You are here: Home » Comment »

More on Scotland and devo max

January 28, 2012 2:19 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

I propose the following basic elements in a new constructive policy on Scotland for the Labour Party:

1. Scottish independence, just as much as devo max, will (or would) require the collaboration of the Westminster government, with whom its terms and practical application would have to be negotiated. It’s a myth that Scotland could simply take independence on its own terms without the government of the rest of the UK (“rUK”) having a major say in, for example, the division of assets and liabilities as between the two countries.

2. It is very much in the interests of all concerned, independentistas and unionists alike, that when the Scots come to vote in the autumn of 2014, they have a reasonably detailed knowledge of the implications of both independence and devo max.  Work should begin without delay on negotiations between Holyrood and Westminster, ideally on an all-party basis, to find as much common ground as possible about what either independence or devo max would entail. Any agreement on the implications of a vote for either would necessarily be provisional, with final decisions on all the issues deferred until the result of the referendum is known. If broad provisional agreement between all concerned could not be reached by the time of the referendum, both sides would need to publish an account of the negotiations, so that voters in the referendum would have a reasonably clear idea of the positions of the two governments and other parties, and the nature of the issues that would need to be resolved if the result turned out to be a majority for either independence or devo max.

3. The referendum is most unlikely to result in a majority vote for the status quo. As between independence and devo max, those who wish to avert the disintegration of the United Kingdom have a strong interest in encouraging a vote for devo max. The best hope of securing that result lies in a decision by the UK Labour Party, including the Scottish Labour Party, to give full support to devo max and to collaborate with the SNP and other Scottish supporters of devo max in working out which additional powers a Labour government at Westminster would agree to devolve to Scotland in the event of the referendum confirming majority support for devo max. If the Conservative and Lib Dem parties could also be persuaded to support devo max, so much the better. But at least Labour should do so, whatever the other parties decide. Labour, after all, is the father of devolution and should recognise its merits – or at worst accept that devo max would be the least damaging outcome of the referendum.

4. Both independence and devo max would have huge implications for rUK (the rest of the UK). The unionist parties should begin now to develop their policies for dealing with either a UK without Scotland, or a UK in which Scotland would be to all intents and purposes fully internally self-governing. In the latter case, full self-government for Scotland would inevitably prompt demands for the same status for England (which would require the creation of a separate parliament and government for England) and for Wales and Northern Ireland. This would take several years to achieve. The result would be the creation of a federation of the four UK nations, with all the institutional and legal safeguards required by a federal system. Such a radical change in the relationships between the four nations, and between the nations and the federal centre at Westminster, could well inaugurate a revival of the politics and constitution of Britain, to the benefit of everyone. Scottish independence, on the other hand, could well spell disaster for rUK. It is questionable whether the three remaining UK nations could form a viable federation, even if, as seems unlikely, the secession of Scotland were to prompt a desire for one.

5. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that devo max for Scotland would signal the beginning of the end for the UK. Scottish devo max would not be likely to turn out to be a stepping stone to full independence: quite the reverse. The full internal self-government enjoyed by, for example, California or New South Wales is not regarded in either state as a preliminary to independence from the rest of the United States or Australia. Indeed, the opposite is the case. The completion of the devolution project in Scotland could well pave the way to the completion of devolution in rUK and the establishment of a durable, democratic federal system, as suggested in (4) above.

6. Devo max for Scotland would not mean that Scotland’s MPs at Westminster would only be able to vote on foreign affairs issues. The Westminster parliament, already a quasi-federal organ, would have roughly the same powers in respect of Scotland as the federal government of the United States has in relation to California or Massachusetts. No one regards these powers and responsibilities as trivial.

[The writer and commentator Gerry Hassan has posted an interesting and thought-provoking article about the Scottish Question in the Open Democracy website forum, provocatively entitled 'Historic day for the UK:  Salmond consults Scotland but can't civilise Paxman'. This has prompted a number of equally interesting responses, some of which however reflect surprising misconceptions. This post first appeared, with some minor editorial changes, as my own comment on Mr Hassan's article and on some of the responses to it.]

Related posts:

  1. Is Scotland facing two referendums?
  2. Quote of the day – Scotland isn’t Slovenia
  3. Listening to Tony and learning from Scotland
  4. Labour – on your side in Scotland
  5. A big step forward for Young Labour – and Scotland
  • Anonymous

    Devo Max is just an excuse for more English taxpayers money to go north of the boarder.

    • Anonymous

      Poor old England always paying out money, then again you will keep attacking countries and taking them over. I suspect Scotland would say you took enough Oil Money

    • Guest

      *Sigh* The essence of demo max (otherwise known as full fiscal autonomy) is that NO English taxpayers’ money goes north of the border.

    • Brian Barder

      What a very strange reaction!  It’s not at all certain that Scotland receives a net subsidy from the rest of the UK (and since Scotland is poorer than England, a net transfer payment from England would be fully justified) — but whether England gets more revenue from North Sea oil in Scottish waters than she transfers to Scotland in equalisation payments depends on a series of complex factors and the outcome may vary from year to year.  Devo max could mean no more subsidy from England, if there is one, and Scotland keeping the oil revenue, or most of it.  (Independence would almost certainly mean that.)  What makes you think that this would necessarily, or even probably, mean a greater net outflow of money from England?

