Loading ...
Major concerns for the Union
In this morning’s Telegraph, John Major added his name to a growing list of people predicting the impending death of the United Kingdom. Like almost all observers, Major (Prime Minister for seven years, in case it slips your mind as easily as it does mine) does the Union no justice by arguing its case in terms of pounds and pennies, rather than patriotism and principles.
However, that shift in rhetoric (which I decry in March’s Caerulean) has already been made, and it seems unlikely that any of the current crop of politicians will reverse that trend. More worrying is his pair of policies, which he believes could stop the rot:
- Either the formation of an “English Grand Committee” in Parliament or the reduction in Scottish MPs back to their 1707 levels.
- The end of “fiscal injustice” by ending the Barnett formula with regards to Scotland.
The so-called ’solutions’ that Major proposes would, far from solving anything, exacerbate the situation in every possible way. The idea of an English Grand Committee would harm Westminster democracy by creating a disparity between the Members of Parliament; by creating a competency difference between English and non-English MPs, one can only expect their relationships to crumble, and to fuel an inevitable fissure between English and Scottish politics. Reducing Scottish representation to a rump of forty would lead to the same disastrous consequence; only by preserving (roughly) equal constituencies can the equal legitimacy of MPs, and hence British democracy, be maintained.
The latter policy would be just as harmful as changing the institutional structure, and perhaps more so. Whilst it is destructive to couch the Union in terms of economics, it is just as destructive to think that economic punishment of Scotland will not result in a widening of the divide. To remove the Barnett formula, which costs the Treasury a mere £6bn (or 0.5% of UK GDP), would pose a greater threat to our country. Not only would it lead to direct opposition to taking away money on which parts of Scotland are dependent, but it would allow the argument to drift further into the realms of economics.
The reason that Scotland is so state-dependent is a matter of dichotomy. There are rich areas, such as Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, and Fife, and there are poor areas, such as the Highlands, Hebrides, and Galloway. Then, there’s Glasgow, which, for all its high tech industry, its four universities, and its booming retail sector, offers the poorest of the poor side-by-side with the richest of the rich. Thus, despite Scotland being the third-wealthiest region of the UK (after London and the south-east), it sucks in government expenditure to subsidise the isolated and deprived Highlands and to pay for the National Health Service and state benefits for sick and unemployed Glaswegians.
Cutting off Scotland for that dependency would be a tragedy, particularly as its dependency is not an artificial one. It is a dependency born of need, just as Lambeth’s, Cornwall’s, or Teeside’s are. To suggest that we cut spending in those areas, and force them to pay their way, would be political unacceptable, so why is it so tolerable when it comes to Scotland?
There are two reasons for this. The first is the insipid racism that permeates British society: the English hating the Scots as much as the Scots return the favour. The second brings us back to the institutional. The Scottish Parliament’s wide-ranging powers give the small-minded English an excuse to twist the knife of the Barnett formula, by making it seem as though their economic wellbeing is none of our concern. Yet, the fastest way to guarantee a Scottish nationalist electoral victory is to scrap the Barnett formula. However, the only way to justify the Barnett formula is to end the current contradiction, and to scrap the Scottish Parliament. Sadly, so long as solution to devolution is Major’s exacerbation, that can never be achieved, and our country can never be saved from extinction.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Reducing Scottish representation to a rump of forty would lead to the same disastrous consequence; only by preserving (roughly) equal constituencies can the equal legitimacy of MPs, and hence British democracy, be maintained.
So why didn’t Northern Ireland protest about its number of Westminster MPs when for fifty years it had a smaller proportion of MPs and devolution?
March 10th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Due to your enthusiasm for, if not expertise on, the issue of Northern Ireland politics, I’ll endeavour to make my answer as well-formed as possible. By which, I mean that it’ll be long-winded and tedious, so bear with me.
First, nationalists DID bemoan the under-representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. In fact, the establishment of parity with the rest of the UK was one of the grievances of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (it must be said, because they didn’t trust the NI Parliament). However, almost all seats were won by Unionist candidates, and Unionists were happy to maintain under-representation in Westminster in return for the maintenance of their chance to rule from Stormont. Hence, there was never too much of a complaint by Northern Irish MPs, despite the obvious unfairness of it.
Second, the Unionists (who, as already mentioned, won most of the seats at every election) were part of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Hence, political unity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom was never too far away. At the next Westminster election, I would be surprised were the SNP to win fewer than 12 seats; with that many, not only would they become the fourth-largest party, but it would lead directly to claims (from the SNP) that Scotland is under-represented for political reasons. That was not the case with Northern Ireland, when the eight-or-so Unionists were just a small add-on to the Conservative benches, who totalled in the hundreds.
