Tag Archives: federalism

Iain Donaldson

PR is not enough. We need to redistribute power!

By Iain Donaldson | Thu 1st September 2022 - 9:57 am

“Power corrupts”, and I am afraid that what we have seen in the past 2 years is no worse than what went before it. Throughout my adult life not a year has gone by without some political scandal or other being in the news.

The simple observation that our leaders are not using their power with our interests at heart is a part of the problem our country faces, for the powers they exert are not theirs they belong to us, the people. From the abuse of power stem all the other problems we face. At elections power switches from one unchallenged central government to another, with the regional and local of our society set aside for some mythical greater good.

We must stop focussing on the single issue of our voting system, it is the system that is the problem and needs to be changed. Our bicameral system of government (Commons and Lords) is supposed to offer scrutiny, but when most of the Lords are political appointees how can that be so?

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 15 Comments
Michael Kilpatrick

Conference progress on a Federal UK: levelling up the Liberal Democrat way

By Michael Kilpatrick | Thu 23rd September 2021 - 12:12 pm

As a member of the Policy Working Group chaired by John Shipley, delivering the motion F21 A Framework for England in a Federal UK, I volunteered to write this follow-up to Sunday’s Conference debate. This is my consolation prize for disconnecting my audio and embarrassingly failing to speak in the debate myself – somewhat riling, given my work on regionalism and federalism since 2015.

It seems, however, that I need not have worried about the result from a personal perspective. After a clear, explanatory opening speech by Prue Bray, many contributors spoke in favour of a strong tier of English regions constitutionally equivalent to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as states of a federal UK, providing for a union that would work better in terms of fairness, localism, empowerment, democratic accountability and, importantly, creating constitutional stability between the home nations.

This is not to say that the Working Group’s views were unanimous. We recognised the need to present several options, not just one proposal. We excluded English regions with separate legal jurisdictions, as different from each other as Scotland is from England, as lacking popularity and seen by some as dangerous. The choice was between a single English state or a set of regional states and then a further decision on the nature of an all-England legislature. By a two-thirds majority Conference chose regional federal states and an English legislature separate from the federal structure, formed by regional representatives rather than a directly elected national body.

Accompanying that, Conference endorsed a Union in which at least half of tax revenue would be spent by sub-national bodies, competing with Canada and Germany as two of the most fiscally decentralised countries. We also outlined – not exhaustively – the sort of powers that the federal states should have.

Our answer to the Tories’ “levelling up” is that we have an actual plan: a massive shift in power towards local and regional authorities and a fair distribution of resources across England and the UK as a whole, taking money away from Whitehall and giving more local control over finances.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 41 Comments
Robert Jones

Federalism motion has the answers the UK needs

By Robert Jones | Wed 11th August 2021 - 9:08 am

Through Brexit and the pandemic, our country has undergone social and political upheavals which will certainly leave a longstanding mark. But these systemic shocks are potential turning points in history where we have the opportunity to remake our politics for the better. Constitutional and electoral reform are dry subjects which fail to enthuse many in politics, let alone the general public. Overcoming that is a challenge in itself, but the current circumstances mean it has never been a better time to make the case for reform for a politics that is more open, fair and representative.

On Sunday 19 September, Lib Dem Conference  will consider a motion on ‘A Framework for England in a Federal UK’ which you can read on page 63 of the agenda. I believe it is a very important motion, addressing some key questions for the formation of a federal UK: the lack of genuine or consistent devolution for England; and the relationship between England and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Federalism can unleash great potential to empower communities, expand transparency and accountability, help to heal the wounds and divisions exposed by Brexit and to ‘level up’ the economy. Levelling up alone could deliver considerable economic growth in the ‘rest’ of the UK and lift millions out of poverty. But only federalism could do this. The kind of devolution the Conservatives and Labour have pursued has failed to truly empower communities and leaves Westminster all too often intervening and meddling in local and regional economies.

For me, the most important (and exciting) thing about federalism is its potential to genuinely empower people by radically shifting the balance of power. Under devolution, powers exercised at Holyrood, the Senedd or Stormont have in effect been delegated by Westminster. MPs can weaken those powers or withdraw them altogether, without consultation or the consent of those institutions or the people they represent.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 65 Comments
John Shipley

John Shipley writes: A Federal England – what should it mean?

