Over the week-end expectations arose that David Cameron would support moves for English only votes at Westminster on English matters, following a model proposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
The response was predictable! Labour ministers shouted that the danger was that Scottish independence would be nearer, with a threat to the Union. What they are really upset about is that Rifkind's proposal might give some impetus to the Scottish Nationalists, and harm the chances of Labour ever again regaining control in Scotland. It would also, of course, reduce the chances of Labour having a majority at Westminster on English matters. The tears about the proposal are Labour ones for Labour, the risk being as great for the Labour party as for the Union.
The other argument they advance is the sadness that Scottish MPs would lose votes/control over England, but this has already happened the other way round - since Devolution English MPs have been unable to vote on Scottish and Welsh local matters, so more MPs at Westminster (English) have lost much more constitutional power than what is proposed under Rifkind. It is also true that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on English "local" matters, which are of no relevance to them, but cannot vote on Scottish matters which are of relevance.
The Rifkind solution is one slightly messy way to answer the West Lothian question.
Another one, supported by localists and also by the Daily Telegraph is to devolve the same power to English counties that Scotland has, and presumably devolve the same power to Wales and Northern Ireland. The main objection to this is that England, alone, will be the only part of the UK without its national government, and furthermore will imply the kind of butchery that the EU has been trying to impose on us to weaken the power of national interest.
Why should the English have to suffer a loss of national identity and pride?
There is a further possibility - that we consider a federal structure- that there be a federal government in London (with departments perhaps dispersed around the UK), and four national
assemblies, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dealing with the local matters at present decided in Scotland - a measure of friendly comparison and competition might even be a healthy thing. This would allow "local" autonomy on issues capable of local determination.
Sorry New Labour, but you began the process with ill-conceived legislation to suit your own purposes, and it ill suits you to try to perpetuate your advantage and the accompanying anomalies! The half-baked and rushed devolution was of your making.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The problem is that England is so large compared to the others. That's another argument against the county devolution - how many times bigger is Scotland compared to one of the smaller counties, say Herefordshire, 25 times?
You didn't mention the funding problem. If we reduced the imbalance, would that be enough?
A weakness of the Rifkind proposal is that the English votes, whatever the majority, would be only those of a committee, and would need confirmation in the UK Parliament, where again Scottish MPs would have a vote.
The English Grand committee would not mean equal devolution power as the Scottish, or even the Welsh
The break-up of the union seems inevitable. Perhaps the federal system is the best solution - it works well in Germany, why shouldn't it work here?
The only argument I've heard for keeping the present situation is that any change could encourage the SNP and break up the Union.
But it will not take the grievances of the English long to demand a referendum on the issue, never mind the Scots. A federal system could be the only stable condition - the German regions don't seem to break away!
Post a Comment