Third, Northern Ireland was never as woefully under-represented as John Major has proposed making Scotland. Currently, Scotland has 59 seats. Were the England quota (of 529) applied exactly proportionally, Scotland would have 57. Since the other two represent the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland (both of which are entitled, and really ought to be entitled, to separate seats by statute), this is actually a ‘fair’ number. To reduce this figure to 40 would be to take away 30% of Scotland’s seats only for the reason of disenfranchising them. At its nadir, Northern Ireland had 12 seats, when their population (relative to England) would have demanded 14; this under-representation (14%) is under half as much as has been proposed for Scotland, and is actually by how much Northern Ireland as *over-represented* now. Hence, the two cannot be compared as simply as you suggest.
Fourth (and finally, thank God), any comparison to Northern Ireland just shows how desperate the situation is. The devolved Parliament did lead directly to a three decade-long civil war, after all.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
It’s often forgotten that there were times when the Northern Irish MPs did make the difference at Westminster - they provided Churchill’s 1951-1955 majority and made the 1964-1966 Parliament even tighter than it could have been (Harold Wilson in his memoirs made many of what we’d now call West Lothian Question complaints and some government papers show his government seriously considered curtailing voting rights at Westminster).
With regards the seat loss I’d in the first instance compare the reduction from 29 to 13 MPs (including a university seat, abolished with the others in 1950) in 1922 rather than later population fluctuations. This was quite a steep reduction (proportionally more than anyone ever proposes for Scotland, even comparing to the 72 MPs it had in 1999).
And relations between Conservatives and Unionists were not as sweet as is now made out. Indeed as early as 1922 the Conservative general election manifesto moved away from “we support the Union” to “we support the right of Northern Ireland to determine its future in the Union”. There were quite a few Unionist grievances throughout the period including outrage that Northern Ireland was left out of the Conscription Bill in 1939 and a belief that they were going to be Muniched, whilst in the 1950s the two parties were finding themselves increasingly differing. Extra seats would have given the Ulster Unionists more leverage. (Also it’s a bit of a myth to assume one single Conservative Party - much of the organisation was for England and Wales, with a separate organisation for Scotland and the Ulster Unionists takng the place of a Northern Irish organisation. There was a good article recently in the English Historical Review on the growing alienation between the two,)
It’s also often forgotten that increases in the number of seats in the 1970s were linked to Enoch Powell’s campaign for integration with no Parliament. Indeed in the 1990s some in the SDLP were hesistant about the prospect of an 18th seat being added, even though not only were they likely to win West Tyrone (foolish as that now seems the day after they lost their last assembly member) and it was about the only way to keep their existing seats (the 17 seat models initially proposed by the Boundary Commission in 1994 was not exactly to everyone’s liking), precisely because of the integrationist issue.
Yes Northern Ireland descended into chaos but that was down to the deep divisions in society and one community (mis)rule, not because of underrepresentation at Westminster which when raised was at most a minor grievance and really a product of disatisfaction with Stormont.
Since Northern Ireland is the one historic precedent for devolution in this country, with people on all sides of the West Lothian Question making comparisons to it, I think it’s entirely reasonable to raise the case of a smaller number of MPs in exchange for full voting rights, which I think is about the only workable solution (although the longer we get from the establishment of the Scottish Parliament the harder it would be to implement) short of creating another set of politicians and the mess involved in a separate English executive.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
I hope that the politicians keep their heads buried in the kilts of Westminster and ignore the problems arising in England. It is the ONLY way to ensure that England gets its independence sooner rather than later.
And English Parliament is the best way forward to preserve the Union, but that’s not the best option for England. Only the destruction of the Union will satsify me. So you lot in Westminster should keep your heads buried and and your mouths shut.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Is this the Maastricht Man speaking?
Now I know two things:
1/ Why we went downhill so fast when Maggie left.
2/ Why we need not a change of government but a complete change of politicians.
I am however impressed that he has retained his long recognised talent to make a case that completely destroys his intended one.
His disposal of brain cells during morning ablutions would appear to be more severe than suspected
I do however thank the ex Prime Minister for making one of the best cases yet for the demise of the UK and English independence.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Article 22 of the Act of Union 1707
“That by virtue of this Treaty, Of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union 16 shall be the number to Sit and Vote in the House of Lords, and 45 the number of the Representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain — - — — - —– ”
so it was 45 Mp’s for Scotland then , not 40 . Bearing in mind that Scotland now has two parliaments they are now massively over represented - Blair has already , reluctantly and with no justification as to how he arrived at the figures , reduced the number of Scottish Mp’s in the British parliament to 59 - in justice it should go right back to 45 .