      England is the richest, most populous and most powerful of the four UK nations, effortlessly dominating the other three as if by some divine right.  Devolution, although still only half-hearted and half-complete, has barely scraped the surface of this deeply unequal relationship.  It’s shaming to hear English people whingeing about their tax money going to Scotland.  We’re part of the same family, for heaven’s sake — and anyway we’ve been taking most of their oil during all the years when the oil revenues were at their peak.  Not hard to guess what you’d have been saying about that if you had been a Scot!

      • happy.fish

        I think the issue on this is whether a scottish gvt could sustain their proportion of the sort of deficit we have have as the UK. My guess is they would want to start with a clean slate, but even then they would have to work out what to cut, since current spending per head in scotland would create a deficit. This is something that really would need to be considered. Devo – max remains a little fuzzy. Until someone can make clear what it will actually turn out like, it is hard to say one way or the other. This is an attempt to suggest one form. The problem is that the US, Canada and Australia, are all exampels of new countries in which the federal system was able to be established without existing identities muddying the water. Germany is the country which probably could resonate most with regard to how they have developed a federal state. After all it has only been around for 200 years and yet seems to be remarkably stable and retains a sense of common identity. I still think the inbalance between England and the other nations is the real problem and one which would never be resolved for some without full independence. Even then I’d imagine the smaller states would act economically as dependents on the English economy, possibly acting as tax break locations for multinationals to exploit the UK market, and as with Ireland if the UK hits the rocks so would the others.

        Personally I believe that the Labour party should be about breaking down barriers rather than rebuilding them, as any form of nationalism creates. I stand by comments made in previous posts that I believe the underlying nationalism behind much of this disagreement (both english and celtic) is unpleasant and should have been consigned to the past. What I imagine the people of SCotland really want is a government dedicated to making life better for all, for equality, fairness and the society in whcih all can prosper irrespective of where they live!

        • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

          I agree very much with almost everything you say. But I think we should see the imbalance between England and the other three much smaller nations of the UK as a *reason* for adopting a federal system, with its safeguards for the rights of the smaller units, not as an *obstacle* to federalism. It is precisely this imbalance which causes resentment of English interference in the internal affairs of the three smaller nations and stokes up demands for either independence or the devolution of full internal powers.

          There is no reason to see federalism as setting up barriers or fomenting nationalism. A federation of the four UK nations would create a democratic, durable relationship between the four peoples on an equal basis, sharing common services when they choose to do so, and without constant interference in their internal affairs from London. Scottish secession would almost certainly destroy any possibility of achieving the benefits of federalism for the rest of the UK, which would cease to be more than the sum of its current parts. Scottish independence would diminish us all.

  • Franwhi

    Brian – you consistently post sensible, thoughtful arguments on the issues/s of Scottish independence or devo-max. I agree, there is a dreadful silence at the heart of the Scottish Labour Party on this issue which is the most important ever to face Scottish voters. If there is a positive case for the union then Labour should get on with making it regardless of the other unionist parties particularly the Conservatives who have very little resonance in Scotland on any policy matter even before independence. No Scottish mainstream party should tango with the Tories as the stakes are just too high. As for devo-max - I think if Labour were to grab and run with this idea they would be fulfilling their own long held aspirations and signal to the people of Scotland that they are with them. I hope it only requires a little nudge to take them there and that thge party are really struggling in conscience over this one. Only wilful neglect of voters wishes can explain the deafening silence from the SLP      

    • Brian Barder

      Many thanks for those kind remarks.  I entirely agree, naturally!, with what you say about where both Scottish and national Labour clearly ought to be on this one.  The issue is much too big for Labour, north or south of the border, to be playing party politics with, however deep its mistrust of the SNP generally and the First Minister in particular.

  • AmberStar

    There is nothing socialist about Scotland wanting to withdraw from our share of the UK’s responsibilty to fairly distribute the resources of the country for the good of all its citizens.

    Devo-max is either a step back from socialism or a stepping stone to independence. Some within Labour will try to have their cake & eat it – the ‘third way’. Unfortunately, third way policies are generally only successful in the short-term; the underlying issues are not resolved & in the medium term, they come back to haunt us.

    Labour should stay with the message so far: The referendum should be In or Out. Shake it all about should not be an option – or the underlying carping, grievances & political posturing will continue to bouy up the SNP. Changing to backing a fuzzy, ’devo-max’ option will simply make Labour look weak & ultimately foolish when the exact shape of ‘devo-max’ cannot be simply & clearly outlined in a single sentence referendum question.

    If the SNP want extended devolution on the ballot, let them put it forward themselves.

    • derek

      ”
      Keir Hardie”

      • Anonymous

        He was mates with Robert the Brice or was it William Wallace.

        • derek

          ”
          It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for Scotland – for that alone, which no honest man gives up” .

    • Brian Barder

      @3a404cbb9d20336126ec5f60d0003d2f:disqus
      :  This has nothing to do with ‘socialism’.  Devo max is in no sense a ‘third way’ in the old-fashioned New Labour sense, or indeed any other.  Devo max, the completion of the devolution process in Scotland, inevitably paving the way to the same status eventually for the rest of the UK, can’t meaningfully be equated to ‘shake it all about’, and since on the best current evidence it’s what a substantial majority of Scots want, it seems perverse to argue that it should not be one of the options on the referendum ballot paper.  Why should they be forced to choose between two options, neither of which commands majority support in Scotland?

