“That devolution would "kill nationalism stone
dead" is a quote from Labour peer and former Defence Secretary George Robertson, now Lord Robertson.”

Yes, I understood you were referring to Robertson's remark. I've commented before that I think that was in part a bit of 'nat-baiting' rhetoric. It is often quoted as the main or fundamental reason for Labour’s support for devolution but I think the reasons are less easy to pin down.

In the Welsh context Ron Davies is said to have been converted to the cause of devolution (having voted no in 1979) when he literally saw the writing on the wall, ‘We voted Labour, we got Thatcher’.

The "Department of Whatever Next" i would wish to see up and running to catch up with us would be an enabling committee of the extant intergovernmental Council of the Isles under the flag of a confederal Union of the Isles. This Union would not be a state either, but would transform the UK state of Empire past in de-colonising ourselves and inviting the ROI to join us there too among our nations of families and friends in a family of friendly nations.

In such a way forward, Independence and Union would take us back to a real future others decided for our forbears not so long ago as longer still, perhaps out of necessity then which  would be present no longer.

How do we get from here to there? Maybe by having 1 Gauleiter instead of 3 to be party to the ongoing process of progress.

But i grant you this putative Dept still has a fishy federal look about it. Is it too much too hope whoever takes it on goes native at home!

Aye Ours,

Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire, for Independence & Union 

One of Gordon Brown's last statements to the British Parliament before the recess was that he inrended to increase the powers of regional ministers.

The English get the worst of all devolutionary scenarios and nothing that they want.

The only logic determining the borders of the hated regions was gerrymandering the electorate to suit Labour.

That devolution would "kill nationalism stone dead" is a quote from Labour peer and former Defence Secretary George Robertson, now Lord Robertson.

Yes, Margaret Thatcher broke the convention in Wales with her appointment of Peter Walker and David Hunt (arguably amongst her 'wettest' appointments?) but due to John Major’s inspired choice of John Redwood, certain sensitivities remain.

According to Wales on Sunday gossip there are two Welsh Labour MPs Brown regards as being up to the job but he can’t stand either and he thinks the rest of bonkers.

Perhaps Jim Murphy can discover some Welsh ancestry but with a name like that, it's hardly likely!

I'm not sure what others make of the choice of Jim Murphy. It could indicate certain wariness on the part of the government. There is a convention that only a Scot can assume the role of Secretary of State for Scotland and this is mirrored by the opposition who always have Scots in the role of Shadow Secretary. No such convention applies to Northern Ireland or Wales.

I wonder if this is an attempt to have continuity with what went before, or signs of anxiety about what kind of press the change will receive in Scotland. There was a short-lived practice in the early days of Britain’s membership of the EEC for Britain's second Commissioner to always be a Scot, again perhaps showing anxiety. In that case it was presumably over the issue of Scotland's lack of direct participation in Europe as compared to Ireland, but this was quietly dropped when it was safe to do so.

“Labour devolved power to "kill nationalism stone dead”. I would demur slightly on that point. While the electoral fortunes of Plaid Cymru have influenced Welsh Labour’s attitudes towards devolution there have always been genuine advocates of the policy for its own sake within the party in Wales (and vested and other interests opposing it).

Blair of course tried to reshuffle the Welsh and Scottish posts, along with the Lord Chancellor, out of existence in 2003 and failed, leaving the rather messy situation we have now. Devolution and 'sofa government’ obviously wasn't a good mix - let's hope Brown does have something a bit more coherent in mind.

I think your analysis is correct. Labour devolved power to "kill nationalism stone dead". They thought that retaining the legal sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and their own electoral dominance in Scotland and Wales would keep a lid on things. At every step they tried to play down the importance of what they had done. Devolution to England was, as you say, an after-thought in Labour's second term (it was handed to Prescott for Christ's sake!)

I also agree that creating the new department_now_looks very much like a reactionary and defensive move following on from SNP victory.("Colonialism", as some have said.) My point is that if the new department had been created say mid-way through Blair's second term once the assemblies had become established it would have signalled the Government was thinking long-term and seriously about devolution.

“Why shouldn't the centre provide ambitious and creative thinking on devolution? …”
In theory I suppose it could but I have a problem with the idea that Whitehall civil servants could ever be enthused by devolution – a prejudice on my part no doubt!

Perhaps the key to this is New Labour’s attitude towards devolution. Having delivered devolution to keep the ‘Celtic fringe’ happy I think it just preferred to carry on as if nothing much had happened. The proposed settlement for England is a case in point. Had New Labour been serious about English regional assemblies (to clarify - I’m not making the case for them) then it would have been a massive, all-encompassing political project for its first term. Instead of which we got the exact opposite – a highly-centralised ‘command and control’ type of politics.

Rather than signalling fresh thinking on devolution and the English Question, I fear the proposal may be little more than a ‘tidying up’ exercise by New Labour.

Hendre, why shouldn't the centre provide ambitious and creative thinking on devolution? A single devolution department could have thought seriously about how the devolved administrations would relate to the centre. It could even have explored options for federalism and addressed the English Question. Whether we like it or not for the time being these things remain the preserve of the Westminster parliament.

Interesting point, I'm unclear myself about whether amending legislation would be needed.

I’m not quite sure what an ‘ambitious, creative and coherent government policy on devolution’ means exactly. I thought it was the devolved administrations, not the centre, that are supposed to be providing ambition and creativity. As Britologywatch says, it does rather smack of colonialism. It also seems to imply that there would never be any conflicts of interests between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

At the risk of sounding a bit obsessive on this point, while it is perfectly feasible to ‘roll up’ the three posts and give them to one individual in Cabinet, surely amending legislation will be needed to abolish them?

It's all so illogical.  Patronising to "the nations" and discriminatory against England.  It's a plan that has no long-term future, they have no end-game.  The only people who do know what they want are the SNP, and unsurprisingly it's only the SNP who have a logical argument and come across with conviction.

While I'm glad that England is no longer to be covered by the super-department in the guise of 'the regions', the fact the department will now deal only with 'the nations' underlines the somewhat colonial character of devolution: 'the nations' being rather like semi-autonomous colonies administered at a discreet distance by their own dedicated Whitehall department; while the implicit identification between England and the UK, as the overarching entity from which 'the nations' are devolved, is confirmed. Clearly, no move towards devolution for 'England' in any shape or form, then.