Leader: Change is coming – and not just for Scotland

Published on Monday 23 January 2012 12:19

HAS the long-predicted English backlash against Scotland begun? On the evidence of polling released today, it may well have.

Voters in England believe Scottish devolution has made the way Britain is governed worse. They think they get a raw deal financially, with Scotland getting more than its fair share of public spending and England losing out.

Perhaps as a result of this, people in England are finally beginning to feel more English than British. In that respect they are following the Scots, for those north of the Border have long felt more Scottish than British, even if they are comfortable with their joint identity. The question that arises from this change in attitude is what impact this will have on the independence debate upon which we are embarked.

It is perhaps significant that English voters now back what has been called “devo-max” for Scotland – what others might call fiscal autonomy. Given the English think Scotland gets a bad deal, that is understandable, and logical: a Scotland with increased powers should raise a substantial proportion of the money Holyrood spends. To this extent, we agree with this view.

However, there is a problem in terms of the English attitude to devolution south of the Border, with some backing the idea of English votes on English issues at Westminster, but other supporting a fully-fledged English parliament. It is in this area where the problems arise. The English parliament idea was floated at the weekend by senior Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes, only to be slapped down yesterday by his party leader, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg was right to do so. An English parliament would dominate the whole of the UK, as long as it exists. Equally, MPs voting on “English” matters only is difficult, as it runs into problems of identifying exactly what is an England-only measure and creates two classes of MP.

What all this suggests is that future constitutional change cannot be limited to the Celtic fringes. To date, devolution has been reactive, piecemeal and ad hoc, rather than part of a wider reform of administration in the UK. That has only fuelled the SNP’s desire for more power north of the Border, and made English voters feel left out of the constitutional debate.

Unfortunately, many voters now feel cynical about politicians in general, so the market for constitutional big ideas is fairly limited. There is certainly scant evidence of much popular support in England for federalism – the most logical solution for unionists, but which would mean dividing England up and which was tentatively tried by Labour and rejected by voters. The more radical option of an elected English parliament is not particularly popular either. However, it is clear from this poll that the status quo is no longer an option.

It would be a sensible for the big beasts in Britain’s three main parties to seize the constitutional initiative. Just calling for a No vote on Scottish independence will no longer do.

Comments

There are 10 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

10

samcoldstream

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The English, just like the Scots, are navel gazers and IF Scotland seceded from the Union it would be met with a shrug of the shoulders.

• Report Unsuitable

9

christelijk_recht

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:26 PM

Comment removed by moderator

8

Brond

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:42 PM

There are two years to go of this debate and already after little more than two weeks there have been several articles on what Scottish Independence, or Devo-Max, would mean for the rest of the UK. Labour MP for Torfaen, Paul Murphy, a former Welsh and Northern Ireland secretary, has also called for devolution for the English regions. There is concern that with the number of Welsh and Scottish MPs due to be cut, Westminster will take on a stronger sense of English identity. In fact, if Scotland does become independent, there will be 550 MPs left, 510 representing English constituencies. In such circumstances, does the English national interest become the UK national interest? There are many who believe this is already the case and this in part has fuelled the devolution debate in Scotland. A leader in the Guardian a week or so ago argued that rolling out devolution to England and Wales could be an opportunity to "forge stronger and better institutions from which a modernised version of the UK can be built". There have been similar debates in the North East, with an article by Tom Rowley in The Journal looking at how the North East is facing a squeeze from Scotland and the South. Mr Rowley worries that cutting representation from Scotland and Wales could mean fewer Labour governments, leaving the North East exposed to Tory policy - an incentive to seriously consider a regional assembly, one might think. One of the driving forces of devolution in Scotland was just this problem - should Scotland suspend its social and political aspirations until such a time as the South voter Labour again? Also, the kind of Labour party you get is determined by winning over these swing-voters. Often, Labour has to dilute its policies to get into power. Mr Rowley quotes Martin Farr, senior lecturer in modern and contemporary history at Newcastle University: “The 1980s governnment was a government of the South and famously imposed the poll tax on Scotland a year earlier. It wasn’t a representative government in any way and I think that is also something which the present government shares.” There is a real fear the the North east would become isolated and a disenfranchised minority. The same fears are evident in Northern Ireland. Just last week in the Belfast Telegraph, Mary Kenny wrote of the connection “Ulster unionists” have with Scotland and wonders where they will be left should Scotland become independent. If Britain is breaking up, where does this leave an Ulster unionist identity that sees itself as Irish and British, she asks. Mr Hughes intervention is timely and suggests that the status quo may be decisively moving from no change to further devolution throughout the UK. Meanwhile, Labour have firmly positioned themselves behind the Tories in the no change lobby. Can they really suspend debate about Devo-Max for two years and then expect to come along and say, we are the natural party of devolution - sorry we're late? Labour seem to think that winning a referendum with a clear No vote will be decisive and bring down the SNP government. I suspect most people will ride the SNP bus to whatever destination they chose to get off at. If the SNP are the only party promoting significant change, then they will be the party to benefit.

