliver a Yes vote of at least fifty per cent of registered voters (although the bar might well be set higher than that) in any independence referendum that might, most improbably, ever be held.
No British Government would sign anything less than that. Have you got that? It just wouldn't sign. Indeed, politically or morally, it couldn't sign. So that would be that: no treaty. In other words, no independence for ANY part of Scotland.
It was and is all a fantasy. All of it. The Sewel Convention, the judicial nonsense that the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament does not apply in Scotland (which would invalidate the Scotland Act, but was really only designed to ensure that the judges could claim to discern the "popular" will and thus exercise de facto sovereignty on the American model), the notion that Scotland had a legal system without a legislature (in which case, so did England), the "no mandate" argument, the idea that you could just walk away with the oil and gas revenue.
But above all, the idea that there was any state in the United Kingdom except the United Kingdom, or any nation except the British nation. There wasn't. There isn't. And there never will be.
Toque, the only authority that has determined, or can determine, the form of government in any part of the United Kingdom is the Crown in Parliament of the United Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteFamous last words. The last Raj thought along much the same lines.
David, there seem to be quite a number of people that think the way you do about devolution. You want equality with your fellow citizens, but you see the solution as the abolition of devolution to pre-1998. It really is not going to happen. I would like it to, but you’re not going to get that trough back in its box.
ReplyDeleteYou ask how many more politicians/bureaucrats do I want. Well, I favour small Government, but at the very top of my list is this simple tenet… I want equality.
Look at those three words and you’ll be able to draw a straight line through the suffragettes, charterists, English civil war and many other causes, all the way back to Runnymede. I don’t know the exact number of politicians, bureaucrats or money this will take, but I’ll not accept anything less.
Should we try to turn the clock back to 1997? Fine, please help yourself but in the meantime I’ll have equal standing with the Scots and the Welsh, thank you very much.
Which Raj, Toque? India was never part of the United Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteTerry, what I am proposing is the simple implementation of the devolution legislation, exactly as it stands. It would require no change in the law, so it could start tomorrow. If Parliament had ever intended anything else, then it would have enacted different legislation.
David, I'm sure you're right when you say "If Parliament had ever intended anything else, then it would have enacted different legislation."
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Welsh were asked. The People of Northern Ireland were asked. The Scots were asked. The English have never been asked and to quote Lord Falconer, they never will be in "any future that we can see".
Can we not ask, that we should be asked?
Cameron is recognised as being of Scottish extraction but definately not Scottish. He is as Scottish as former President Rawlings of Ghana - and nobody claims he is Scottish.
ReplyDeleteConcerning an English Parliament, democratically it would be the correct thing to do.
However I think the real reasons why there is such opposition against an English Parliament in the political establishment is that an autonomous English political entity would be more damaging for the union than anything Holyrood could throw at it.
The UK is a hub union. That is that without England there would definately be no UK - whatever David says. It would be like the USSR/Russian Empire without Russia and the Hapsburg Empire without Austria.
The English are (to use an AJP Taylor parlance) the the "people of state" in the British state. The British state is seen as a continuation of the English one after 1707. The Russians were the people of state of the USSR, the Serbs in Yugoslavia, the Czechs in Czechoslovakia and the Castillians today in Spain.
An English government as soon as it became operable would demand more powers (like in Scotland) but could not be ignored (like they are trying to do in Scotland). The English head of government (whom I like to call the Lord Protector) would be the second most powerful political office in the UK. And what is scarey is that unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer etc, the Prime Minister could not sack him.
If the Lord Protector demanded more powers - with already the control of most of the UK's police and most of the civil service in the UK - his/her position would be unassailable. Who would fight him. How could the British government try and close him down if the English Parliament backs him?
David may say that the Lord Protector will be subordinate to the British government/Parliament, soverignty of Parliament and all that etc. Tell that to someone with control of most of the British Isles. He could largely do anything he likes.
The British Parliament and government in a federation would be reduced to largely foriegn affairs, defence, social security, regulation of commerce, macro-economics, immigration etc. Most of the UK civil service (particuarly education, agriculture, culture etc) would find themselves under the control of the English government.
Which is why the British government is keen on English regionalisation. Nine regional governments will not have the power to take on the British government. When Salmond demands more powers he can be ignored and they can threaten to cut his money off (although the political implications of such a move might be to the SNP's advantage!)
