WELCOME TO SCOTSVOICES.EUSCOTSVOICES is intended to be an open forum for competing and complimentary visions of how Scottish Democracy will develop over the next few years. Whether that development be within the current devolution settlement or with further devolution or indeed as an independent state.
The publication of the Calman Report on the 15th June 2009 and a promised Parliamentary Referendum Bill later this year could mean fundamental shifts in how Scotland is Governed, this forum seeks to discuss, compare and contrast a diverse range of thinking about how democracy can develop at Local & National level.
The site is
moderated and administered by it's own authors.
Contributions are always welcome, however the forum is intended for the exploration of Scotland's Political future from a non-partisan perspective and commentators and members alike are expected to adhere to that rule.
"'Progressive thought is wide in its sweep, and truth arises from the clash of opinions."If you wish to contribute a post, whether you are a regular blogger or periodic commentator with a bee in your bonnet, you can get involved and get it off your chest by emailing us
here
Posts
6 comments:
I always get the impression that those such as David Melding AM who have come late to the constitutional debate simply don't understand why devolution was chosen for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and why federalism is non-starter in the UK.
Devolution is a provincial system of government. The fundamental principle of devolution is that devolution does not diminish the powers or change the workings of the central government and that the devolved provinces are either geographically or culturally remote.
This is the system we now have in place. Scotland, Wales and NI are devolved provinces of a Greater England which retains the supreme parliament in the country and was regarded as the devolving power when the devolution was put in place. That's why the idea of a, "Devolved English Parliament", is such a joke. The devolving power can't devolve power to itself.
The devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly granted these parliaments no radical new powers. Where they didn't have a separate legal system such as in Wales they didn't get one. In Scotland the separate legal system, education system and all that derive from them were not created by devolution but were incorporated into the new Parliament simply as a transfer of power from the old Scottish Office to the new Parliament.
Federalism would require the creation of four equal parliaments and a new UK Parliament. If all parliaments were to be equal it would require the creation of new law and education systems for Wales and NI and it would also require that the central system of government in the UK was destroyed and then rebuilt from the ground up to create the new UK federal parliament. That would not only defeat the principle of devolution it would destroy the idea of the unitary British Nation with devolved provinces that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are all so whole-heartedly behind as it would make the constituent nations visible again and more importantly, separate out English identity from Britishness which all parties would like to keep as an ill-defined whole.
The quote from David Melding, "Those who dismiss federalism as fanciful fail to appreciate that the United Kingdom has already reached functional federalism", simply shows that there are a lot of people out there who still don't understand the difference between devolution and federalism and the reasons why any "federal" system which regards England as a nation is never even going to reach the starting blocks.
Scotland will never get fiscal autonomy with devolution and federalism will never happen.
Doug
There is not much in your historical and constitutional analysis i disagree with. But you see things as too set in stone. I just dont accept an English Parliament is "never" going to happen, nor a quasi federal UK not an option. I am no Unionist, but we underestimate our opponents if we think they do not have plans b, c and d up their sleeves for when the pressure really comes on in terms of scotland's secession.
For the ultimate defenders of the British state it is UK identity, macroeconomics, foreign policy, defence and that UN security council permanent seat that are the essentials. All other bets are off. The Union is more flexible than you give it credit, opponents of Scottish independence too clever to be hemmed in by the staightjacket you ascribe to them.
Look at N Ireland to see how far they will move. Indeed look how far they have moved in Scotland in the 40 years since the SNP emerged as a credible force. They have more than a few scripts.
Aye We Can!:
I don't agree with that. We are at the point where a referendum bill is soon to be presented to the Scottish Paliament and if it goes through then an independence referendum will be called before the end of the current Scottish Parliament in 2011.
As far as the Unionists are concerned the barbarians are already at the gate and all they could come up with was the Calman Comission. The unused 3p variable tax rate goes up to 10p, the Scottish Parliament can borrow money and the variable block grant ensures that Scotland never gets more than the Barnett formula without increasing the tax burden on Scots beyond the tax burden on the rest of the UK. And we get to legislate on airguns.
Not only are the proposals minimal they are not workable without a huge amount of work in the Tax system as currently there is no separation of Scottish and English taxes, not even for the GERS report which uses an estimate.
The Unionist tri-partite Calman Commission was the big chance to create a new federal Britain but it was hamstrung by its remit which was restricted to Scotland and by the failure of all the big three unionist parties to regard the UK as a collection of four parts rather than England with three celtic provinces on the geographic periphery.