By John Shipley | Thu 18th March 2021 - 10:17 am

Late last year I was asked by the Federal Policy Committee to chair a working group on regional powers in England within a Federal UK. The group was charged with developing policy on powers for the level between local government and the Federal government, taking into account the broader vision set out in conference motion “The Creation of a Federal United Kingdom” (passed at Autumn Conference in 2020). The group was asked to build on existing policy as set out in policy paper 117 Power to the People (2014) and policy paper 130 Power for People and Communities (2018) and consider models from other Federal States such as the Federal Republic of Germany.

A modernised Federal United Kingdom has long been a key priority for Liberal Democrats – encompassing a fair voting system for all elections, reforming the House of Lords into a Senate, and developing a written constitution.

The motion passed in September 2020 represents an important foundation for the creation of an England of the Regions. 

It sets out principles for the UK to become a union of its nations and regions.  In relation to England, it says we believe in a truly federal United Kingdom with an equitable distribution of resources between different parts of the United Kingdom based on their respective needs. It refers to federal and state governments in which subsidiarity applies to the nations and regions of the Union and in which the exercise of public responsibilities is decentralised as much as is reasonably practicable. It says that the Upper House should become representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and that there would be a federal Council of Ministers to enable the governments and parliaments of the various parts of the Union to work better, building on the work of joint ministerial committees.

The motion however says nothing about local government. It does not say how many English regions there should be, nor what exact powers they should have. It does not say anything about taxation or how resources would be redistributed. It implies each region can have ministers but not for which departments. Clearly, the detail needs to be filled in – hence the working group.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 34 Comments
John Knox

Let’s all agree on a federal plan

By John Knox | Wed 3rd February 2021 - 3:15 pm

The Liberal Democrats may favour a federal Britain, but it would be so much more persuasive if all the Unionist parties could come together to agree on a specific proposal to put before the Scottish electorate in any independence referendum. There are moves afoot to achieve this, with Conservative and Labour heavyweights Michael Gove and Gordon Brown cautiously circling around the issue like two Sumo wrestlers.

They might come up with a plan for more devolution to stem the tide of support for independence in Scotland. Or, if Gordon Brown gets his way, they might go further and consider some sort of federal arrangement. Moreover, if all this seems to be just a “Scottish problem” to people living in England or Wales or Northern Ireland, think what we are missing: the chance to reform our centralised British state and build a modern democracy.

Continue reading »
Posted in News and Op-eds | Also tagged | 10 Comments
Denis Mollison

A federal solution that works for all

By Denis Mollison | Mon 26th October 2020 - 3:18 pm

The debate on federalism at the LD autumn conference last month was dominated by one question: can a policy that works for the devolved nations work for England? Can this week’s debate at the Scottish party’s conference provide a convincing answer to this question?

The difficulties become clear if we ask what sort of “federalism” would suit the various components of the UK. Law (2013) sets out a clear spectrum of the options for sharing power at two levels:

  • Devolution – where the powers of a state are shared, but at the discretion of the state
  • Federal state – where sovereignty is at state level, but the sharing of powers is entrenched, through a constitution or treaty
  • (Con)federal union of states – where sovereignty resides with the individual states, but the sharing of powers is entrenched, through a constitution or treaty
  • Confederation – ditto, but where the sharing of powers is at the discretion of the individual states

As examples, Law suggests the UK, US, EU and UN respectively. For the present discussion we can amalgamate the last two categories as “confederal”.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 64 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Lib Dems pass motion calling for constitutional reform and a Federal UK

By Caron Lindsay | Sat 26th September 2020 - 1:47 pm

On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home

The UK is in danger, said Wendy Chamberlain in her proposing speech for today’s motion calling for a federal UK. We’ve already seen one union disintegrate on the basis of divisive nationalism, she said, and we need a liberal offer to fix the union and give power back not just to state governments but to communities. The motion was about building a collaborative, constructive and consultative relationships between the nations of the UK and we will end the current structural inequalities of the Union.

Federalism has been a key part of our constitutional reform plans for as long as I have been involved in the party, but we haven’t been very good at showing how this would work in practice.

One of the biggest issues has been about how England would fit into a federal structure. The motion before Conference didn’t address this and it led to calls for it to be referred back for that to be resolved. They certainly do need to be resolved and the people who raised concerns were justified in doing so. The issue is that time is not on our side. WIth elections in Scotland and Wales less than 8 months away, we have to have something to counter the pro-independence argument.