      There is plenty of time for the SNP and the Westminster parties, or if necessary just the Westminster government, to negotiate the principal features of what devo max would entail if the majority of Scots vote for it.  (There will have to be a similar negotiation to establish broadly what the terms of independence would be so that referendum voters can know reasonably accurately what they would be voting for on that issue, too.)  The agreed features of devo max, plus any unresolved issues, would be set out in a white paper or other document, so that the question on the ballot paper would ask whether the voter supports or opposes “the further transfer of additional powers to the Scottish parliament and government as described in the Referendum White Paper”, or words to that effect.  If devo max won a majority of the votes, there would presumably have to be a further, final negotiation to settle the details, and there might possibly need to be a further referendum to enable the Scots to approve or reject the final agreed transfer of specified powers.

      Of course if you’re unshakeably opposed to any change in Scotland’s status, and to the objectives of the democratically elected majority government of Scotland (“underlying carping, grievances & political posturing”), it’s not difficult to think up possible objections to any proposals designed to complete the half-finished, half-baked, unequal and unbalanced form of devolution that we’re lumbered with at the moment and that currently involves so many anomalies and injustices.  A determined effort to find constructive solution to all the niggling problems seems preferable to negative nit-picking, apparently reflecting a deep fear of change.

    • Franwhi

      The reason devo max is “fuzzy” and undefined is precisely because Labour have held to a principle of increased devolution powers yet never fully risen to the challenge of defining the pathway or exrtent of more powers.  The lack of Labour courage and narrative on this issue has so far been inexcusable and is now crippling their own ability to offer any viable opposition to straight out independence. They have never been more “missing in action” at a time the country needs them. You can’t blame others if they feel forced to come in to what is currently a political vacuum as wide as the Firth of Forth.   

      • happy.fish

        Sounds like something we could say about most Labour policy over the last ten years!

  • derek

    Former First Minister and Scottish labour leader Henry McLeish, has formed an alliance of trade unionist and church members to try and get the DevoMax question onto the ballot paper.Home rule, it’s an area that Scottish labour should be leading on?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    The Author raises some interesting points, although I am not at all clear that I cannot simply summarise them as “let’s out-SNP the SNP and jump on the horse that we think will take us the furthest”.  A great number of issues arise, but for me the top 3 are:

    1. The assertion that devo-max will secure the maintenance for the union sounds familiar – a similar argument was proposed in 1997 for the Scottish Parliament.  I am sceptical that this assertion has any more basis in fact now as then, but instead seeks to simply sweep the issue under the carpet.

    Devolution was tackled head-on in the 70′s.  Proponents lost, and were forced to cede any sort of argument for 20 years.  In 1997 it was ignored and now, 15 years later we see it back on the table.  A data set consisting of two points cannot make a trend, but the implication for me is apparent.

    2. The comparison to the US system is interesting, but I suggest it is flawed unless each of the countries of the union are given equal systems: is this the suggestion?  I am further intrigued that the political system of the US is one that anyone on this site (or even elsewhere) would voluntarily seek to emulate one of the most Byzantine systems in the world.

    3. The suggestion appears (forgive me if I have missed this) to skim over the vexed question of “what would a scottish MP do” under devo max – there is surely no argument for both an MSP and an MP if the MP’s job is simply to lobby for defence of their current constituency and for future adjustments to the Barnett formula: that does not sound like a job which requires 73 applicants.  If, following the US example, Westminster constituencies in Scotland were to be enlarged so that Scotland has representation in parliament (perhaps as permanent ministers to ensure their voices are heard?) from perhaps only two or three “senator” MPs, then what would that mean for the balance of power in Westminster?  I suggest without Scotland a landslide Tory victory is all but assured.

    JD

    • Brian Barder

      David:  I recommend support for devo max, not because it’s currently the change supported by the majority of Scots (although that should be a strong argument for taking it seriously) but because I believe that it’s the reform likeliest to satisfy most of Scotland’s legitimate objections to the present highly unsatisfactory constitutional arrangements and also the reform likeliest to pave the way to an eventual federal system for the whole of the UK — the only possible durable and democratic solution to the many anomalies in our current system, stuck half-way to full devolution for three out of four of the UK nations and with no devolution at all for the fourth.  If most Scots favour full internal self-government within the United Kingdom, the onus is on those who seek to deny them that status to explain their objections to it.  None has been forthcoming so far.

      It is not the case that the partial, unequal and lopsided devolution that the three devolved nations now have has failed to satisfy Scottish aspirations for more self-government and less meddling from Westminster.  What has failed is the weak-kneed fear in (mainly) England of completing the process, leaving it floundering in its unsatisfactory anomalous condition.

      My comparison with the US and Australia is purely related to the federal systems of both countries.  It’s perfectly valid to argue that Scotland is entitled (if its people so wish) to as great a degree of internal self-government within a wider federation as that enjoyed by California or New South Wales, without implying that devo max would have to include all the other features of the US constitution which you describe as Byzantine — a presidential instead of a parliamentary system with checks and balances and all the rest of it.  I suspect that this objection reflects unfamiliarity with the basic concept of federalism as practised in numerous western-style democracies which are at least as well governed as the UK and which display much less dissatisfaction with over-centralised nannying than we experience on a daily basis.  We should stop being so arrogant as to believe that we have nothing to learn from other countries.

      Your allegedly ‘vexed’ question “what would a Scottish MP [at Westminster] do under devo max” similarly betrays a basic failure to understand the federal principle.  I suggest that you ask a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives in Washington DC, both elected in California, how they manage to pass the time in the US Congress, considering that California has virtually total power to govern itself, enjoying a degree of autonomy very close to what the Scots call devo max for shorthand, while remaining constituent parts of the federal United States of America, and having no ambitions whatever to move on from their present status to full independence.  (The Canadian system with its rumbling movement in Quebec for independence is sui generis and really holds few if any valid lessons for the UK, except perhaps that a sympathetic grant of wide-ranging autonomy to Quebec and formal equality for both French and English throughout Canada, together with a fully federal system, have so far succeeded in preserving the country’s integrity.)