In history, has a hub nation, people of state etc ever broken a political union? Well probably the best example is the break up of the USSR. After the failed coup Yeltsin (who as President of Russia within the USSR had the same status as First Ministers Salmond, Morgan and Paisley) simply took control of the administration of the Russian parts of the USSR - particuarly the army - and undermined its proper boss Gorberchev once he was restored to office. Yeltsin was acting ultra vires as he had no business as head of sub-national unit in taking over the armed forces but did he care? Over to you David.
Another thing, since David believes that Scotland should be punished if it showed self-determination by taking 50/50 of the oil, then what sanction/punishment should be inflicted on a nationalistic English government?
It's not a punishment, it would be simple justice. Who told you that these resources yours to clear off with, anyway. They belong to the only state in the United Kingdom, namely the United Kingdom, and to the only nation therein, namely the British nation.
ReplyDeleteYou should only hope that, if there ever were negotiations towards independence, then you weren't faced with a British Government which insisted on the morally unanswerable, but I suppose politically unutterable, principle that a secession should not see one penny of this British resource, and that it would not sign any treaty which did not contain that insistence.
I doubt that you have ever heard the vehemence with which English politicians, right across the spectrum, maintain that "the oil is ours", i.e., the United Kingdom's, and that a secessionist entity would have given up any moral claim to it. But they do. After all, if you want to go your own way, then you want to go your own way.
At the end of the day, the British Government can dictate the terms of independence absolutely, simply by refusing to sign anything that doesn't give it absolutely everything it wants. And then where would you be?
But this is all academic. Brown introducing an Independence, or even an Independence Referendum, Bill, is obviously absurd. Cameron, who actually has a house in Scotland (unlike Blair, for example), doing so is no less absurd. Indeed, any British Prime Minister's doing so is obviously absurd, simply by the nature of the office.
And the Constitution is a reserved matter, so Salmond or whoever can just be told that it's none of his business. That was the legislation he voted for on the floor of the House of Commons, having campaigned for it in the referendum.
There is no people of state, as such, in the United Kingdom. The cultural and political importance of Scotland, in particular, is too great for that. Wales (English-speaking as well as Welsh-speaking) is a bit more insular culturally, but the political point still stands; just consider that the NHS was founded by a (ferociously Unionist) Welshman, for a start.
And you still don't get the point: in a devolved settlement, Westminster can still enact any legislation it likes, which then prevails over any enactment of a devolved body. That is the deal. It is what the Scotland Act says. It is what the Wales Act says. It is what SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs voted for. It is what those parties campaigned for in the referendums. And it is what (God forbid) any England Act would say.
The full implementation of the Scotland and Wales Acts is long overdue, and was always going to happen once Brown was Prime Minister, at least unless there was an utterly Brownite client Executive at Holyrood simply doing as he told it.
And that implementation will make more and more people wonder what the point of the devolved tier is at all.
Groan, you old reactionary authoritarian imperialist British nationalist you. You admire Milosovic, enough said.
ReplyDeleteYou fear the shadow of the Lord Protector. You know once he started he could not be stopped whatever the constitutional niceties.
The "constitutional niceties" are in fact "the law", and could easily stop this most improbable figure from doing all sorts of things, or indeed anything very much at all. It would simply be ruled ultra vires, or Westminster would simply enact overriding legislation, or both.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you still bothering? Lord Salmond certainly isn't. And I really am betting on Sir Alex before the next Holyrood elections, partly the way the notionally Nationalist PMs of various Dominions and Colonies used to be knighted while still ranting against Britain for domestic consumption, but really the way someone like Sir Robert Menzies of Australia was knighted, for the rather simpler reason of being almost embarrassingly pro-British.
And why not? If Sir Alex examines his passport, then British is exactly what he is, simply as a matter of fact.
It's all over. Give it up.
A pretty bizzare post I must say. Firstly, as many have pointed out, returning to pre-1997 arrangements is nigh on impossible. Both devolved legilsatures were democratically mandated, and both have grown in popularity in the last decade. So much in fact that by 2011 Wales will have a full Parliament, something unthinkable after the close Assembly vote in 1997.
ReplyDeleteYour throaway comments to the Welsh nationalists shows a large dose of ignorance for politics this side of Offa's Dyke. The party you state as "not worth thinking about" are in government for the first time in their history.
You then state that the SNP have dropped their moves for an independence referendum, and yet we see them today launching the white paper to do just that!
Devolution is here to stay, and as Ron Davies famously said back in 1997, it is a process not an event. The end of the Union is much closer today than it was 12 months ago, and that's true in all three mainland countries.