In the end, Conference chose to pass the motion today by an overwhelming majority of 681-96 on the understanding that the Federal Policy Committee does the work on sorting out how this would work for England.

It was a very good debate, but only two women were called. Session Chair Geoff Payne said that reflected the balance of the cards submitted. So what is it about constitutional issues that causes that sort of imbalance and how do we talk about them in a more inclusive way?

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , , , , , and | 17 Comments
Michael Kilpatrick

Constitutional reform: amending Motion F11 “The Creation of a Federal United Kingdom”

By Michael Kilpatrick | Mon 14th September 2020 - 12:09 pm

In my earlier two-part article ‘Constitutional reform: a coherent national policy or not?’, I described how I view it as essential that a constitutional reform policy be framed to encompass the constitutional arrangements of all parts of the United Kingdom, lest it otherwise make a mockery of the term ‘federal’. This requires us to answer the English Question.

In discussing English regionalism and federalism on various forums including the Liberal Democrat Federalists group on Facebook, I have observed criticism of Motion F11, our proposed amendment and the party’s overall policy slate, some focusing various aspects such as the lack of detail on the fiscal arrangements within a union of bodies having considerable autonomy, legislative and tax-varying powers. Unfortunately, we seem to be rather good at not putting flesh on the bones of complicated policies: Land Value Tax has been on the back-burner for 100 years, the Universal Basic Income motion up at Autumn Conference faces criticism of its lack of depth, and Local Income Tax came and then vanished in a puff of smoke over twenty years ago. The latter was something I hoped would lead to the diverse political landscape I espoused in part one of my earlier article. With regards to federalism, what did we do with Policy Paper 117 after it was endorsed in 2014? I’m tempted to paraphrase Indiana Jones and say “we might as well have mailed it to the Marx Brothers”.

Continue reading »
Posted in Party policy and internal matters | Also tagged and | 51 Comments
Michael Kilpatrick

Constitutional reform: a coherent national policy or not?  – Part 2

By Michael Kilpatrick | Fri 4th September 2020 - 3:00 pm

Embed from Getty Images

In 2014 the Liberal Democrats endorsed Policy Paper 117 calling for a federal United Kingdom. It said that having an English Parliament would create a terribly imbalanced federation. It must follow that English Regions would be the constituent parts alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There can be no part-federalised England: if one understands the West Lothian Question, one must appreciate the absurdity of replicating it any number of times and ways within England itself. The remaining alternative is not to propose federalism, in which case the party would have wasted six years, abandoning its aims and objectives.

Unfortunately, Paper 117 was circumspect in proposing the regionalism it implied was necessary. The proposed devolution-on-demand is neither a route to structural coherence nor fair to anyone other than those who are first to grab the powers they want. It is a purely locally-led, “bottom-up” free-for-all which sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to a “top-down” imposed solution. However, it is not a Liberal answer, it is a chaotic libertarian one. Furthermore, devolution is becoming a dirty word, characterised by successive governments creating or abolishing local government structures on a whim. It is therefore time to stop talking about devolution altogether. We need federalism and we therefore need a process to regionalise England – fully and rationally.

Federalism motions (based on English regionalism) were twice submitted to Federal Conference in 2016, to no avail. These followed co-ordinated motions passed by NW England and East of England regional conferences in 2015, decrying chaotic, arbitrary devolution and calling on the party to make progress on a model for a federal UK. Subsequent calls to get Policy Paper 130 to cover regionalism more extensively fell on deaf ears. The meagre 400 words on devolution-on-demand seemed more laissez-faire than the proposals of Paper 117, arguably a backwards step.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 56 Comments
Michael Kilpatrick

Constitutional reform: a coherent national policy or not?  – Part 1

By Michael Kilpatrick | Thu 3rd September 2020 - 3:00 pm

Embed from Getty Images

I have voted Liberal or Liberal Democrat since my first opportunity in 1987, having seen as a teenager the emergence of the SDP and the Alliance and having understood the need to reform British politics. I then became more and more aware of the many flaws of our anachronistic, dysfunctional and increasingly corruptible political system and I clamoured for a sea-change in our political landscape. It was never “just PR” for me.

In many walks of life it is the structure of our governance that holds the country back – the stultifying straitjacket placed on England by the unitary state and the increasing polarisation of Scottish politics producing division, not progress. I grew to believe that a more diverse political landscape, with power taken wholesale from Westminster and exercised at the lowest practicable level, would foster an evolution and reinvigoration of political attitudes as well as a better distribution of wealth, culture and well-being. This evolution should benefit every corner of the kingdom equally, not be one of increasing constitutional asymmetry, unfair distribution of empowerment and more disengagement by the electorate.

I was shocked when becoming a more engaged party member 25 years later, to find our policies were incomplete and failed to portray us as the torch-bearers for far-reaching constitutional reforms. Six years after a divisive independence referendum in Scotland, we still have no fully-formed vision for a new United Kingdom fit for the 21st Century or to inspire wavering Scottish voters away from separatism. Such ideas – a federal union and all the structural reforms and constitutional guarantees that would accompany it – should have existed before 2014. The national party leaders Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should not have been scrabbling around for votes at the last minute with the great Vow, necessitating further constitutional bodges such as English Votes for English Laws.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 10 Comments
NewsHound

LibLink: Malcolm Bruce Scotland’s unionists need a new vision

By NewsHound | Sun 30th August 2020 - 3:28 pm

This is one from a few weeks ago, but worth sharing.

Malcolm Bruce, a former leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, wrote in the Scotsman about the need for those who want to stay in the UK to build a stronger and newer vision of why it is so essential to Scotland’s interests.

He argues for a federal UK as the best option. It’s all about focusing on the positives of staying together:

The SNP clearly articulate the disruption that Brexit brings. The same arguments apply in spades to Scotland opting in a fit of pique to leave the UK.

I dislike intensely the ideology of the Brexit-obsessed Conservative Party and despise the cheery incompetence of the privileged clique that constitute the present Government.

But my reaction is to face reality and recognise that the people who share these islands – which whatever the constitution we will continue to do – will need to regain our senses and work for a better shared future.

So what do Liberal Democrats want?

The Liberal Democrats want to build a federal United Kingdom by recognising what we can do together, not concentrating on what drives us apart.

Continue reading »
Posted in LibLink | Also tagged and | 13 Comments
Barry Turner

Why federalism over independence?

By Barry Turner | Tue 28th July 2020 - 5:08 pm

Lib Dems support the union because we believe there is strength in unity.

We support the principle that decisions should be made at the most appropriate local level giving power to the people. We aspire to achieving mutuality and respect between the home nations and between the regions. We see fundamental flaws in the current constitutional arrangements whereby there is little or no real devolution in England and different approaches to devolution where it does exist. There is no common approach or equality in the way that power is administered across …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 20 Comments
Fred Mackintosh

Why Scottish Liberal Democrats oppose a second Indyref

By Fred Mackintosh | Sun 19th July 2020 - 8:55 am

Last Sunday,  Lib Dem Voice published my article on how the Scottish Liberal Democrats should promote polices that use the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament create a fairer, greener and more prosperous Scotland.  Some commented that since Brexit has happened Liberal Democrats in Scotland should pivot to support for independence, or at least put the question back to the people of Scotland.  I thought it might help to set out some of reasons why Scottish Liberal Democrats oppose a second referendum and want to keep Scotland in a reformed and federal United Kingdom.

The preamble to our constitution commits us to promoting promote a democratic federal framework for the United Kingdom.  Independence is not the same as Home Rule in a Federal UK and it should come as no surprise when we say that.  We should also learn from David Cameron what can happen if you support a referendum about something you oppose.

Over the past three decades the Scottish Party has successfully helped deliver devolution and home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.  The Scottish Parliament has substantial powers.  Those powers should be used to address the problems our country faces now.

Politics is about choosing what to spend time, money and effort on.  Choosing to talk about the constitution means that other issues will inevitably be neglected.  In March 2017 the head of the Civil Service in Scotland warned Scottish Ministers that preparing for another independence referendum would see de-prioritisation of domestic policies.  This is a real issue in SNP run Scotland.  Standards have slipped.  Scottish schools have declined in international rankings, college places have been slashed and the Scottish Government has failed to meet its own targets for the provision of nursery places.  Another referendum and potentially the creation of a new state will suck attention and money from almost every other problem we face.   Whether you’re a parent with a child at school, a patient waiting for surgery or a homeless person in desperate need of a roof over your head, you don’t have the luxury of years of more constitutional wrangling.