      If and when England has its own parliament and government, and with the other two UK nations has followed Scotland in moving to devo max, we shall have completed the transition to a federal system, at which point it would probably be desirable for the second chamber of the federal legislature at Westminster to be transformed into a federal Senate on the US and Australian models, i.e. with an equal number of Senators elected from each of the constituent parts of the federation.  The states of the US elect two Senators each, regardless of size of population; we could easily manage with a maximum of ten from each of the four nations, making a total membership of 40, instead of the current membership of the House of Lords (830!).  But that’s a discussion for another day.  Let’s settle the Scottish Question first.  What most Scots want is perfectly reasonable and sensible.  Why on earth should they not have it?  We would all benefit, and it would point the way to a hugely beneficial and radical reform of our whole messy and inchoate constitutional system.

  • http://www.figurewizard.com Joe Jonkler

    Alex Salmond’s initiative on Independence for Scotland has opened up a fresh can of worms on both sides of the border. The West issue of the Lothian question still remains unaddressed and even if a Scottish referendum delivers a resounding ‘no’ it will not change the now even more focused view of a majority of people in England that it should be dealt with once and for all.

    • Brian Barder

      Devo max for Scotland, leading eventually to full devolution and internal self-government for the other three UK nations too, would provide a comprehensive and permanent answer to the West Lothian Question;  indeed, there can be no other answer to it.  I’m not sure which question you envisage the Scots (resoundingly or otherwise) answering with a No: if you mean No to independence, everything will then hinge on whether devo max is also on offer in the referendum and if so, whether the Scots answer that with a (resounding) Yes (as seems extremely likely).  I agree that in that event, the achievement of full internal self-government by Scotland would inevitably strengthen the demand in England for matching organs and powers of self-government, and eventually the logical corollary of that, a federated UK — which would answer the West Lothian Question.

      There’s no going back on the limited devolution that three of the four UK nations now enjoy, and in two of them at least there’s an unmistakeable demand for more of it.  In the fourth (England) I think the demand for self-government is bound to grow.  In other words, the status quo is self-evidently unsustainable, as the West Lothian Question itself demonstrates.  It passes belief that the leaders of the two major UK parties can’t grasp any of this and have no policies for dealing with it, while the third (the LibDems) which occasionally shows a glimmer of understanding of the issues is currently inclined to team up with the discredited Tories in a doomed attempt to maintain the status quo — the one thing that hardly anyone in Scotland seems willing to tolerate for much longer.  Sod’s Law seems to apply (“If our politicians can make a dog’s dinner of a simple issue, they will, just as surely as the well-known fact that a piece of toast dropped on the floor always falls buttered side down”).

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        The answer to the West Lothian question may lie in electronic voting.  If each MP had a chip and pin card programmed with his name and constituency, the Commons rules could easily be amended to the effect that all votes are annotated either a “UK Vote” or  an”England Wales and Northern Ireland Vote”, in which case the Scottish MPs would be prevented electronically from voting.  That policy would be extensible to Wales and northern Ireland as well in the future.  I think they would also not be allowed to speak in the preceding debate.  The voting could still be done in the same way as now, just having card readers in each lobby instead of people counting.  If the other 2 nations follow Scotland along this path, then by default an “English Vote” would remain, votable only by English MPs, and you would have your English Parliament by default without the expense of setting up some new organisation.

        There would still be some anomalies in Ministerial appointments – Scottish Ministers only being selectable for “UK” or federal Ministries.

        • Brian Barder

          Not just complicated — absurd!  What good would it do us to have the MPs elected in England sitting as if they were an English parliament when they would have no government to execute their decisions, no government departments to put their legislation into practice, no English government to resign and call a fresh election (of just the English MPs?) if defeated in a vote of confidence?  In any case, why make do with this poor apology for an English parliament when the case for a separate parliament and government for England, perhaps situated in Birmingham or Manchester, is absolutely unanswerable?

          Various constitutional gurus have looked at the idea of declaring some draft legislation, and some subjects for debate, to be “England only”, and therefore for only English MPs to take part in or vote on, but almost everyone has concluded that it would create more problems than it would solve.  The fact is that a great many MPs enjoy “governing England” with unlimited powers in all subjects while simultaneously acting as a federal parliament for all subjects not yet devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI, and they don’t like the idea of giving up their English powers, power being a very sticky substance.

          BTW, in a proper federal system it’s always perfectly possible for different political parties to be in power in a constituent state and at the federal centre — as indeed is currently the case at Holyrood (SNP) and the quasi-federal organs at Westminster (Tory-LibDem coalition).  They have to learn to live and even work together for the common weal.  Probably good for them.

          • Anonymous

            ”
            when the case for a separate parliament and government for England, perhaps situated in Birmingham or Manchester, is absolutely unanswerable?”

            If you seriously suggest that the English will give up the Houses Of Parliament to form a Government elsewhere, you have no sense of history nor of the resentment and resistance any such move would provoke.

            NEVER going to happen: destroy 1,000 years  of history.

            Totally unrealistic.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            The English haven’t had a parliament to give up since 1707, when the Parliament of Scotland was merged with the Parliament of England to form the Parliament of Great Britain.

