![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Kingdoms Await
Thursday, September 18th, 2014 07:37 pmI don’t suppose that I am alone in this, but for good or ill, I shall be happy when the Scottish Referendum is over, one way or the other. By tomorrow morning (though we might not know definitively until Saturday, I guess) it will be all over, one way or another.
Except that it won’t. The entirety of Scotland will be nursing a hangover; one half from celebrations that ran on too long, the other half from nursing their sorrows. Everyone will be wondering what comes next, some with more anxiety than others. In the event of Independence, the Scottish government would have secured a popular mandate from marginally more than half its voting population to break up the United Kingdom and jump, fingers crossed into the unknown, almost literally on a wing and a prayer, subject to the vicissitudes of market forces and romantic dreams of Mel Gibson in a kilt and none of the potential funding gap a semi Stalinist Scotland would face.
Be that as it may: what is clear is that there will have to be change. The future – either a split or so-called “Devo Max”, or Home Rule will have to be negotiated. But between whom is anybody’s guess: the Scottish government on one side certainly, but with whom on the other? There will be a mandate of one sort or another for the representatives in Holyrood, but who has given Westminster a similar mandate? I don’t recall ever being asked if the UK Government should negotiate terms for either Scottish Independence, or greater devolution. These are constitutional issues that should be passed over to the people for a decision (as were the unfinished and half-baked reforms started and abandoned by New Labour).
If Scotland votes ‘Yes’, there should be a referendum of the remainder of the UK to establish what the population will and will not support. The three Westminster Parties have ruled out the official use by Scotland of Sterling, with the Bank of England as lender of last resort – i.e. the UK taxpayer supporting the Scottish banks if needs be. I think that’s right – it seems logical to me. But no-one has asked me, nor have they asked anyone else. What constitutes the maximum amount of assets to be transferred, the UK’s most generous (or indeed least generous) bottom line? No-one has asked the people who will be expected to foot the bill.
Independence would answer the West Lothian question. So let’s call it the West Carmarthen question; same thing, smaller scale. That needs addressing – so then do we have an English Parliament? Certain questions will not go away whatever the result on Thursday. Whether the UK continues to exist as the same geographical entity, or not it will no longer be the same political entity. There will have to be some rebalancing of the so-called rUK in the event of independence, to protect the Welsh and Northern Irish from being swamped even more than they probably already are, by the much greater population of England and its consequent comparative political weight. In the event of the Union surviving, the same arguments pertain, with the promised shift of further powers to Holyrood. Where does this leave the rest of the UK?
Frankly it leaves the country politically unbalanced and emphasises and exacerbates the democratic deficit that already exists.
Whilst I would shy away from regional assemblies in England – there was no great appetite for those ten years ago and I’m not sure that people want an additional layer of government at that level anyway – there is a case surely for looking at the governance of the larger cities. It might be time to revisit the concept of elected executive mayors and city assemblies on the London model. There is a great deal of dislike for London in the English regions as well as the other nations. It is seen economically, politically and culturally as sucking in far more than its fair share of resources.
I am not convinced that this attitude is entirely fair (I live and work in London and have done so for over 30 years, but I’m NOT a Londoner), but perception, even an incorrect perception counts for a great deal. Rather than griping about or punishing London, the other major cities should be given the tools of governance locally that will allow them to catch up and capture some of the action for themselves. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle certainly have the potential and I’m certain that others do, too. They simply need to have their ties with Whitehall loosened and allowed to develop themselves to suit local circumstances. Some people will complain that this smacks of Localism, the Tory idea and to an extent it does, but all parties have seen the need for some sort of redistribution of powers and responsibilities; Localism didn’t appear fully formed out of a vacuum. It just needs to lose its ideological baggage.
However the vote goes today, there has to be change. The bloated and self-satisfied edifice that is Parliament needs to listen to the people. It has to adapt to survive. There has to be a balance between what the country needs as a corporate identity and what the people need as an electorate. That means something more than standing up in Parliament, announcing massive cuts, swigging champagne and telling people ‘We’re all in it together’ when it’s quite plain that the authors of our misfortunes, with the exception of the odd public scapegoat, have blended with the shadows and are simply counting their ill-gotten gains.
Even without a redistribution to the English regions, if more power is devolved to Cardiff and to Belfast (and Edinburgh if the vote is ‘no’), at the very least there needs to be time set aside in Parliament for English MPs to debate and act upon English matters in the way that the various Assemblies and Parliaments of the other UK nations look after their own affairs. A separate English Parliament might conceivably be a step too far, I don’t know. I don’t think it is. The fact that the UK Parliament sits in the traditional home of the English Parliament is simply a reflection and recognition of the history of the development of the UK. What started off as the English Parliament is now the UK Parliament. Perhaps a more centrally placed English city could host an English Parliament?
However the political and democratic dice fall after today‘s referendum in Scotland, the political and democratic structure of the United Kingdom needs a drastic and effective overhaul. It maybe that some sort of Federal United Kingdom will arise from the ruins of the old structures, but it needs to be effective and it needs to be credible and it must be focussed on the needs of the people rather than the whims of some shadowy elite.
