Tom Griffin (London: The Green Ribbon) Some of the proceedings from last week's Inside Devolution 2008 conference at the Constitution Unit are now available online.
They included a fascinating roundtable discussion on the performance of the devolved governments over the past year: Iain MacWhirter, Martin Shipton, and Robin Wilson provided insightful analyses of the political situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively. (Audio here)
But perhaps the most interesting contribution came from Peter Riddell, on the impact of devolution on Westminster and on the resurgent Tories in particular.
We've yet to see the Tory proposals on addressing Scotland. I'm sure there'll be talk of a further reduction in seats. I think they're very wary of now of English votes for English laws, because they see the practical difficulties of doing it. I think it's more likely to be a version of the Rifkind formula, of a grand committee.
He went on to suggest that a Conservative Government may not have to answer the English question at all:
If there is a meltdown for Labour, curiously the pressure on Cameron to do anything on the legislative side on Scotland reduces. If he's got a clear majority, he doesn't have to worry about it. It's a notional problem. After all, the whole point of the English issue is only if there's a Labour minority government relying on Scottish MPs to carry through legislation. It doesn't arise if you've got a Conservative government.
Comments
It almost certainly will arise because, when Scotland decides to become independent (which seems more likely by the day), what will the UK consist of, if not, esentially, England? Scotland's independence is not dependent on the colour of government in England but on the colour of opinion in Scotland. That seems to be moving, inexorably, in one direction.
Though I agree that after a Conservative victory in the next General Election Scotland may very well be a "notional" problem because it will have left, dissolving the Union.
I read the Keynote address by Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit, and as usual with commentators and politicians south of the border his knowledge of the makeup of Britain is pretty poor.
From his speech he gives us his:
Institutions of Britishness
Institutions which symbolise Britain and Britishness include the key political institutions, the major public services, and institutions of civil society:
And in civil society
What's wrong with those? Well, a large number of Scots were very unhappy when Queen Elizabeth was named Queen Elizabeth II. In fact they burnt the post-boxes with the QEII logos on them and you still don't get the numeral II in the Royal Crest on Royal Mail postboxes or on the van liveries to this day. The Supreme court was put in place in the face of oppostion from the Scottish Judiciary as it breaks the Treaty of Union which promised separate Legal Systems and in any case it doesn't have any control over Scottish Criminal Law. There is no common judiciary in the UK with the separate legal systems in England and Wales, Scotland and in Northern Ireland. Common law is a very English legal concept. The National Health service has already dissolved into different "national" National Health Services, the, "The Church of England, of Scotland and in Wales", is not a grouping of three Anglican churches, the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and in no way part of the Anglican Communion. The NSPCC does not operate in Scotland. The equivalent Scottish charity is Children 1st. (Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children)
I'm always wary of those who pontificate on Britishness when they either do not really understand the legal, institutional and historical differences between England and Scotland or try and gloss over them.
I think Tom Griffin is right when he says that if the Tories win an outright majority, they'll probably do nothing about an EGC, let alone an English parliament. But their complacency in acting in that way - assuming they do - may seal the end of the Union because you'd have the reverse of the present situation: instead of a Labour government with no mandate in England, you'd have a Tory government with no mandate in Scotland. And given that the Tories would be likely to try to lessen the influence / numbers of Scottish MPs in English-British affairs while seeking some sort of mitigation of the Barnett Formula - if not its outright abolition - anti-Westminster sentiment will only increase in Scotland, with the likely outcome that the Scots will vote for independence at some point during the Cameron government.
Further constitutional reform to the relationship between the nations of the UK and the Westminster government is needed; and if it's not forthcoming the Scots will vote with their feet, and English tolerance of a disproportionately elected, massive Conservative majority will not last for ever either. The only way to head off a complete break up of the present UK is to work out a federal solution as soon as possible, with parliaments in all four nations having full tax-raising powers for the money they actually spend, on the democratic accountability principle.
This is staggeringly daft. It's hard to know where to start. First off Riddell is obviously don't appear to see any "English issue" outside resolution - or in this case neutering - of the West Lothian Question.
Hopefully everyone in the room was aware of the difference between the WLQ and the English Question.
Second , a Tory majority and Labour meltdown doesn't solve the WLQ, it just makes it less party political. I don't see why having a load of Scottish nationalist MPs voting on English issues that don't concern them, when their only motivation is Scottish self-interest and making the Union unworkable, is any better than having a load of Scottish Labour MPs voting on English issues that don't concern them.
Thirdly, what incredible short-termism to ignore a pressing constitutional issue just because it isn't likely to be a problem within the current parliament. It make the Tories no better than Labour - and they will be judged accordingly. If Cameron thinks he can govern England as Britain, and Scotland, Wales and NI on reserved matters with only a handful (at best) of Tory MPs in those countries then he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/England-freedom/
A Tory landslide would be a disater for England. Despite all its bluster history shows undeniably the Tories are the most Europhilic party. They got us in Europe under the most stupid terms, signed Maastricht (ie started the EU), carved England into gerrymandered regions (at least started the process) and also dug the Channel Tunnel.
Nothing would change for England under the Tories, democratically. England will never have a parliament under the Tories. They would turn their faces to Scotland and carry on the subsidies.
Cameron's comments about the "imperfect Union" being essential, and how the "sour Little Englanders " are to blame for Scottish discontent show this to be true.
Post new comment