Akash Paun (London, Constitution Unit): There is a notable omission from Brown's package of proposals on the constitution: devolution. Nationalists have now gained office in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and the ‘English Question' is a live issue, yet the Government's Green Paper makes no suggestion that reform to the existing devolution settlement and the relationship between the different nations of the UK needs to be part of the "path to a new constitutional settlement".
Could this be a mistake? For Brown and his team, there are good reasons to leave devolution out of the debate. Any suggestion of transferring more power from Westminster to the Scottish and Welsh bodies could open up divisions in his own party, encourage Celtic nationalists, and stir up latent discontent in England about the asymmetrical nature of devolution. The West Lothian Question is dismissed and while the Barnett Formula may go there is so far no mention of arrangements for coordination and dispute-resolution between the UK and its devolved bodies. Perhaps this is because giving a higher-profile to intergovernmental relations within the UK might be a hostage to fortune. But so might not doing so.
In avoiding such issues, the government plays a risky game. If it neglects to make the case for how power and resources should be distributed across the nations including explaining when asymmetries are necessary it leaves space for rival constitutional and nation-building projects (see for example Gavin Yates's recent post on Salmond's strategy for independence). Whether driven by genuine grievances or by competing values and orientations these are all too likely to threaten Gordon Brown´s central objective of strengthening the political system of the Union and the bonds between the people who live here.