          • Brian Barder

            The English are in no position to give up or keep the Houses of Parliament at Westminster, which do not belong to England anyway.  Nor is anyone that I know of suggesting that England should sever its ties with the Westminster parliament or government.  They are part of the constitution of the United Kingdom, not of England, although because the English are unable to distinguish between England and the UK (or even between England and Britain), they have imprudently left themselves without the obvious benefits of devolution and have failed to set up their own parliament and government for England, in parallel with those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  When these regrettable omissions are eventually recognised and remedied, it will obviously be counter-productive to situate the new English governing organs in London, creating deep resentment in the north and midlands of England which will rightly suspect a continuing London-centric neglect of their interests. 

            Don’t panic:  we Brits, including the English, will still have our old historic parliament at Westminster, and continue (or, in the case of its second chamber, begin) to elect its members, just as the people of Virginia and Pennsylvania continue to send their representatives to the Congress in Washington DC while at the same time electing their own state legislatures and Governors in Richmond and Harrisburg. It will feel strange at first, but most people, even most of the English, will get used to it eventually.  The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish already appear to have quite a good grasp of it.  It seems to be taking us English rather longer.

          • happy.fish

            Not sure i’d create that much resentment outside of London and the South East to be honest.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            @ Brian Barder,

            I don’t support any further weakening of the union at all, and I certainly don’t like the idea of governments spending money on duplication.  I also believe that the UK is seen by Allies and others around the world as greater than the sum of its’ parts, and that is a good thing.  If we were to have four national assemblies with devolved powers for the great majority of things, I believe that many of our international benefits would be devalued as a consequence.  With the exception of the USA, no other fully federal system carries the weight the UK does in international politics.  Germany may come close, but it is not a fully federal system, and in some key areas (UN, international development, etc) it does not approach our influence.  Now, we may agree or disagree if that is a good thing, or worth it if it masks internal tensions.  That is politics.  Without asking you to agree with me, I feel confident that your background in the FCO for many years will at least mean that you can understand that argument.

          • Brian Barder

            I understand your argument and your misgivings, but I don’t think you need to worry.  Britain’s influence and weight in international affairs derive from our membership of a number of significant organizations, including the EU, the UN, the UN Security Council (as a veto-wielding permanent member), NATO, WEU, the Commonwealth and many other groupings:  our combination of these memberships is actually unique.  We carry weight also as one of the biggest half-dozen economies in the world, as a major trading country with global trading connections, as still a significant military and naval power with a global reach, and with a surprisingly widely respected history as a former colonial power which carried out the task of decolonisation voluntarily, far-sightedly and with much less bloodshed than often seemed likely.  Our language is now the leading global lingua franca and our culture (Shakespeare, the BBC, our literature and films, etc.) is part of a world-wide heritage.  We run the oldest continuously functioning democracy, not always very well, but it’s much imitated and admired.  Our diplomacy is more effective and generally respected than many Britons would believe.  These are the kind of things that give us our international standing, not whether education in Scotland is managed from London or Edinburgh.  Indeed, if we succeed in evolving peacefully into a federal democracy which is cured of the British disease of gross over-centralisation, so that power and responsibility are localised as far down into the counties, towns, parishes and villages as possible, our reputation and influence in the world will actually be enhanced, not diminished.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree with this article.  The referendum should be on whether Scotland wants to stay in the UK.  If Scotland votes to stay in the UK, that is when we should consider “devo-max” for Scotland, a Parliament for England, more powers for Wales and Northern Ireland etc.

    • Brian Barder

      @Robertcp:disqus :  I agree that the option of devo max should be offered only after the question of independence has been put and settled.  This could be achieved simply in a single referendum with two questions, roughly as follows:
       
      Q1.  Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should become independent? 
      [ ] Agree   [ ] Disagree

      Q2.  If Q1 does not produce a majority for ‘Agree’, do you agree or disagree that Scotland should have full devolution of internal powers but remain part of the United Kingdom, as set out in the White Paper No. xxx?  (nb: if there is a majority of votes for ‘Agree’ in Q1, the votes for Q2 will not be counted.) –
      [ ] Agree   [ ] Disagree

      If most of us throughout the UK can cope with the ballot papers for elections to the European parliament, with multiple votes in numbered order for party lists, I’m confident that Scots, being canny and well educated, would have no problem at all with two simple dual-choice questions like those suggested.

      • Anonymous

        Brian, I take your point but “devo-max” raises issues for other parts of the UK.  Maybe at some point all four nations will need to vote on a constitutional package, which might include devolution for England.

        • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

          @robertcp: Absolutely. I entirely agree. Indeed, in the course of the process leading to devolution for England, devo max for all four UK nations, and ultimately a federal system for the whole UK, there would need to be a number of consultative procedures, probably including at various stages a Royal Commission, at least one constitutional conference and maybe more, Parliamentary votes, and a number of referendums in the individual nations and in the UK as a whole. It would all take several years, with many bumps in the road along the way. The important thing would be to create a national consensus about the long-term objective, and then to work out a suitable route to it.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, “devo-max” for the four nations might be the best option.  Maybe I actually agree with you article!

    • Anonymous

      But for England to keep the power of taxation and on welfare, then power is not given is it.

      • Anonymous

        Treborc, taxation powers for the Welsh Assembly could be an option.  Powers on welfare would only be transferred in “devo-max”.  Is that what Welsh people want?