Your attempt to justify hanging onto the Barnett Rules to avoid upsetting the Scots is typical British- Scottish- Westminster caving in to celtic blackmail - which is how they came to have the Rules in the first place . They were only ever supposed to be for one year ie 1976 - according to Joel Barnett - seems like he was spun a yarn too .
The Barnett rules are totally unjust and racist and systematically discriminate agianst England with no attempt at justification despite your stating that there is somehow a ” need”.
They should be abolished now and damn the Scottish elections .
Typically , for a Westminster village aparatchik you claim that there is
“insipid racism that permeates British society: the English hating the Scots as much as the Scots return the favour - -” ( I think you meant insidious ) in fact the fault is massively to the Scots who have made afetish of hating , and hating is the correct word , the English for many years . Generally , the English have not played that game and have been remarkably indulgent of Scottish and Welsh hatred .
What is typical though , is that , as soon as some English happen to prtest , mildly , at the unfairness of it all , the British political class immediately weighs in with all guns blazing agianst the the English and condemns us equally with the Scots - that last bit must have been very hard for you .
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I cannot believe that Mr. Major is serious, his solution to the democratic inequality that exists in the UK, post devolution, is to have a Grand Committee, England is not a bloody golf club, the only equitable solution is an English parliament where English elected representatives deal with English matters. That the current 529 English elected MPs have allowed this devovled shambles to occur is nothing less than traitorous.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I’ve yet to hear a Unionist make a convincing argument for the Union. They appear to believe that it is a good thing, like Motherhood. “We are stronger together,” is another cry. Really? A YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph today shows that the British public, that is the people in all four British nations, is totally at odds with the British government as regards Britain’s role in the world. People do not support the idea that Britain should ‘punch above its weight’. They do not wish to see our armed forces sent into battle for causes remote from our direct interests, inadequately equipped and overstretched. The four nations which occupy Scandinavia do not need a Scandinavian government to boss them about and strut the world stage. Why should we? For England, the situation is even more serious since the Labour Government believes that the existence of England is a threat to Labour party’s rule over the UK. Thus while Scotland and Wales are offered national devolution, England is offered partition. Why is England the only nation in the EU with no Parliament of its own? No one speaks for England. The Conservatives do not include an English Executive and First Minister in their ‘English votes’ policy for the House of Commons. Even under a Conservative Government, English domestic legislation will, unlike Scottish legislation, be referred to the House of Lords. As Patrick Harris says above, English MPs have yet to realise that they represent the people of England and that there are already two classes of MPs at Westminster. The people of England are now so fed up that it may be well to late to save the Union, even if it is worth saving. Too bad.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Ian Campbell wrote:
“Why is England the only nation in the EU with no Parliament of its own?”
Two reasons:
1. England has historically done fairly well out of the union, being the biggest and most dominiant nation in it. Demands for more representative government have thus been relatively muted in comparion to Wales and Scotland.
2. More recently, and this is just my own theory, if the idea of devolution was as much about more accountable government closer to the people it serves as it was about ‘nationhood’; then while a scottish parliament or welsh asembly, (each serving a population smaller than London’s) makes sense, a body making decisions for all 48m English doesn’t seem to achieve the aim of locally representative Government. Regional Government serving populations of 8 - 20m makes more sense.
another point. oliver cooper demands in the Caerulean that “The devolved assemblies must be either abolished or neutered”. Presumably he isn’t bothered that a majority in both nations voted for their respective forms of government? (and don’t the the turnout argument against it…you have no idea how those who didn’t vote felt either way…’decisions are made by those who turn up’, as CJ Craig so eloquently said) Is he not concerned about destroying a democratically elected body without the express consent of the people it serves? Although, remembering that Thatcher destroyed the GLC in an act of political spite that set back the urban development of London by ten years, one shouldn’t be surprised at the Tory approach to democracy.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
“..this is just my own theory, if the idea of devolution was as much about more accountable government closer to the people it serves as it was about ‘nationhood’.
Not ‘just your own theory’, Tarquin, but also John Prescott’s. Those were the words put out by his department when he ran local government in England, quoted ad nauseam in reply to the protests that flooded into his department. That was the justification given for dividing England into nine artificial regions with elected assemblies, intended to replace local councils. In effect they were moving accountable government further away from the people. Moreover the English regional assemblies were offered only a fraction of the self-government enjoyed by even by the Welsh Assembly and thus much less than that of the Scottish Parliament. There was in effect to be no decentralisation in Engand - the job of the regional assemblies was to implement centrally directed policies and targets. There is no demand in England for these assemblies. Polls in 2006 and 2007 suggest support for an English Parliament has risen to 60% - and support for complete independence is running almost as high. Unless there is a fair solution to the ‘English Question’ support for the Union will eventually evaporate completely. It is for you Unionists to tell us in England why the Union is such ‘Good Thing’ for England.
