Lesley Riddoch: Simon says he wants a devolution

Published on Monday 23 January 2012 12:19

Simon Hughes was slapped down for suggesting an English Parliament but maybe he’s right

IS SIMON Hughes right to (almost) call for an English Parliament? Speaking in Derby on Saturday, the senior Lib Dem said “it could be time for English devolution.” Within 24 hours he was slapped down by Nick Clegg on the Andrew Marr programme and Twitter debate was dominated by the other subjects discussed by the Lib Dem leader – a proposed “mansion tax,” benefit rebellion and demands for clarity about independence from Alex Salmond. The English Parliament idea had disappeared. This tells advocates of radical constitutional change in Britain all we need to know. The English simply aren’t up for it. Yet.

In 2004 John Prescott’s plans for English regional assemblies were effectively kyboshed after the north-east of England overwhelmingly voted no. But times have changed and so has the proposal. Now one pan-English Parliament (not a plethora of regional bodies) is being mooted and debate has a vital quality that was missing a decade back. A righteous sense of grievance. As winners in the Union game the English haven’t felt hard-done by – until now.

“We want one too” may not be the most sophisticated response to the SNP’s independence call. But it may be behind the surprise majority of English voters who supported Scottish independence in a recent ICM opinion poll.

English irritation with the Scots appears to be a stronger factor. Put bluntly, who the hell do we think we are? The Scottish tail is wagging the English dog so vigorously that Westminster is having a collective migraine. In the midst of their “own” debate about recession, austerity, coalition cuts, caring capitalism, Europhobia and the aftermath of the English riots, 50 million people are being made to focus on the desires of five million. And in opinion polls, most Scots don’t even support independence.

In such a context Simon Hughes is brave to put his head above the parapet; “People in England should use this [Scottish] referendum as an opportunity not a threat... there may be devolution to England too.”

But one wobbly voice doth not a groundswell make. Does the campaign for English devolution really have legs?

The absence of an English Parliament is of course, at the heart of the West Lothian question and the core business for the McKay Commission, set up to consider how the Commons might deal better with legislation that affects only one part of the UK – viz England.

You might ask why this is necessary. SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs already choose not to vote on domestic English issues thus creating a de facto English parliament within Westminster. The Celtic MPs who insist on voting in English debates are unionist MPs – not nationalist ones – and their voting says more about parliamentary arithmetic and anxiety about job security than any constitutional point of principle.

In 2007, then shadow foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind tried to formalise things with an English Grand Committee that would sit twice a week in Westminster. This would have left the UK’s prime minister (Gordon Brown at the time) unable to vote on his own government’s legislation. It would also have created two classes of MPs with “full-time” English MPs and Celtic “part-timers.” Odd – but then the empty Chamber is eloquent testimony to the fact that Commons attendance is currently a highly selective and part-time affair.

Intermittency is a problem for the British mindset – in democratic representation and energy production. We seem terrified of the ambiguity and (apparent) duplication needed to make democracy work. As Paddy Bort at Edinburgh University’s Centre for Governance has demonstrated, truly federal countries create a small mountain of elected representatives. Baden-Württemberg, in southern Germany, with twice the population of Scotland, has a total of nearly 24,000 elected representatives against Scotland’s total of 1,416. Austerity and a self-fulfilling lack of respect for localism has pushed debate in the opposite centralising direction. Britain needs what it currently does not value – powerful local devolution. But who will champion that?

Ironically, so long as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish spending is a function of Westminster budgetary decisions, the Celtic nations have “skin in the game” during almost every parliamentary debate. Raising taxes in Scotland (devo max) would minimise the problem of financial contingency for the Scots but not for the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies.

And that’s the other problem with a “DIY” solution short of an English Parliament. It’s not clear when the subject under discussion is uniquely English. A health debate might seem like a good time for Scots MPs to withdraw, until it stumbles onto health and safety, which is a reserved matter involving all the Celtic MPs.

That recent opinion poll result could mean a whole host of things. It could mean the English are ready to see their nation as just one (huge) part of the UK that is currently hogging its whole governance structure. That’s unlikely.

It could mean they want to seize back control of the coach and horses being driven through British constitutional life by Alex Salmond. But control over the direction of that vehicle can only be acquired by occupying the driving seat. Shouting from the sidelines is no longer an option – and yet Pandora’s Box will open if English politicians get seriously involved in constitutional debate – and they know it.

Why does Westminster receive the lion’s share of all tax gathered in the UK when local and national devolved governments are responsible for spending it? Why is “grassroots” good enough for providing rhetorical ballast in the UK but bad for actual policy? Why not shift to a local income tax so tax and spend, power and responsibility are equally owned at every level of government across the UK? Why not encourage the Queen to surprise everyone with a Diamond Jubilee Bill of Rights making her subjects citizens at long last? Why not disband the House of Lords and consider its potential to represent all parts of the UK in a new federal structure?

Yip. It’s far easier to give a tiny, tentative nod towards the establishment of an English Parliament in the full and certain knowledge it will never happen without a credible crusader.

If Simon Hughes isn’t the English Alex Salmond, who is?

Comments

There are 14 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

14

samcoldstream

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 08:29 PM

A Federal State in everything but constitutional name is the answer. Politicians at Westminster can just pretend that nothing has changed. According to the House of Commons Library, up to 50 percent of UK legislation is made in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, or in the form of EU Directives and Regulations at Westminster.

• Report Unsuitable

13

florian albert

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 06:48 PM

North of the border much (not all) of the talk of Devo Max is media generated. At the last Scottish (2011) and UK (2010) election, Labour, Tory and SNP were united in NOT pushing Devo Max in any significant way. South of the border, at the 2010 General election, an English Parliament was not an issue in any shape or form. It is now being brought up - by the likes of Lesley Riddoch - as a response to the prospect of the Devo Max policy, which they promote, creating an assymetrical union. The English will see this as the Scots telling (50 million) English people they should have a Parliament they don't particularly want as a result of the (5 million) Scots having the Parliament they do want.

• Report Unsuitable

12

Charles Addison

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:58 PM

@Florian, No! Firstly, this is not a media generated debate either north or south of the border: I know that from pasionate debates with real people face-to-face as well as on line. And secondly, all due respect to Gerry, he's no oracle nor is Lesley such an opinion former that we are likely to be unduly swayed. And yes: if the electorate wanted to debate the independence settlement post 2015 they would have that right. It's called democracy! I'd make my mind up at the time on the facts available and the principles I hold. As I suspect would you. With regards to self-interested (unelected) elites: unfortunately, they have a disproportionate influence in public life everywhere but that does not mean there is no genuine voice trying to be heard.

• Report Unsuitable

11

florian albert

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:53 PM

#6 I disagree. There would be regional 'parliaments' and a federal parliament. This would be a constitutional revolution. (The Federal Parliament would have almost nothing to do.) There is no evidence that the people of England want this. By that I mean there is no serious political campaign in favour of it. (Simon Hughes and Lesley Riddoch don't count.) It is possible it might emerge in the future - as has happened in Scotland over the last 45 years. An English Parliament means a new tier for England, though the tier above might be made smaller. Personally, I wouldn't bet on the higher tier being smaller than any of those below. I think a break up of the UK is far more likely than the entirely new political dispensation of a Federal UK - dominated still by England.

• Report Unsuitable

10

florian albert

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:38 PM

#5 By your logic, if Scotland votes for Indendence in 2014 there should be another vote by 2022 and another eight years after - if a columnist in the Scotsman (or perhaps the Sun) thinks it a good idea. There is nothing trivial in suggesting that a self-interested (unelected) elite has a disproportionate influence in Scottish public life. Gerry Hassan - an insider if ever there was one - admitted as much in his column on Saturday.

• Report Unsuitable

9

korky

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:31 PM

Anither washed doon tory... A has bin.

• Report Unsuitable

8

Buford Van Stomm

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:43 PM

If Lesley Riddoch is not the worst opinion writer in the UK, who is?

• Report Unsuitable

7

JoanAnneMcDowall

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:43 PM

While there is a majority who would would vote for Devomax over Independence at the moment, it is also clear that those wishing Devomax have said that if Westminster imposes both a date and a one question referendum upon Scotland, when it comes to Independence or status quo they will be voting for Independence. DC has put himself in a corner here, if he allows Devomax as a serious alternative it has serious consequences for Wales and NI, if he doesn't he will surely loose. I agree with Simon Hughes, I think those south of the border would welcome their own parliament without the interference of the Scots. It is not the SNP who want a Devomax question it has been asked for by the people......that is democracy! But the more insults and threats that come from Westminster the more the balance will change between Ind.. and Devomax.

• Report Unsuitable

6

AlanB

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 02:22 PM

#florian albert Not exactly true. There were 2 referendum for devolution of power in England. 1 for the North East and the other for London and the creation of the mayor. NE voted against and London for. Also the proposal by Hughes is for an English parliament rather than regional ones. (Blair did not want regional assemblies in England so tried to undermine the whole idea so it is hardly surprising the idea did not win support). An English parliament or even regional parliamentsassemblies need not mean more tiers of government as the House of Lords could be abolished. The central federal parliament would also be much smaller in composition than Westminster. An English parliament would most likely just be the English Westminster mps becoming the English parliament mps.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Charles Addison

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:59 PM

Florian, times and circumstances change. You don't get an eternal mandate from any vote: that's why we hold government elections at regular intervals. The only trivial comments here are yours. make your points without scoffing and we can all have a better debate.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Brond

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:33 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

3

douglas-home rule

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:13 PM

English people dont want regional assemblies but a national Parliament. Trouble is, the Britnat parties absolutely dont want that, or anything like that. Rennie and Lamont need there noses rubbed in this merde, it totally give the lie to any possiblity that Westminster would volunteer more devolution just because they say so and make English people feel more disenfranchised. According to this, we could have Devo Max or Independence, but senior figures in the Westminster parties need to start thinking about the constitution in a joined-up way.

• Report Unsuitable

2

florian albert

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM

In 2004, the people in those parts of England where they were asked, made it clear they did not want another tier of government. Lesley Riddoch's response; ask them again. After all, why should the Lesley Riddochs of this world be put off by a triviality like a democratic decision.

• Report Unsuitable

1

Kinghob

Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:13 AM

Maybe he is right but thanks to 'federalists' like the libdem party becoming gung ho unionists the articulation of an English party to represent aspirations for an English parliament will be at best a default position when Scots vote YES in 2014 as I sincerely believe they will Lesley. Also worth bearing in mind that any mention of further powers short of Independence are ' too complicated" for a devolved Scotland to even dare express then what influence can poor old England hope to have on the constitution?

• 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.