  • Anonymous

    ”
    .Devo max for Scotland would not mean that Scotland’s MPs at Westminster would only be able to vote on foreign affairs issues”

    Why not?  
    After all, most other issues will be devolved. 

    If the author seriously means this, it is  wildly undemocratic..

    English MPs only should be able to vote on English issues.

    To perpetuate the current undemocratic system is typical authoritarianism.

    • Brian Barder

      Foreign affairs in a standard federal legislature are only one of many vital responsibilities of the federal centre and the federal government.  The constituent states of the United States and Australia all enjoy the equivalent of devo max, but the federal governments and parliaments in Washington DC and Canberra have plenty to do besides foreign affairs.

      The Tories’ notion of allowing only MPs elected in English constituencies to vote on purely English issues is an obvious nonsense.  Very few matters affecting England have no implications (e.g. financial) for the rest of the UK.  Above all, how would a committee of MPs elected in England function as a kind of parliament for England without anything resembling a separate English government or executive?  There could be no purely English minister of education, no English First Minister, no English government departments or civil servants.  Devolution will continue to throw up serious anomalies and injustices, most of them summarised as the West Lothian Question, until there are a separately elected parliament and government for England, as there are already for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — at which point we shall have achieved a full federal system, and the federal parliament and government at Westminster will cease to have responsibility for the devolved subjects anywhere in the UK, functioning in the same way as the federal government and US Congress in Washington DC and the Commonwealth government and parliament of Australia in Canberra.

  • TomFairfax

    Brian,
    I’m surprised so little comment has been made on this article.

    Like you, I see Devo max as a way to give Scotland what it wants, and at the same time avoiding the complexities and uncertainty of Independence.

    Not only should Labour in Scotland try and take a lead on this whilst the Nats are in two minds about it and full blown Independence, but south of the border we should also take the lead for re-instating the English Commons and converting the Lords into something useful, such as an elected Senate for the UK, responsible as an upper chamber for the four national Parliaments, with responsibility for Foreign Affairs, Defence. Like the US Senate this should have equal representation for each constituent state.

    What we definitely need to avoid is another layer of government that only benefits the latter day version of an Ancien Regime consisting of a political class that does it’s best to avoid direct contact with the electorate.

    • Chilbaldi

      Then where would the Prime Minister come from? The Lords? or would we have a separately elected PM more akin to a Presidential election?

      • TomFairfax

        I assume you mean the UK Prime Minister as opposed to the English one who’d still be chosen by the Commons on the basis of being able to form an administration. I don’t see a reason to change the rules for the UK one.

      • TomFairfax

        I assume you mean the UK Prime Minister as opposed to the English one who’d still be chosen by the Commons on the basis of being able to form an administration. I don’t see a reason to change the rules for the UK one.

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

      Devolution for England would require a totally new English legislature, probably comprising only one chamber, and completely separate from the existing Parliament at Westminster. The Westminster Parliament, which already has a semi-federal character, would continue in existence as the legislature of the whole UK Federation, with responsibility only for subjects not devolved to the four UK nations – principally, but not exclusively, foreign affairs and defence. The Westminster House of Commons would equate roughly to the United States House of Representatives and the present House of Lords would, I hope, become the federal Senate, precisely on the lines you describe. It could well be only a tenth the size of the House of Lords, representing a massive reduction in the number of politicians drawing salaries and/or allowances. The new English Parliament would mean some extra politicians, but not nearly as many as those who would leave the House of Lords on its conversion to a Senate.

  • happy.fish

    The case for a federal state is strong, but where would you draw the line? For example I’m pretty sure Cornwall could make a strong case for being a federal state within the union. On the other side of the coin it could be an opportunity to clarify the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The problem would remain that there would be a massively unequal federation. Sure in the US some states are bigger than others California being an obvious case, but with so many other states it kind of all counterbalances. The issue really at stake here is not independence, but resentment and also dislocation between a centre and its outlying regions. The actual specific greviances Scots might have with Westminster could be found across the English regions too. If you asked the proposed question in your reply below, I’m sure many in England would reject the idea of being seperate but would embrace the notion of more autonomy at the local level.

    • Anonymous

      And yet many turned down the change of having Assemblies.

      • happy.fish

        Because they were white elephants with no real powers. There was no clear idea of what they would be able to offer. If you offered something in line with the scottish or even welsh option you may have seen a different result.

        • derek

          Ah, the little American experiment? Mayors that where hand picked but Ken put on the bullet proof jacket? jumping out of the bowl? did Blair ever oppose an American foreign policy in those ten years?

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

      You raise two important but separate questions here.  It is true that a federated UK would involve a huge disparity in size, population and resources as between England and the other three nations. But that disparity is a fact of life right now, not something that would be the result of a federal system. It is England’s greater size and greater wealth that has created most of the problems to which federalism has the best chance of providing a solution. A federal system would involve safeguards against interference by any one UK nation in the internal affairs of any other – safeguards which, until partial devolution, did not exist. Thus the disparity between the four nations is a reason for federalism, not an obstacle to it.

      Your other point concerns the possibility of breaking England up into regions for federal purposes. I don’t myself think this is a starter. There is no English region, even Cornwall, that has the characteristics of an identifiable nation in the way that Scotland, Wales and (in a different way) Northern Ireland do. I believe that the English nationalists who are the principal group at present advocating a separate Parliament (and government, when they remember) for England, would not tolerate the fragmentation of England, which would be widely seen as an example of “divide and rule”. It could also be represented as a device for perpetuating English dominance over the rest of the UK by giving the new regions of England separate votes in the federal organs. It might lead to demands for Scotland also to be divided into regions – the Highlands, lowlands, and Islands – with separate votes and representation for each. Such fragmentation would tend to lead to disintegration. England should be a single nation in a federal UK, but it should be a feature of the federal constitution that each of the four nations must adopt the principle of subsidiarity, pushing all its self-governing powers down to the lowest possible level: elected mayors for all regions, towns, villages, wards, parishes.  It works in France!

