I’m a federalist which, I guess, places me somewhere between the unionists and the separatists. Which means that, as I ‘fessed up last February, I’m much more ambivalent about the case for Scottish independence than most Lib Dems:
I believe in power being as close to the people as possible. Is ‘devo-max’ or full independence the best way to achieve that? That’s the key question Scots need to be able to answer by September. Ironically, it’s the one not on the ballot paper.
So I’m not as fazed as many down south are by the apparent tightening of the polls suggesting Yes Scotland have drawn level with Better Together. It now seems likely the result will be close. If Yes loses, but narrowly, it won’t settle the issue: it will merely postpone it. After all, the UK voted in 1975 to stay in Europe by a convincing 2:1 margin but that debate hasn’t gone away. The Nationalists will be back – and as the older generations are the most indy-sceptical it’s quite possible demography will be on their side. Even if the Union is saved this time, it may not be next time (and there would be a next time).
I’ve been surprised by quite how central Better Together has made the currency to its campaign. That’s not to say I think Alex Salmond has given satisfactory answers to the questions raised: he hasn’t. But (and I realise this risks sounding glib) I can’t be alone in thinking that, if the Scots do vote to become an independent country, the issue will be resolved. I’m not sure how, and I’m not sure Scots will like the results of how it’s resolved. But resolved it will be.
By focusing so intently on the currency, and giving Salmond time to work out some rebuttals, Better Together has forfeited the opportunity to take the wider fight to Yes Scotland. If you’re going to run an overtly negative campaign — and when you’re asking people to vote No that’s not an unreasonable campaign pitch: it didn’t, after all, do No2AV any harm — at least do it properly. Spray every issue with a mist of uncertainty: the possible threat independence poses to jobs, the health service, the welfare state, schools, transport, the environment, etc.
And then don’t forget the positive. Belatedly, perhaps too belatedly, the talk is of further devolution, of empowering the Scots. But this isn’t a Scots-only issue, or even a Scots- and Welsh-only issue. The rise of Ukip in part reflects the upsurge in English nationalism, allied to the view that government is too remote, too centralised in a Westminster elite which doesn’t understand life beyond SW1. The key difference is that the SNP vote is concentrated in one nation of five million where the electoral system accurately reflects how the public votes. Yes, we should repatriate more powers to local communities. Not only in Scotland, though: across the UK.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green energy will supplement conventional energy rather than replace it
Getting things done - Oxford Street #dundeewestend
Trump fanboys see share prices rise after inauguration
Jenny Barnes
Nigel Jones
Peter Davies
Roland
28 Comments
Greater federalism should be easy yet current politicians seem unable to come up with a workable solution, makes me feel all a bit like a tin hat wearer…
Sorry that should have said tin foil hat wearer
It is looking quite likely that there will be a Yes win, latest TNS poll, has 41% tie with 18% undecided, their last poll was Yes 45 ,No 32 Undecided 23, Yes has all the momentum at the moment, could be a comfortable Yes win. The impact of this could be ground shaking and the impact for the party conferences and individual political leaders fortunes are anyone’s guess. We may be moving into unexpected and unexplored waters. These really do seem to be interesting times.
I’d agree with a federalist approach as well – but with Salmond around, that’s just not on the cards. He wants wreck-it-all separatism so that he can be king, and damn the consequences.
It’s just childish personalising it as “Salmond wants to be king”. The campaign for independence has been going on since before Salmond was born. It is a grassroots campaign, supported by many individuals, including Lib Dems like myself, who would never vote for the SNP.
And we have a proportional representation system for our parliament, so it’s most unlikely we will continue with one-party majority governments for long.