But what about Brexit?  We know the arguments against Brexit.  Separating from our largest trading partner will harm our economy for years to come, reduce opportunities for young people, for science, research and development and make it harder to tackle Climate Change.   The debates about the Northern Ireland backstop have highlighted the problems a new land border between the EU and a non-EU member state.  The real financial cost of Brexit is much larger than any ‘savings’ from ending EU budget contributions.  

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 26 Comments
Gordon Lishman

Federalism and the Liberal Democrats

By Gordon Lishman | Tue 29th October 2019 - 1:19 pm

This week’s Economist (Bagehot column) addresses the implications of the current crisis for the UK constitution.

The Preamble to the Lib Dem Constitution says:

We ….. commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

Bagehot says: “High on the list of British oddities is that it is a composite of four nations—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Holding this group together was always difficult given the different sizes of the parts (England is ten times as populous as Scotland) and the history of internal colonisation. It has been made vastly more difficult by Brexit because Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Brexit increases the chance that Scotland will claim independence and, in the longer term, that Northern Ireland will join the Irish Republic. It also increases the pressure for American- or German-style federalism. The only way to prevent England from being seen to ride roughshod over the smaller nations of the United Kingdom may be to create regional assemblies or more powerful metropolitan governments” (my bold italics).

Brexit has shown up the close link between the failure of policies and the failure of our politics.

The Liberal Democrats and the UK as a whole must address constitutional reform not as a nerdy bit of Lib Dem policy-tinkering, but as the necessary central part of rebuilding trust in democratic politics. It will be top-down with policies, campaigns and leadership as well as bottom-up, demonstrating and leading in our communities to enable people to be engaged and powerfully involved. We should be a campaigning, insurgent force and not just the tame exponents of electoral tactics. Votes will be the result of our campaigning but should not be the purpose.

Our current policy is timid; tinkering with the machinery of government. Federalism, fair votes and new models of spreading power should be at the centre of our campaigning because they are necessary in order to address the big problems of poverty, inequality, climate change and powerlessness.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 12 Comments
Paul Harris

Liverpool – a Federal Capital for the United Kingdom?

By Paul Harris | Mon 25th February 2019 - 10:21 am

Should the capital of the United Kingdom should be moved from London to Liverpool?

For as long as I can remember the Liberal Democrats and the Liberals before them have been committed to a federal United Kingdom, but there have been many views about the exact form this federation should take.

The advantages of federalism are obvious. It separates macro-economic, foreign policy and defence decisions which have to be taken at a national level, and brings all other decision-making closer to those affected, resulting usually in better informed, and so better, decisions.

The …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 24 Comments
David Chadwick

Leaving London

By David Chadwick | Mon 21st January 2019 - 9:12 am

Britain is one of the most overcentralized countries in the Western world. Our political and financial institutions are concentrated in London, perpetuating regional inequality and overburdening the capital’s underfunded public services.

London might be open but it’s also full: strangers share bedrooms; commuters collapse on crowded trains, gentrification ravages local communities, savings accounts stay empty and the Westminster bubble remains as tight and cosy as ever.

There seems to be no end in sight to London-centrism. Jobs flow to London without serious consideration being paid to whether or not they might be better off elsewhere. For example, in 2015 George Osborne decided …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 17 Comments
Mark Argent

Looking beyond Brexit

By Mark Argent | Thu 3rd January 2019 - 5:45 pm

The sense of things going horribly wrong is likely to get much worse as 2019 gets under way and #BrexitShambles becomes #BrexitFarce.

In the probable chaos of the coming months the country needs us to articulate our hope for the future.

