I have always supported Home Rule, involving a new constitutional settlement giving equal status to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and thereafter each nation would promote what each considered to be the most appropriate governance arrangements within a federal state. For Scotland that meant not just the establishment of a Scottish Parliament but the transfer of the maximum amount of legislative, administrative and financial powers consonant with being a nation within a federal state.
Like most Scottish Liberals, I supported the Party’s policy position as set out in Jenny Robinson’s 1976 pamphlet: Scottish Self-Government. I was one of the overwhelming majority who voted for the motion passed at the 1982 Conference in St Andrews calling for ” … the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, elected by proportional representation, within a Federal United Kingdom … “
I believe federal Home Rule offers the most logical basis for: modernising the UK’s antiquated and inadequate constitutional arrangements and thereby providing a stable platform for the future of the UK; giving equivalence of status amongst Scotland; England, Wales and Northern Ireland; allowing the respective nations to determine their own governance arrangements in a federal structure; and allowing each nation to have economic and fiscal powers consonant with that federal structure
There is an urgent need for there to be a new written constitution that recognises the geographic and cultural diversity of the nations of the United Kingdom As Murray Leith says in his chapter in The Little Yellow Book: “Simply put, the lack of a written constitution is a problem that the UK has not addressed, and it is one that the country must consider if it is to survive as a political entity in the 21st Century. “
Our Liberal Democrat colleagues, across the UK, need to be fully engaged in the process and to understand that, in the Independence referendum debate, Liberal Democrats must be seen to campaigning for a constitutional settlement that meets the needs of the nations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the 21st Century and beyond and puts the case for the continuation of the UK beyond doubt.
If, like me, you see federal Home Rule as the constitutional solution in legislative and administrative terms, then the logical extension of that argument is to see fiscal federalism is the economic solution. That has certainly been my understanding of the position over many years. The Scottish Parliament should have the powers to raise as much as possible of its expenditure needs and should have responsibility for all taxes except those reserved to the Federal UK. Borrowing powers would have to be capable of relating to UK macro-economic policy, be operated in accordance to terms that are clear and transparent.
The aim has to be to establish the creation of a modern federal British State with Home Rule for all of its constituent parts as the long-term objective. A route map for the progressive untangling of the British equals English equals British conundrum has to be put in place. Any proposal to transfer further legislative or administrative powers to the Scottish Parliament should be framed on the basis that it ultimately would form part of a federal Home Rule Settlement that would apply equally to the other Nations and Regions of the UK. Likewise, any proposal for the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of financial powers in the form of fiscal federalism should be framed on the basis that this is the system that would ultimately apply throughout the UK.
* Ross Finnie has been an MSP and was Scottish Rural Affairs Minister for 8 years from 1999-2007
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
St Paul's, Covent Garden: The Actors' Church
Free clinics for families affected by dementia
The Women of Mumbles Head
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
John Grout
Peter Martin
Jennie
Jenny Barnes
Mark
12 Comments
In this federal system will you be happy that Orkney’s & Shetland’s opt out of Scotland as 2 of your MSP colleagues advocate?
@gerry mcgregor
That’s not quite what they suggested. They said that the SNP should not automatically assume that those islands would want to go along with Scottish independence, and that if Scotland does go its own way then they might be better off going with a constitutional arrangement similar to that enjoyed by the Faroe Islands a little further north.
And on the main topic, the question of federalism is a tricky one, mainly because England is difficult to fit into the framework. We’ve got two nations of five million and one nation of fifty million, making a simple three party federal structure very imbalanced, with England getting essentially a repeat of Westminster, achieving pretty much nothing in the way of tailoring policy to local needs.
Reasonable suggestions have included recognising the very real differences and political/economic needs of the different English regions by devolving power to them in new Assemblies, but this would lay UK federalists open to the charge of ‘trying to break up England’, from the more dedicated English nationalists. I would argue its worth it for the improved governance that proper localism can provide, though.
Rather than expensive regional assemblies with hundreds more politicians I would prefer greater powers to be given to existing English local government bodies. Elected mayors are also a good way of reinvigorating and raising the profile of local politics so I am glad that more cities will have them in the near future.
