Thursday, November 01, 2007

The West Lothian Question

If we leave aside for one moment the incredibly petty hypocrisy of Cameron and the Tories in calling for English votes (Funny they weren't so keen on this when it was the UUP propping up a Conservative Government) they are trying to score political capital on a growing problem, and one which we as a Party ignore at our peril.

Devolution has created an environment in which growing sections of the English population feel that they are being treated like second class citizens, subsidising the rest of the UK. Now, these feelings are emotional ones which are not directly based on reality - in particular there seems to be a strange presumption in most English based media sources that everything in Scotland and Wales is paid for by 'English' taxes. I can confirm without a doubt that I and other Scots pay the same taxes!

However, there is a point to some of the resentment where it is felt that Scottish and Welsh MPs have a say over issues that they cannot actually effect in their own part of the UK. (Again, this raises hackles in Scotland and Wales - afterall we suffered from the Thatcher years without ever providing support for her.) This resentment, if unmet, stokes feelings which could inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK.

Of course this is something that suits the SNP, but increasingly it is also suiting the wishes of the Tories, who appear ever more keen to forget their Unionist beliefs. Cameron knows that the Tories would do better in Westminster without those troublesome Welsh and Scottish MPs causing trouble, and so is starting to appear willing to sacrifice the UK for power.

This is where the Labour Party needs to step into the argument and start proposing ways forward which listen to the legitimate concerns of England without throwing out the entire political structure. Devolution has been a success for Scotland and Wales - maybe it is time to examine devolution for England. Westminster must remain a Parliament for the entire UK, in which its Members can vote on every issue - anything else makes a mockery of the institution and brings about a inevitable slide to dissolution. However, the issue of devolving the areas which are devolved for Scotland and Wales should be examined in great detail.

A while ago on here there was a debate with one of my posts about possible ways forward, and we discussed options for keeping the UK Parliament as a way to respond to the issues such as defence and international relations which the four nations must deal with together, but with devolved bodies for each of the consituent nations which could examine specific issues in their national context. I think that this method would still run the risk of fuelling some of the fires of independence, but it would also provide a feeling of genuine interaction for the citizens of the UK.

The UK Parliament could continue to elect Members from each of the Constituent Nations, although reform of the voting system would be crucial to ensuring that the body was felt to be representative. Taxation could be dealt with as it is now, with money being distributed to the four nations to spend on their devolved areas as they saw fit. The UK Parliament would continue to represent the UK on an international stage, with the four national parliaments being able to find in their contributions through their national and UK representatives. With the UK Parliament dealing with issues which directly affected the four nations collectively, there would be no question of whether a Scot could be Prime Minister or Health Secretary.

The increased status of the national parliaments would also help to develop a stonger motivation for people entering politics to consider standing for them. Currently there is still a tendency in Scotland to view Westminster as where the power is - this has a strong effect on the quality of candidates choosing to stand as MSPs. However, a strong devolved Scottish Parliament and a specific UK Parliament would allow candidates to stand for the body which involves what they are most interested in - i.e. UK for foreign policy, Scotland for education and health.

The four nations, under this system, would remain strong contributing parts of the UK, although each would have the flexibility to respond to issues in ways that suited them. This would lead to differences in provision and different ideas being tried out - an additional aspect of the UK Parliament would therefore be to provide a means of ensuring that best practice was shared between the national parliaments. As citizens would still belong to the UK, there would be no impact on their international status, and they would continue to share the benefits that being a citizen of the UK provides.

I think that the environment of the UK is changing, and the desire for constitutional progress is going to continue. My ideas sketched out above are just initial thoughts and I am sure that there will be plenty that people will find wrong or disagreeable with them. However, I think that this is a vital time for the Party to debate the issue and provide leadership to the UK. I think that Cameron's intentions will lead is to the break-up of the UK, which would be a disaster for all of the consituent nations, and it is crucial that we can demonstrate that there are alternatives which can be both successful and fair.

I would love to hear what readers feel are the best ways forward.

No comments: