Brexit is not over, nor is the UK’s constitutional debate – Katherine Sangster

We live in a time of nationalisms. Populist politicians from Victor Orban to Donald Trump prioritise national sovereignty over international cooperation. In Britain, the backlash to the English nationalism of Brexit is a strengthened Scottish nationalism. Does this mean the end of multinational organisations, and even the breakup of the UK?

The debate over Brexit won't finish when the UK leaves Europe. Picture: AFP/Getty

In a Fabian Society pamphlet published this week, Progressive Federalism – A Different Way of Looking at the UK, Professor Jim ­Gallagher argues the opposite. The right response to Brexit and the concerns which lie behind it, he says, is not to load one divisive nationalism onto another, but to see the UK as a ­voluntary, multinational union with a ­constitution designed for economic opportunity and social justice.

Brexit and Scottish nationalism share much. Both prioritise national sovereignty over ­multinational unions. Their appeal to ­identity resonates with left behind voters, offered ­little else by the political system. But Gallagher argues that neither can provide economic opportunity or social justice, which need unhindered trade and shared resources.

For the UK, in his view, the right approach is a more federal one. Greater powers not just for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, but also for different regions of England. Federalism acknowledges different national identities, without breaking the economic and social links needed to promote employment, and ­safeguard welfare and public services.

Traditionally, the British left has dismissed identity politics, pointing to the shared ­interests of working people or pensioners all across the UK. Progressive federalism is, however, increasingly being discussed, in which the distribution of powers and resources guarantees a UK level of welfare provision and public services everywhere, even in poorer areas where resources would struggle to support them. In addition, however, Professor ­Gallagher argues, the ­powers of the Scottish Parliament should enable it to supplement that level from local resources if it is insufficient.

Certainly the Scottish Parliament already has the legal powers and fiscal scope to do this. Not only does it control the main public services like education, health or housing, but it has the power to create new welfare benefits, and to supplement UK benefit levels. Given its budget is approximately 25 per cent higher per head than the equivalent in England and it has wide taxation powers, it has the fiscal scope to do so if it wishes as well.

The UK state is a very centralised one, ­especially in England where virtually all ­decisions are taken in London. The poorer parts of England which voted for Brexit have, in truth, more beef with London than Brussels, but that was not what they were asked about on the ballot paper. A constitutional settlement which offers them more local agency and similar choices to Holyrood, while guaranteeing UK rights to public services and benefits, answers the question they should have been asked.

Brexit is not over, nor is the UK’s constitutional debate. For those who think constitutional structures are not an end in themselves, but a means to promoting economic opportunity and social justice, the idea of progressive ­federalism should be attractive. It will certainly be one of many ideas discussed at the launch of the new think tank Our Scottish Future in ­Edinburgh on Friday.

Katherine Sangster is national manager of the Scottish Fabians.