Except that it won’t. The entirety of Scotland will be nursing a hangover; one half from celebrations that ran on too long, the other half from nursing their sorrows. Everyone will be wondering what comes next, some with more anxiety than others. In the event of Independence, the Scottish government would have secured a popular mandate from marginally more than half its voting population to break up the United Kingdom and jump, fingers crossed into the unknown, almost literally on a wing and a prayer, subject to the vicissitudes of market forces and romantic dreams of Mel Gibson in a kilt and none of the potential funding gap a semi Stalinist Scotland would face.
Be that as it may: what is clear is that there will have to be change. The future – either a split or so-called “Devo Max”, or Home Rule will have to be negotiated. But between whom is anybody’s guess: the Scottish government on one side certainly, but with whom on the other? There will be a mandate of one sort or another for the representatives in Holyrood, but who has given Westminster a similar mandate? I don’t recall ever being asked if the UK Government should negotiate terms for either Scottish Independence, or greater devolution. These are constitutional issues that should be passed over to the people for a decision (as were the unfinished and half-baked reforms started and abandoned by New Labour).
If Scotland votes ‘Yes’, there should be a referendum of the remainder of the UK to establish what the population will and will not support. The three Westminster Parties have ruled out the official use by Scotland of Sterling, with the Bank of England as lender of last resort – i.e. the UK taxpayer supporting the Scottish banks if needs be. I think that’s right – it seems logical to me. But no-one has asked me, nor have they asked anyone else. What constitutes the maximum amount of assets to be transferred, the UK’s most generous (or indeed least generous) bottom line? No-one has asked the people who will be expected to foot the bill.
Independence would answer the West Lothian question. So let’s call it the West Carmarthen question; same thing, smaller scale. That needs addressing – so then do we have an English Parliament? Certain questions will not go away whatever the result on Thursday. Whether the UK continues to exist as the same geographical entity, or not it will no longer be the same political entity. There will have to be some rebalancing of the so-called rUK in the event of independence, to protect the Welsh and Northern Irish from being swamped even more than they probably already are, by the much greater population of England and its consequent comparative political weight. In the event of the Union surviving, the same arguments pertain, with the promised shift of further powers to Holyrood. Where does this leave the rest of the UK?
Frankly it leaves the country politically unbalanced and emphasises and exacerbates the democratic deficit that already exists.
Whilst I would shy away from regional assemblies in England – there was no great appetite for those ten years ago and I’m not sure that people want an additional layer of government at that level anyway – there is a case surely for looking at the governance of the larger cities. It might be time to revisit the concept of elected executive mayors and city assemblies on the London model. There is a great deal of dislike for London in the English regions as well as the other nations. It is seen economically, politically and culturally as sucking in far more than its fair share of resources.
I am not convinced that this attitude is entirely fair (I live and work in London and have done so for over 30 years, but I’m NOT a Londoner), but perception, even an incorrect perception counts for a great deal. Rather than griping about or punishing London, the other major cities should be given the tools of governance locally that will allow them to catch up and capture some of the action for themselves. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle certainly have the potential and I’m certain that others do, too. They simply need to have their ties with Whitehall loosened and allowed to develop themselves to suit local circumstances. Some people will complain that this smacks of Localism, the Tory idea and to an extent it does, but all parties have seen the need for some sort of redistribution of powers and responsibilities; Localism didn’t appear fully formed out of a vacuum. It just needs to lose its ideological baggage.
However the vote goes today, there has to be change. The bloated and self-satisfied edifice that is Parliament needs to listen to the people. It has to adapt to survive. There has to be a balance between what the country needs as a corporate identity and what the people need as an electorate. That means something more than standing up in Parliament, announcing massive cuts, swigging champagne and telling people ‘We’re all in it together’ when it’s quite plain that the authors of our misfortunes, with the exception of the odd public scapegoat, have blended with the shadows and are simply counting their ill-gotten gains.
Even without a redistribution to the English regions, if more power is devolved to Cardiff and to Belfast (and Edinburgh if the vote is ‘no’), at the very least there needs to be time set aside in Parliament for English MPs to debate and act upon English matters in the way that the various Assemblies and Parliaments of the other UK nations look after their own affairs. A separate English Parliament might conceivably be a step too far, I don’t know. I don’t think it is. The fact that the UK Parliament sits in the traditional home of the English Parliament is simply a reflection and recognition of the history of the development of the UK. What started off as the English Parliament is now the UK Parliament. Perhaps a more centrally placed English city could host an English Parliament?
However the political and democratic dice fall after today‘s referendum in Scotland, the political and democratic structure of the United Kingdom needs a drastic and effective overhaul. It maybe that some sort of Federal United Kingdom will arise from the ruins of the old structures, but it needs to be effective and it needs to be credible and it must be focussed on the needs of the people rather than the whims of some shadowy elite.