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.
Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The devolution of race equality legislation
Was asked to produce a response to a debate that was held at the SNP Conference on racial equality (it was a fringe event organised by my work amongst others) and so I thought I would stick up my piece to let you see what you think of it.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)