Putting some flesh on those bones, in no particular order:

  • Improve Benefits. Universal Credit could have been a good idea, but under-funding has hit it hard and people are suffering. Improving the funding is a good place to start. We also need to go further. It is a scandal to have people needing to use food banks or losing the roof over their head because of the way the system works. I’ve spoken with people struggling to live on benefits, who voted Leave in the desperate hope that things would improve.
  • Wealth inequality. Back in the autumn, Vince Cable put forward a raft of tax reforms to make the system fairer, especially around inheritance and investment income and pensions. Univeral Basic Income has been on the edge of discussions for a long time. It is time to take it seriously — it can’t be done overnight, but it is time to start the conversation as a way to pick up where we are, and fears around the way in which technology is reshaping the world.
  • Brexit has pushed climate change from the top of the agenda. People have every reason to be worried. That means is that it is high time to turn that worry into action — around renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, zero carbon housing, improved public transport, and more.
  • The Blair government had some good ideas on devolution, with elected regional assemblies and pulling government offices and development to the same boundaries. The imbalances around devolution to Wales, Northern Ireland and particularly to Scotland would look very different if there was meaningful devolution in England.
  • It’s time to talk openly about federalism. Too often it’s a dirty word in British (or at least, English) politics. It’s time to dispatch the myth that it is about centralising power and put the case for doing centrally only what needs to be done there and pushing decisions as close as possible to the people they affect. That applies as much to devolving power from Westminster as it does devolving it from Brussels.
Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , , and | 8 Comments
Graeme Cowie

Against comfort blanket constitutionalism

By Graeme Cowie | Fri 30th October 2015 - 11:58 am

At Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference, I committed a cardinal liberal offence. I voted against a pro-federalism motion, moved by Robert Brown and Lord Purvis. I opposed in sorrow and anger at the Party’s stasis on the constitutional question. I was also annoyed that attempts some of us made to secure a more robust debate at Conference on federalism, were rebuffed by Conference Committee. We were made to feel that the party bureaucracy did not want a real clash of ideas for Conference to resolve democratically.

The motion didn’t take practical steps towards advancing federalism any further than the Party already had. Its tone, if anything, made federalism more difficult to advance. Siobhan Mathers was right when she said in the debate that Lib Dems are excessively high-minded, believing they had more influence than was the reality on further devolution. Though the Campbell Commission reported first, it was outflanked by the Tory proposals on critical areas like welfare. The Party seems reluctant just to admit that, whatever the proximate cause, we lost our radical edge. We did not adapt to the shifting constitutional landscape even before the independence referendum.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 11 Comments
Robbie Simpson

Gordon Brown shows Lib Dems must go further on federalism

By Robbie Simpson | Sun 11th October 2015 - 8:55 am

I went to see a speech by Gordon Brown on the future of Scotland on Thursday evening. Given the current state of Scottish politics I might well have expected an impassioned attack on the SNP and a confident denunciation of independence.

Instead he was remarkably conciliatory on nationalism, given the past positions of the Labour party. He came out as a third-questioner – the never-offered option that has consistently found majority support. He called for a constitutional convention to address what he sees as the big issue in British politics – the ability of England to dominate politics due to its sheer size. He set out the case for special protections for the smaller nations, like in almost every other devolved country. He believed that Scots want something “as close as possible to federalism”.

He made no attacks on the SNP and even gave them some backhanded praise – surely their support for keeping the pound means they realise that the UK is a natural economic grouping? Instead he attacked the Tories – for cutting welfare and playing politics with EVEL – what other country gives special protection to the majority over the minority? The ìVowî was at risk of being broken he warned; Westminster may yet maintain a veto over key welfare powers.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 8 Comments
Hamish Mackenzie

Opinion: Federalism and Constitutions

By Hamish Mackenzie | Thu 2nd October 2014 - 2:41 pm

When I was 17 I took AS level politics, it was possibly the most unpopular subject in school,  my most abiding memory of this class  was talking about constitutions. We went into great theoretical depth about the type and purpose of constitutions before discussing whether or not the UK should have one. Everyone just assumed that having a codified and entrenched constitution (aka written constitution) was a far off fantasy that served no real purpose; we hardly even bothered mooting the positives of such a document.

The Scottish independence referendum has made it abundantly clear that the UK will be changed forever. A central plank of the Yes campaign was the writing of a new constitution. The very fact that no one, on either side, questioned the need for an Independent Scotland to have a constitution shows that people in the UK aren’t uniquely incapable of grasping the case for a constitution but rather the fact that things seem to be OK right now so why bother? There is, simply put, no impetus for a UK constitution.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 8 Comments
Denis Mollison

Opinion: More powers are not on the ballot paper

By Denis Mollison | Wed 17th September 2014 - 5:29 pm

Scottish Parliament 23 May 06 067The three unionist parties – and, yes, that seems to include us – have united to promise more powers if Scotland votes No tomorrow.