Or look at it another way and localise the power and correct for imbalance.
Setup two-tier local authorities all with the same powers:
County Councils (and Greater London Council) which consist of District/Borough/City councils.
Setup National Parliaments for (Cornwall), England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all with the same powers.
Have a lower house (elected by STV perhaps) and an Upper house (Elected by PR across Regions – i.e. NW, NE etc for England).
You devolve as much as possible to all three levels. You should not have too much power left so that you could complain about english dominance. However to ensure it is fair have two houses. Lower house (elected by STV) and an Upper House.
Each nation should elected representatives by PR to the Upper House. The number of representatives should be dependent upon the population with the exception of England. England should have 50% of the members of the Upper House. This reflects its size but does not permit it to dominate.
(For note I am English-British.)
As T-J says the overwhelming size of England makes a full federal system quite unrealistic. As Dan says, who wants hundreds more politicians and even more complex layers of government?
I think continued devolution (at whatever level of powers suits the particular “nation” )is best. I would deal with the West Lothian question by having issues applicable solely to England decided in Westminster by a grand committee consisting only of those members representing English consituencies.
As a simple voter, I understand how Scottish or Welsh independence or the unification of Ireland might be brought about, and also how the status quo can be maintained. I’m much less clear on the route from here to “Federal Home Rule”. Perhaps someone might explain that for the benefit of dullards like me?
It might even be useful to know what “Federal Home Rule” is. Presumably I should imaginery a more symmetric arrangement than exists today, but symmetric devolution of what exactly? And how important is symmetry anyway in the scheme of things? Would Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland adopt an English-style education system and/or legal system to that end, or would anomalies still exist?
Can we get reunification of Ireland under a federal IONA?
@Angus McLellan
Essentially, it would mean that all the powers delegated to the Scottish Parliament in Scotland are also delegated to the Welsh Senedd in Wales and to an English Parliament in England. Westminster would be left (depending on exactly which powers it is agreed to delegate) with foreign policy, defence, EU matters, currency and probably some residual tax-raising powers.
I don’t think it’s really a runner — there’s no evidence that Wales wants the same level of devolution that Scotland already has. (Is there any hunger for a separate legal system in Wales?) And God knows what you do about Northern Ireland. But it is an attempt to deal with the problem of asymmetric powers: i.e. that at the moment an MP elected in Scotland has a vote on education, health, criminal law etc. in England, but an MP elected in England has no such power over Scottish affairs.
I don’t see asymmetry as being all that problematic; the USA seem to do alright with Rhode Island and California being part of the same federal set up.
No, the only problem I have with an English parliament is where to put it. Brum? Manchester? Liverpool? Leeds? Newcastle? Bristol? Anywhere but London. The English parliament would need to be visably and operationally distinct from Westminster, otherwise there would be no point.
History and a grasp of practical politics should teach that no federal union of parts one of which is the vast majority of the whole can be effective. Decisions will be taken in England which will affect Scotland and Wales willy nilly. Conversely, if measures were entrenched to reflect a supposed equal federation of three or four parts constitutionally, how long would English voters accept decisions affecting mainly England being taken by some council or senate on the basis of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having equal representation, 1:1:1:1?
An effective federal Britain must be based on the nations plus the English regions. That does not devalue the status of Scotland and Wales, as they would be called nations – and of course they could secede if they wanted!
The only way to preserve a united, United Kingdom is by being a federal union. With equal power being devolved to the federal regions and power also reserved to the federal government. One should also take into account the federal region of England. Should England also be divided into federal districts as well, like Russia was when it was part of the USSR? The north and south could be two separate districts and also London and possible Cornwall. Also British overseas territories should also be able to send representation to the federal government as well, possible even unite them with the UK. The House’s of parliament MUST NOT be the parliament of England, or it will be seen as Greater England rather that a United Kingdom. As England would be divided up into different federal regions each region would have it’s own parliament and so clearly London would be the capital of the federal district of London. But it must have its own parliament separate from the Federal-Parliament.