Let’s have UK debate on federal option

The debate on the future constitution of the United Kingdom and, particularly Scotland’s place within it, has become sterile and polarised.

Over the past few decades constitutional change within the United Kingdom, by ­successive governments, has been piecemeal.

As a result we have different devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and a democratic deficit in England, with almost no devolution. London is the possible exception.

At the same time we have struggled to find a way of reforming the undemocratic second chamber which does not challenge the primacy of the Commons and demand a written constitution.

For some time now a few of us have been arguing that both conundrums can be resolved if we look towards a federal UK.

The powers now devolved to Scotland can be devolved also to England, as a whole or to regions.

The Westminster parliament would deal with all the reserved areas for the whole UK and the second chamber made up of senators indirectly elected by the nations and regions of the UK, similar to the French senate.

The details could be considered by a UK constitutional convention, similar to the one which recommended the structure of the Scottish Parliament and legislated for by ­Westminster.

I am well on the way to persuading my colleagues in the Labour Lords working group to agree this. Federalism was, and supposedly still is, the policy of the Liberal Democrats.

The Conservatives may come to realise that this is the best way of answering the West Lothian Question which they are grappling with, unsuccessfully so far.

And recently Stephen Noon, one of the most sensible and thoughtful Nationalists, ­appeared to argue that federalism would give them most of what they sought without the dangerous rupture of ­separation.

We have a long year of ­debate ahead of us.

Is it too much to hope that the option of a federal UK will be given some consideration in the debate?

George Foulkes

Barony Terrace

Edinburgh