But what are they offering, and is it “guaranteed”? I don’t question Ming’s sincerity when he claims that federalism is within touching distance but I seriously question his optimism.

Our own party has its plans for fairly radical change (though calling it federalism is stretching a point, and our policy is now entangled with plans for devolution on demand in the rest of the UK). Two and a half years ago we had the opportunity to have our version of federalism on the ballot paper. While not constitutionally definitive, the likely large majority this option could have won would have given it strong political traction.  But our Inverness conference rejected it in a nasty wave of anti-SNP rhetoric.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 30 Comments

Opinion: Federalism and hypothecation do not mix

By Energlyn Churchill | Wed 3rd September 2014 - 12:45 pm

I was dismayed to read in Mohsin Khan’s recent piece calling for an NHS contribution that the leadership is, again, considering an NHS tax.

How history repeats itself. Ten or so years ago, when working for the Welsh Party, I opposed plans for what the Federal Policy Committee was then also referring to as an NHS contribution. My contention was, and remains, that a commitment to a Federal UK is not compatible with hypothecated taxation.

Whilst taxes are collected at a UK level, spending priorities are determined by devolved institutions. In our devolved context, any claim that a tax is truly hypothecated is simply dishonest. We could not guarantee that a centrally collected NHS tax would be spent on the NHS in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.  It is impossible to require a particular portion of taxation to be spent in the devolved nations on specific areas without requiring them to do so by law.  This would laugh in the face of the liberal principle of subsidiarity and is clearly a non-starter.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 4 Comments
The Voice

Danny Alexander and David Torrance discuss the Independence Referendum

By The Voice | Wed 20th August 2014 - 8:56 am

imageIt is an hour and six minutes of your life you won’t get back, but it is actually worth listening to this conversation between Danny Alexander and political commentator David Torrance as part of Dundee University’s Five Million Questions project.

David has just written a book on Federalism so it was obvious he was going to be quizzing Danny on that subject.

It’s also available on You Tube here. Enjoy. It’s much better than a lot of the hot air around the independence referendum.

Continue reading »
Posted in LibLink | Also tagged , , , and | Leave a comment
Caron Lindsay

LibLink: Charles Kennedy: Why our destiny must lie with the F word

By Caron Lindsay | Thu 24th July 2014 - 4:02 pm

Charles KennedyThe Independence Referendum campaign continues to be depressing. The only really good things associated with it tend to come from Liberal Democrats and most especially Charles Kennedy. He’s written a thoughtful and persuasive article in the Herald about the dilemma facing Scotland beyond 18th September as, whoever wins, we’ve all lost out from increasing centralism to Edinburgh in recent years.

He outlines the problem:

In the pre-devolution days of one- party Tory domination there was much legitimate railing against the excessive concentration of power within Whitehall. The centre accrued and amassed while

…

Continue reading »
Posted in LibLink | Also tagged , , , and | 24 Comments
Toby Fenwick

The Independent View: Scotland, vote no and let’s all move towards a Federal UK

By Toby Fenwick | Wed 14th May 2014 - 11:50 am

Brazil v Scotland 22As an outsider, analysis about September’s Scottish Independence Referendum is something of a minefield. There is space to constructively critique the SNP’s proposals, but needs to recognise that I don’t have a vote, and that Lord Robertson-style hyperbole about a Scottish “cataclysm” is not just offensive – and for unionists, counterproductive – it is inaccurate, too.

So let me begin by making clear that in my CentreForum paper analysing Scottish independence published today, I believe that Scotland is perfectly capable of becoming an …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds and The Independent View | Also tagged , , and | 24 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • Leekliberal
    We pro-EU activists are NOT asking our leadership to 'wang on about reversing Brexit'. It would just be good if they could even occasionally mention it! We coul...
  • David Symonds
    I wrote to the Labour Party asking them to back off their cynical and unfair attack on Lib Dems. I do not understand how Labour (a so called Progressive Party) ...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe "Foreigners need to lend us the money to buy more than we sell so that we can live beyond our means...." No one is forcing them to. It's...
  • Joe Bourke
    Dieter Helm is professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford who has been writing about the issues of nationalisation of public utilities for years. ...
  • Maureen Treadwell
    I am not altogether sure we haven't already got enough homes. It is just that the empty homes are all a long way north of the M4! We need more investment in the...