This viewpoint manifests itself in several ways, neither the Conservatives, Labour or the Lib-Dems can grasp the idea of an English parliament separate from the UK parliament. Even if they could, that way leads to danger. Four federal nations redefine the UK as a political union not the unitary "British" nation that Brown and the rest are so desparate to promote. The fuzzier the boundaries between England and Britain the better as far as the establishment is concerned and a more powerful "federal" Scotland would be further down the "slippery slope" towards independence than ever.
Created in 1920 the Northern Ireland Parliament was almost a sovereign parliament with very little input from Westminster. It was suspended in 1972 and some of the powers were given back under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The UK government is just returning some of the powers the NI Parliament had in 1920.
In Scotland what was created was essentially another layer of local government. Funded on a block grant with no control over Scotland's economy or natural resources and subordinate to the true UK Parliament. The intention to create it as a second layer of local government was confirmed by the plan to create equivalent devolved English regions as stage two of devolution. If the the UK government moved it was only under duress and they can only move so far.
A straitjacket doesn't care if someone is smart or stupid, it locks them in just the same.
"Barbarians at the gates"
I wonder if Federalism would require the creation of four equal parliaments and a new UK Parliament..
I'm thinking simply of a revisited Act of Union, that clearly stipulates as the Scotland Act did, that some macro (federal) powers remain with Westminister and the rest reside at Holyrood.
Make no mistake, Salmond and co will be calculating on how to achieve full fiscal autonomy as the 'worst' option with the referendum.
Offering two questions in the referendum, either full fiscal autonomy or independence and expecting the combined opposition parties to amend to include only a yes or no on fiscal autonomy.
Set in the context of 10+% cuts from a Tory or Hung Parliament where the SNP form a deal breaking minority, Cameron may well be happy to accept such a settlement that will appease his own and deal with the likely deficit in Scottish representation.
Wardog:
If there aren't four new Parliaments then it's devolution. Or more precisely, the acid test of whether it is federalism or not is whether England gets its own parliament. Unless England and Britain are separated out in any new constitutional settlement then the Anglo-British state where England and Britain are indistinguisable means it's devolution and Scotland is a province. Nobody is ever going to look at the Treaty of Union in Westminister as it highlights the fact that Britain is not a nation with a thousand year history as John Major put it nor is it based on the Magna Carta as Brown would have it.
Under devolution full fiscal autonomy is a non-starter. It's just too hard to try and graft a federal solution onto a provincial form of government as Calman found out.
Going back to what Aye We Can! said above, the UK may have a few scripts but they can never implement them. The independence drive in Scotland has had the paradoxical effect of both driving change in the constitution and slamming on the brakes.
In a unified country there is no limit to how much power is transfered to federal states because there is no fear that one of them may decide to leave. The UK government was forced into granting Scotland limited powers under devolution by the fear of independence but it is now paralysed by the fear that more powers may encourage Scotland to leave.
For the Anglo-Brits it's the unfaithful dog scenario. With a faithful dog you can make the garden as big as you like with a small fence because you know the dog will never leave. With an unfaithful dog the larger the garden and less fences you put in the more the chance is that he'll get wander further and further from the house and from view and then he'll be off.
The Calman Commission was the big chance to remake the constitution in the UK and put an "SNP Killer" third option on any referendum paper but fear of independence kept the changes minimal and inconsequential. The fear of independence is not now a driver of change in the constitution it has in fact paralysed the unionist reformers.
Fair point DougtheDoug re: separate parliaments, I was thinking that their would in fact be regional assemblies but possibly with less devolved powers, so a n uneven federalism if you like.
I'm not sure that fiscal autonomy is unworkable, Calman suggested that it was 'undesirable' because it might jeopardise the current idea of the union.,. But rethinking that idea might well allow it to happen.
"unfaithful dog"
Tell me about it. ;-)
I genuinely think that the idea of an 'snp killer' is a complete red herring. but I agree that it still seems to paralyse the unionists.
We have an interesting 9- 18 months ahead.
I expect that there will indeed be a second question added to the referendum white paper but it will be pitched at the Lib Dems and gradualists not Calman.
Remember that the referendum is only consultative, it is only the start of the process of negotiation.
Far easier to achieve full indepdnecne once the state structure, i.e.s cottish treasury etc has all been set up.
Then the only debate is over Scotland's international voice & defence.
Post a Comment