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

      You raise two important but separate questions here.  It is true that a
      federated UK would involve a huge disparity in size, population and
      resources as between England and the other three nations. But that
      disparity is a fact of life right now, not something that would be the
      result of a federal system. It is England’s greater size and greater
      wealth that has created most of the problems to which federalism has the
      best chance of providing a solution. A federal system would involve
      safeguards against interference by any one UK nation in the internal
      affairs of any other – safeguards which, until partial devolution, did
      not exist. Thus the disparity between the four nations is a reason for
      federalism, not an obstacle to it.

      Your other point concerns the possibility of breaking England up into
      regions for federal purposes. I don’t myself think this is a starter.
      There is no English region, even Cornwall, that has the characteristics
      of an identifiable nation in the way that Scotland, Wales and (in a
      different way) Northern Ireland do. I believe that the English
      nationalists who are the principal group at present advocating a
      separate Parliament (and government, when they remember) for England,
      would not tolerate the fragmentation of England, which would be widely
      seen as an example of “divide and rule”. It could also be represented as
      a device for perpetuating English dominance over the rest of the UK by
      giving the new regions of England separate votes in the federal organs.
      It might lead to demands for Scotland also to be divided into regions –
      the Highlands, lowlands, and Islands – with separate votes and
      representation for each. Such fragmentation would tend to lead to
      disintegration. England should be a single nation in a federal UK, but
      it should be a feature of the federal constitution that each of the four
      nations must adopt the principle of subsidiarity, pushing all its
      self-governing powers down to the lowest possible level: elected mayors
      for all regions, towns, villages, wards, parishes.  It works in France!

  • Anonymous

    Given the troubled times we all face I should have thought that it would be in all our interests for Scotland to go independent – the principle that diversity supports resilience is well established.

    If I were in Scotland and facing up to today’s challenges I wouldn’t want my options constrained by English politics and interests.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      @ DaveCitizen,

      interesting, I agree on the “troubled times”, but I take a different view.  I can’t see how it is in Scotland’s interest to push for independence now, nor in England’s interest to be divorced (Welsh and Northern Irish people please forgive an English-centric viewpoint).

      The life of a nation is measured in hundreds of years, not short-term political calculation.  It’s an extended view of the “a dog is for life, not Christmas” argument.

      From a Scottish perspective, I see little of attraction for independence after the oil runs out, which will happen in 20-30 years.  Optimists would declare that the oil gives Scotland 20-30 years to prepare for some new economy, but I don’t see what Scotland has to offer, particularly with an ingrained acceptance of a higher than average (EU) benefits culture.  Post Oil, an independent Scotland would need to make serious money on a European and global stage to pay those bills, so either they come down or Scotland finds something to replace the oil.  Renewables won’t do that.

      In the interim, Scotland has a huge history of exporting great talent in all sectors.  The rubber in my car tires, the tar macadam upon which I drive, the penicillin I prescribe, I think the trains, the TV I watch…  all Scots inventions, and many more.  I’m not sure convinced that Gordon Brown does not fulfil those criteria, but he was an aberration.

      On the other hand, Scotland leaving the UK would diminish England, and certainly leave Welsh and Northern Irish people looking at their options.  As four nations, we are greater than the sum of our parts.  There would be many arguments about which nation took what from the pile of debits and credits, and some of that calculation is “soft” in terms of UN Security Council seats or global banking sector or credit ratings.  It looks like a train crash to me, with no one country achieving any advantage, and all four taking losses.

      • Anonymous

        Jamie – I think one’s opinion on whether Scotland would do better in or out largely comes down to one’s view of where success will lie in the future.

        If one believes the ship of free market globalised capitalism can be refloated in a way that returns Britain to its former advantagous position then I guess Scotland in, kind of makes sense.

        However, if one thinks prosperity in future lies in embracing a different path – e.g. Scotland going down a Scandinavian route of low inequality, high social assets – then being tied to a persistently conservative England is likely to frustrate progress.

        Long term thinking is great if you want to get to the same place at the end.

        • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

          Scotland’s attachment to traditional Labour values – low inequality, high social assets, a significant role for the state, as you say – is a huge asset for the whole of the UK and a cogent reason for seeking to discourage Scottish secession. A fully self-governing, social democratic Scotland could set an admirable example for the rest of the UK which would be much more effective and influential if Scotland remained a part of Britain than if she opted for separation and independence. Once all four UK nations have achieved full internal self-government (‘devo max’) in a united federation, the Labour Party in England would be forced to find a new role as a genuine party of the centre-left. Given continuing Labour support in the midlands and north of England, there seems no reason why self-government for England should mean permanent Tory government here.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Brian, I’ve always thought Scotland should provide an excellent role model for England in terms of being socially progessive and its excellent education system.
            I often wish I could emigrate there if it weren’t for the weather!!

            I haven’t yet grasped this concept of devo max, although do feel worried about prospect of Scotland breaking away- we need that connection.

            Sorry I’ve not got around to reading your article just yet, partly because I’m thinking issue might be a bit technical and detailed! (Will do though.)