With regard to nations, so far as Scotland and Wales were concerned, devolution was always about becoming a nation again. The Scottish Constitutional Convention drew up a ‘Claim of Right’. Mr Blair and others stressed from the beginning that devolution was about nationhood. “Scotland is as proud historic nation.” Mr Blair said. Mr Brown coined the phrase ‘the nations and regions of Britain’. The nations were Scotland and Wales, the regions were to replace England. In a Union of nations it is challenging to say the least to offer nationhood to all except the people of England.
The British Government assumes that the interests of Britain and England always coincide. They don’t. I’m not sure what evidence you have in saying that England ‘has done rather well’ out of the Union. The Scots did remarkably well from 1707 with access to England’s free trade area and growing empire in which the Scots participated. It is even more difficult to see what advantages there are for England today. The NAWA has introduced free prescriptions from 1 April while those in England have gone up to £6.85. You will be aware of the disputes over drugs in the NHS, differential tuition fees, foundation hospitals, smoking bans, banning fox hunting - all of which legislation was carried by MPs whose constituencies lay in the devolved countries.
I supported national devolution to Scotland and Wales. I do not support the abolition of England. It is for the people of England through their own Parliament to decide on the kind of decentralised local government they wish to have. Yet all three of the main political parties refuse to ask the people of England what they want. That is not democratic.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi ian,
Thanks for your reply.
You say that Prezza divided England up into nine artificial regions. Actually, the Major Government did that in 1994 when he set up the Government Offices for the Regions. I have read that this was primarily to direct Regional Funds from the EU, although there have been noted spin off benefits in having a relatively local office that better co-ordinates central government actions in the regions.
The regional assemblies were never intended to replace local councils. Although the dead hand of the centralisers was more than evident in the lack of real power suggested for the regions (a minor reason why the North-East referendum failed), the idea was to bring services down from Westminster to Newcastle (or Bristol, or Norwich). Yes, some services did go ‘up’ from local government, but only ones that made more sense to be exercised regionally, such as economic development or some transport planning powers.
It seems as though you are arguing for real decentralisation to a more local level in England, whether it be regional, county or otherwise (or maybe you are ambivalent about it, being a scot). I fully support this view. The Tory and Labour Governments of the last 30 years have made England one of the most centralised nations of the EU, stifling local responsiveness and creativity. By contrast, the LibDems have consistently put forward a radical programme of devolution at every election since at least 1992. Personally, i’d like to see a federal system of government such as that practised in Germany. That’s the only way to reconcile the West Lothian question without becoming so centralised that public services lose all local responsiveness. Cameron has promised a ‘pact’ with local government delineating its responsibilities. However, pre-79 the Tory opposition did the same, and then embarked on some of the most aggressive centralisation the UK had ever seen (apart from WW2, when, interestingly, more regional administration worked rather well). Do/can we trust them again (a rhetorical question; there’s only so often you can be punched in the face before you finally go ‘ouch, stop it’)?
April 4th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
It is very hard to believe that this article was written by a Conservative.
We already have more than one class of Westminster MP. Those (English) MPs who have a full mandate to deal with all matters affecting their constituents and those (Scots, Welsh and now Northern Irish) MPs whose constituenct remits are, in varying degrees, restricted by national political institutions, though their freedom to interfere in English matters remains. Consequently neither an English grand committee nor the more logical and complete answer to the West Lothian Question, a full English Parliament, breach any principal that is actually respected. They merely favour the Conservatives electorally in a way that the status quo does not.
Off course the other theoretical solution is to abolish the devolved institutions, but the Conservative Party caved in on the principal of their existence immediately after the referendums, so even if this was politically possible, that pass has been sold.
Will the United Kingdom be destroyed if the West Lothian Question is answered? Quite possibly, but it will certainly be destroyed if it is not.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Any Conservative who supports the Barnet Formula is living in the past and, frankly, will help end the Union.
Equally, anyone who cannot see the quite simple argument in favour of an English Parliament (whether it be like the Scottish Parliament or like the United Kingdom Independence Party’s solution) is being dishonest in their conclusions.
Major is wrong about an English Grand Committee only because it does not go far enough and my party is running a serious risk allowing the debate to continue when debate was replaced by action for every other British nation in 1998.