The (brief!) geopolitical case for the Union

In a time when the Union is under frequent attack from expected, and in the case of Cameron and his Tories, unexpected sources, I think it is important that we examine all of the aspects that make the Union an important and beneficial set-up to the nations involved. Obviously the economic issues have been receiving the most coverage so far, however I would like to jot down a few ideas about what I feel are the geopolitical responsibilities of the Union, and why we would be abrogating our responsibility if we were to break it apart.


As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!

It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.


For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.


We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.


All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.


And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.

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.