• Report Unsuitable

7

Biscuit McVittie

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:21 PM

The only realistic solution to this problem is either the total breakup of the UK or a federal UK. All the others are just fudges. If the former is the outcome then we’ll probably all be in the doldrums for generations. I would advise all young, ambitious individuals to emigrate to a country with a future.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Scotlander

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:02 PM

The more radical option of an elected English parliament is not particularly popular either. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ That is a lie!!! The polls prove thay there is a greater proportion of English wanting a parliament than there were Scoyt wanting one in 1997.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Scotlander

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

"The English parliament idea was floated at the weekend by senior Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes, only to be slapped down yesterday by his party leader, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg was right to do so"++++++++++++++++++++++++ We fight tooth and nail to keep English influence out of Scotland and then come up with an opinion like that! If Scotland is entitled to its own government then perhaps so is England. If that is not appreciated north of the border then we should have the right to full independence and then there would be no English domination. The English in England have no say they are dominated by the same British crooks that are trying to tie Scotland down. The common enemy of both countries are the British, not the English.

• Report Unsuitable

4

douglas-home rule

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 09:48 AM

Come on Scotsman, The Britnat parties have NO intention of changing anything if they can get away with it.. They like things just the way they are, decades lazing in the Commons doing the minimum for their constituants, elevation to the Lords to do even less, or a place on a quango for you or your partner. Company's desperate to get you on the payrole because of your "contacts". Expenses. No , this is too good to be true for most of these dumplings, many of whome couldnt work up a sweat in a sauna.

• Report Unsuitable

3

gus1940

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 08:25 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but regarding para2 is it not the case that the Barnett Formula predated Devolution by a considerable number of years? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS regards the British or English question - come off it - How many English people when asked their nationality would answer 'British'?

• Report Unsuitable

2

glassbenmhor

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:13 AM

The English do not want us having the option of Devo-Max, come on Scotsman you know dam fine well they want the majority of them in the words of Kelvin MacKenzie 'off my bank roll totally' come on now. The Scotman also knows full well that the balance sheet post independence dosnt add up for a Westminster slowly we hear sliding into the Thames, come on Scotsman, you also know that it crucial that England gets a smooth deal in the South Atlantic, don't you!

• Report Unsuitable

1

JPJ2

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:40 AM

"It is perhaps significant that English voters now back what has been called “devo-max” for Scotland – what others might call fiscal autonomy. Given the English think Scotland gets a bad deal, that is understandable, and logical: a Scotland with increased powers should raise a substantial proportion of the money Holyrood spends. To this extent, we agree with this view." "bad deal"-I assume you meant to write "good deal" but what can one expect from the usual Scotsman guff :-) THe unionists have convinced the English that we are a bunch of benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies-thanks for that you bunch of halfwits who have damaged the Scots to preserve their places as Westminster troughers.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.