            Hope all is well with you- and much appreciate the fact you are kind enough to respond to people here- it makes for a more productive dialogue.

            Good night anyway.

          • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

            Joanne, thank you. I don’t think you’ll find my post unduly technical, and devo max will, I predict, turn out to mean whatever the SNP in Edinburgh and the Tory-led coalition at Westminster agree it should mean – devolution of more power to Scotland, with how much more still to be decided. In principle it should amount to full internal self-government, but obviously in practice some powers will still be reserved to the quasi-federal government at Westminster.

  • Anonymous

    Boring

  • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

    The problem with devo-max is that it is likely to be impossible to administer and Alex Salmond will be able to gain independence by default. That doesn’t mean however Labour should settle for the status quo. Instead it would be more prudent for us to argue for devo-plus. An extension of the current settlement that holds back things like corporation tax which if placed in the hands of the First Minister would precipitate a race to bottom. It is no secret that he still views the Irish economic model as one that Scotland should copy. We should support devo-plus not just because it will help defeat the nationalists, but because it what the Scottish people want and is the right thing to do. It was a mistake to give the devolved legislatures .

    I honestly believe the answers to our problems is more devolution and through that federalism. I can’t believe that none of the major UK parties have seized upon devolution for England (John Prescott’s referendum aside). It would be in Scotland’s interest for the North of England to gain devolved powers and perhaps then the UK would be able to move away from this London/South-East focus of successive UK governments. It’s worth pointing out that after NI, it is not Scotland that receives the most spending per capita, but London. Devolution for England is something the Labour party should take seriously.

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

      I’m not sure why you think that devo max is likely to be impossible to administer. It would equate roughly to the kind of internal self-government enjoyed by the individual states of the US, Canada and Australia, all useful models from whose features we can cherry-pick whatever meets our needs. I’m also doubtful whether in practice there would be much difference between devo max and devo plus: the precise division of powers and responsibilities between Westminster and Holyrood, including such tricky subjects as corporation tax, will have to be worked out through negotiations between the two governments, perhaps with the participation of the other parties north and south of the border, and it will be convenient to label the outcome  ‘devo max’ regardless of any limitations that will have to be imposed on the new powers devolved to Scotland.

      We should not regard devo max (or devo plus) as a defeat for the nationalists (the SNP is already arguing that it should be one of the options on offer in the referendum) but rather as a solution to current problems which would benefit all parts of the UK. It would inevitably encourage the other nations, including especially England, to work towards the same status, resulting eventually in a new federal dispensation for the UK.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        @ Brian Barder,

        I think there may be some terminology or definition issues creeping in here.  What I think of as “Devo-Max” may not be what you are describing.  To me, Devo-Max is full devolved authority over every decision short of Foreign policy, Defence, and perhaps a few others e.g. Europe.  Income tax rates would be in the competence of the devolved administration.

        But yet, you highlight Canada as an example.  One quick Google shows that Canada does not have fully devolved income tax powers down to the provinces.  See http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html , which clearly shows a Federal base onto which the provinces are free to add their own rates.

        Other taxes reflect the same Federal + Province division. When I bought my lakeside acres in Ontario, I paid two purchase taxes:  stamp duty to the national government, and a local property purchase tax to Ontario.  If I had bought land to the same value in Québec, I would have paid the same stamp duty to the national government in Ottawa but a slightly lower rate of property purchase tax to the provincial government in Montréal.

        Under Devo Max, there would be no “Federal” tax, merely a contribution from the devolved administrations to the annual costs of Federal activities. Scotland may choose to fund Defence spending from a levy on corporation tax, Wales may choose to pay the Defence bill from 1/2% on VAT, England from a reduction in Council Tax. That’s what the “Max” in Devo-Max means.

        • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

          I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that devo max for Scotland will necessarily, or even probably, reproduce every detail of the relationship between the Canadian Provinces and the federal centre at Ottawa, any more than it’s likely to reproduce the precise relationships between New South Wales and the Commonwealth government at Canberra or between Texas and Washington DC.  The division of powers between the states and the federal centre, especially regarding taxation, varies from federation to federation, and devo max for Scotland, if it happens, will no doubt vary again from all the others. 

          You may or may not be right with your predictions of exactly what devo max will mean for Scotland.  Devo max is not a precise term and in the end I predict that it will be applied loosely to whatever additional devolution of powers to Scotland can eventually be agreed.  For various reasons I think it extremely unlikely that in a fully federal UK there would be no federal taxes in addition to ‘national’ taxes which would vary from one to another of the four UK nations and which would probably fund only services within the competences of the individual nations.  The ‘max’ in devo max simply suggests that more devolution should add up to virtually complete internal self-government, analogous with (but not necessarily identical to) the status and powers of most second-tier states in most existing federations. 

          Whatever the division of, for example, taxation powers, there will inevitably be tensions and disputes, even turf wars (not military ones, I hope), between Holyrood and Westminster after devo max is introduced (if it is).  That’s in the DNA of federalism.  But the present transitional, half-completed, half-baked state of the devolution process, suspended half-way between a unitary state and federalism, riddled with anomalies and grievances, already generates tensions, disputes and turf wars between the four UK nations and the quasi-federal centre at Westminster.  A full-blown federal system would resolve at least some of them, and provide mechanisms for resolving others.

Latest

  • News TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    By Mark Ferguson

    The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why we love Woolwich

    Why we love Woolwich

    By Jon Wilson

    Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    By Jim Knight

    If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    By Mark Ferguson

    “We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]

    Read more →