What is devo-max, or devo-plus, or ultra-lite indy? The calls for more powers to be conceded to the Scottish parliament are reported as though there is a consensus. There are as many explanations of what devo-max means as there are individuals supporting more devolution. No party in the Scottish parliament has plans worked up, not even the SNP. Some speculative think tank papers have been written in Scotland, but that’s about it.
Tim Montgomerie argues in The Guardian that David Cameron should not simply campaign for a No vote in the 2014 referendum; he should offer a final settlement, that secures a federal Union, devolves more powers to Scotland and gives England proper recognition (with English only votes). In that way, Conservative activists think they will guarantee Tory government in England, although they often forget that would not have been the case in 1997 or 2001.
Such a messy argument is precisely what Cameron hopes to avoid. The Prime Minister and Labour big beasts such as Alistair Darling agree that more powers should be parked until after a straight-forward in or out referendum around which the Unionist parties can unite. If the Prime Minister ventures onto English-only votes territory then it will be difficult to establish trust with Labour for a cross-party campaign to save the Union.
But the party that is in the biggest bind in this regard is actually Labour.
The party’s senior figures seem to want some unspecified form of devo-max once Scotland votes “no”. But as I have noted before, I’m not sure they have thought through the implications. If the tax UK system is broken up, there is no way that Scottish MPs could then vote on English taxation. Once that principle of there being two kinds of MPs was established, it would surely be extended rapidly to health, education etc.
You might say: fine. And as someone who warned that this is where devolution would lead, and who thinks the incredible tolerance and patience of the English is one of the most remarkable features of this interminable saga, I can see the argument.
But it would mean a very different kind of UK, one with a fully federalist structure in which the Scots, and eventually the Welsh, visit only to vote on foreign affairs, defence, perhaps a bit of welfare and what is left of common taxation (probably not much). Perhaps the UK federal parliament and devolved parliaments could have dual membership, so that the Scots and Welsh only take part on days when federal business is being transacted in the Commons? But I don’t think the Nats in Scotland would agree to that. They are more likely to demand that everything is transacted through a council of ministers, with the Scottish parliament carrying out its own votes on foreign affairs, defence etc.
What a mess we’re heading for.
Labour politicians from Scotland, who feel British and want to play a big part in governing the UK, will say that this creates two classes of MPs and all but breaks the Union. But it is where devo-max leads. Perhaps they should have thought of that 15 or 20 years ago when they started off down the road to devolution.
A genuinely federal solution is not a mess. It is tried and tested elsewhere, it is principled and it is logical. What Labour and the Lib Dems mean by devo-max is an extension of the system whereby (a) the Scots run as much of their affairs as possible and spend as much as possible while passing the bill to the English; and (b) Labour and Lib Dem politicians can vote at Westminster to preserve (a). This isn’t devolution. It’s a way of asset-stripping the English to pay for a failed experiment in municipal socialism.
Devolution is a fact, the genie is out of the bottle,we cannot go back no matter how safe or golden the past seems.
So we move forward, the only sensible solution being a recognition of the desire for devolved government across the UK, which I believe should remain in Union, but now a Federal Union.
The old “fixes” – bribes to voters in Scotland (devolution) and government jobs in the North – are coming apart as the financial situation proves them to be unsustainable. Now we must finish the job so that the maximum decision making and spending powers are moved out from the centre to more local areas is achieved.
This is not a plea for the Regional assemblies that were proposed by NuLab and soundly rejected by the people, we need to find ways to get decision making to the most local level possible and this would not, for example, be London where there is no interest in Uxbridge for spending in, say, Bromley and where the London Olympics re in reality the East London Olympics and no positive economic effects will be felt across the capital away from Stratford.
A Federal solution is only the start to proper devolved government but it is a essential start to bringing democracy and government into the 21st century lokking toward the 22nd.
Fine have a genuinely federal solution. But we shouldn’t automatically assume that England will be considered as only one region in a federal structure.
“But it would mean a very different kind of UK, one with a fully federalist structure in which the Scots, and eventually the Welsh”
Not forgetting Northern Ireland of course!
I couldn’t agree more, Iain. Devolution was always going to turn out like this. The simplest way to correct the present devolution anomalies would be for England to send representatives to sit in the devolved legislatures so they do have a direct say in their affairs in proportion to the effect the celtic fringe have on English-only affairs at Westminster. On present voting intentions, this would have the effect of turning the SNP into a minority government in Scotland. I also hope broadcasting isn’t one of the powers that David Cameron has in mind for Scotland after a no vote. Flanders and Wallonia don’t talk much in disintegrating Belgium and the loss of a shared narrative would be disastrous for the future of the Uk. English politicians already have an indirect say in devolved politics through broadcasting,
David, yes of course. Apologies and thanks. Not forgetting Northern Ireland. Will amend…
What is the feeling in Wales and the Welsh Assembly about all this?
You’re right, of course. It’s a mess.
Would it help if England gained several large regional assemblies (i.e. The Council of the North, The Council of Middle England, The South Eastern Great Council, The Council of the West Country’ The Council of East Anglia)? Each of these would make sense, but none would regard itself as a national assembly. England would still be England, only more so.
The English councils could exercise devo-min while the National assemblies went ahead with devo-minimax. English MPs would vote on those issues, like tax, that affected England as a whole. Members from all four nations would vote on defence, foreign relations, Europe, national security, immigration, trade, the NHS, constitutional law etc. The Westminster Parliament could shrink back to about 400 members, which would be more efficient anyway. Monday and Tuesday would be reserved for the English Question; federal business would be debated from Wednesday to Friday.
I suspect it would be one of those arrangements that worked better in practise than in theory. But only if everybody wanted it to work … precisely the sort of moot point that the federal parliament (or Moot House) would have to resolve.
Or we could always just stay as we are and tell the Scots to get fell in.
“Members from all four nations would vote on …, the NHS, …”
I thought the NHS was now devolved, at least to Scotland.
CHF. Yes, the NHS is devolved. But administratively the service has always been completely separate in Scotland. What changed in 1999 was that the Scottish Executive (government) and Scottish parliament took over responsibility for it, rather than legislation etc going through Westminster.
I didn’t know about the NHS. I assumed it was administratively separate but essentially the same thing. Darwin teaches us that when species bifurcate (is that the word?), the resulting branches evolve differently, so that, for example, certain apes ended up human and others like John Prescott. So, Doc Martin, here is the key question: if I were a patient in Glasgow, would I receive a better or a worse deal these days than if I were suffering from the same complaint (let us say, flatulence) in Newcastle?