Scotland
in the
heat
Listening
to the
other side
R D Kernohan discovers common ground in unexpected places
Get SR free in
your inbox three
times a week
Click here
The Store
The new space for articles you may
have missed
The history of
our post-war progress
is not all it seems
Click here for
Jill Stephenson
The Cafe
Unlike many publications SR doesn’t have an online comment facility – we prefer a more considered approach. The Cafe is our readers’ forum. If you would like to contribute to it, please email islay@scottishreview.net
Today’s banner
North Berwick flowers
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
Ordinary Scots don’t
give a stuff about
constitutional futures
Ronnie Smith (20 March) wrote as follows:
The unionists, now very much on the back foot, may be forced to fall back on the federal trigger of devo-max as the only way in which they can save their precious union and secure access to more oil revenue for the UK exchequer. Devo-max probably gives most people involved in the debate on the constitutional future of Scotland most of what they want and it probably provides the best blueprint for a sustainable United Kingdom. The problem with devo-max is that it makes sense.
May I ask who are ‘…most people involved in the debate on the constitutional future of Scotland’? I believe them to be those with the most to lose, ie non-representative Scots and lots of English people, especially talking heads in the media. The SNP are not debating anything, just laying their cards face-up on the table. Ordinary Scots don’t give a stuff about consitutional futures and don’t even care to be involved in any debate – it’s far simpler and yet more complex than that.
However, once the admission is made that devo-max provides ‘secure access to more oil revenue for the UK exchequer’, then it ‘makes sense’ only for the UK and not for Scotland.
That is why the unionist parties are not articulating what devo-max really means, because they know it will propel even more Scots towards outright independence. There’s method in the apparent unionist confusion and in Cameron’s refusal to countenance such an option. The SNP, as usual, are playing a very clever game. They certainly don’t want devo-max, but are hoping some hapless unionist will insist on its being included in the referendum so that they can shoot the whole weasly, sorry thing down in flames.
As for the sustainability of the United Kingdom, I suspect we’re right out of blueprints. The will of the people, throughout UK, now lies with a different consensus, if not tomorrow, then next year. Times have changed and are changing yet. The majority of Scots are watching, listening and waiting and saying not a word, not yet. By a process of osmosis, both conscious and unconscious, they will absorb all the information they require to make a decision.
If we all look back to our student days, school and university, when we went to listen to the debating society, just how many of us, in all honesty, allowed skilled orators to influence our beliefs or change our opinions? Very few, if any, I would adduce. Views about life tend to be changed gradually over time, and rarely in the ‘debate’ situation. Alex Salmond will not change a Labour or Tory voter’s mind, eloquent as he is, but their family, friends and acquaintances will, through a process of gentle education and attrition.
The sooner we distance ourselves from inherited voting patterns the better. In this, we have a great advantage over the English. We have a choice, whilst they are stuck with the same old to-and-fro of the status quo, for that is what both main UK parties now represent. Let us exercise that choice, wisely.
Judith Jaafar
Ronnie Smith is right about devo-max apart from one aspect where he writes as follows:
Secondly, devo-max is very much a federal solution and a federal constitutional settlement is one that the British state has been trying to avoid all along because it conceivably includes English regional autonomy and the collapse of the current London/Westminster-dominated union.
Under the Labour administration until the end of 2004, and following Kilbrandon, the Westminster government did conceive at least a quasi-federal status for the UK with the proposed introduction of elected regional assemblies in England. While these assemblies were to have much less autonomy than even the Welsh Assembly was given initially, this was seen by the Labour Party as the beginning of a federal system.
The plan for elected regional assemblies in England was rejected by the Conservatives but it was even more emphatically rejected by the people of the north-east region in the referendum of November 2004 when they voted 78% to 22% against. The government had originally planned to hold referendums in all English regions, but chose to begin with those in the north, where its voting strength lay, with the north-west and Yorkshire next in line.
While there is a north-south divide in England, and over-centralisation at Westminster, the English regions are artificial constructs of fairly recent origin and there is no significant demand for regional representation. It is almost inconceivable that a British federation could include English regional autonomy.
The British state is resisting the demand in Scotland for devo-max for two reasons. First, devo-max, though currently the preferred option of the majority of Scottish people, is only a short step from independence and it might be an easy one to take. Second, there is a growing recognition in England that the current devoluti0n settlement is unsatisfactory in that England has no voice, no specific political representation and no place in the constitution.
IPPR, a leftish thinktank, recently reported that, overwhelmingly, the people of England believe that MPs from devolved countries have no business voting on English domestic legislation. The fact that the English are now very much aware of this issue, IPPR said, means that political recognition of England is becoming necessary, something which has been picked up by a number of the new MPs elected in 2010.
Granting devo-max to Scotland would therefore inevitably give rise to a demand in England that would be hard to refuse for similar treatment, creating an English parliament, either by a re-arrangement of voting rights at Westminster or by creating a separate English assembly. The coalition’s ‘West Lothian Commission’ would be overtaken by events.
A very simple answer to the English Question has been waiting in the wings for at least 10 years. It was proposed by the Marquess of Salisbury. His idea is that the House of Commons should become the English Parliament while a reformed, elected House of Lords should become the British Parliament. The union would become a federation of four nations.
It has been objected, by members of the governing parties and by some academics, that England is ‘too big’ to fit into a British federation, although one might surely make the same objection to a union, which has lasted for 300 years. The real reason is, and this is where Ronnie is absolutely correct, that the governing parties at Westminster wish to govern England and the UK. They wish to decide English domestic policy while continuing to perform on the world stage. That is why they oppose having devo-max for Scotland on the referendum sheet and why the coalition resists spelling out what it means by devo-max until, as it thinks, the Scots have safely voted ‘No’ to independence.
Ian Campbell