Mr Suffield, your comments are abusive and inflammatory. The people of Scotland from all backgrounds, all political colours are choosing to reject the policies of Westminster as they have done nothing for Scotland over the last 30 years apart from plunder our oil and get the country into the worst level of national debt ever. Federalism means nothing if it is run by the same elitists that are so out of touch with the people. Alex Salmond is Scotland’s democratically elected First Minister and deserves the same respect if not more than those minority elected ministers in London.
i am all for further devolution, to the point where all parts of the UK have post-referendum scotland style devo max powers… but i am not a federalist per-se:
Personally, I am with #2, for this reason:
“103 The constitutional position of the judiciary under a Consolidation Act, therefore, would be that the courts uphold the terms of the Consolidation Act against infringement by all later Acts of Parliament, save where an intention to override, amend or repeal some part of the Consolidation Act is clearly expressed in the contradictory later statute. It would then be for Parliament and its scrutiny committees to ensure that any such later Act of Parliament had been carefully considered and approved as an amendment to the codified constitution. The Consolidation Act itself could be periodically re-issued in its amended form.”
It would preserve parliamentary primacy, while rendering the constitutional understandable by the masses.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46339.htm
I agree this is all to be encouraged if it leads to a constitutional shake up. Whatever, this is probably the first of at least two Scottish votes.
If there is a narrow ‘yes’, the result of the negotiation will almost certainly need to be put to a further vote, and that demand will come from within Scotland not the rest of the UK. It is just not going to be as easy as the ‘yes’ campaign makes out to put apart what been together for 300+ years.
If there is a narrow ‘no’ the question will come again. Certainly if the rest of the UK votes to leave the EU, but if not then, some other time, for some other reason.
The liberal pre-manifesto is already out of date.
“If there is a narrow ‘no’ the question will come again.”
If that happens then i will start a campaign for the rest of the UK to boot scotland out.
I have no problem with the constituent nations periodocally questioning their relationship to the parent group, and no problem with the parent recalibrating governance in response, but it must be a generational thing.
Another temper tantrum five years down the line would smack of teen angst, and who’d blame the parents for telling them it is time to stand of their own two wee feet.
p.s. i am a committed unionist. 🙂
Why don’t the Lib Dems call for a Constitutional Convention for England? Would tie in well with Magna Carta commemorations next year.
“Yes, we should repatriate more powers to local communities.”
A first step, drawing upon the experiences of Martin Bell, perhaps would to reduce the influence of the whips et al at Westminster. With MP’s becoming more answerable to their constituencies rather than the whips and national party HQ…
There should be a constitutional convention in the near future, for the whole UK, or for England and Wales, depending on what’s left after the 18th. If we are still running just the one show on this island then, the English question shouldn’t be swept under the carpet and we need to work out how to make the settlement fair for all parts of this union.
Hopefully, we will be able to keep the condescension and the parental metaphors to a minimum though. They are part of the problem and have no place in what is meant to be a union of members equal in esteem.
The independence question will go away when the union’s legitimacy problem is solved, which in my view absolutely requires a renegotiation and a constitution, preferably a federal solution that applies subsidiary principles to government as opposed to the present focus on centralisation. If however nothing gets done, and more’s the point, if the UK goes and changes the deal by walking out of the European Union, then it’ll be back and rightly so.
One thing I will say is that sometimes Lib Dems like devolution a bit too much. If you look at it from a political point of view “more powers” sound good, but from a business point of view it means different legal jurisdictions in different parts of the country and can be a nightmare. It might be OK for pubs and shops, but for digital businesses it can be scary.
I broadly agree with the article, I just wanted to emphasise that “more powers” sometimes means “more complication”.
To emphasise my point: finance exams are already only based on English and Welsh law, so we might not want to make it worse by fragmenting the rest of the UK.
Regards
Can you English not wait until the referendum is settled before turning it in to something all about yourselves?
Eddie, that is my main issue with the devolution on demand idea that Mr Clegg has been floating lately. The situation where we end up with a complicated system of different devolved administrations across England, each one having requested different powers, each one constituted differently and so on, could well result in a mess that would make the Holy Roman Empire look like a well thought out, properly planned federation.
There should be a convention that decides on where devolution is appropriate and on a standard block of powers that every sub-union assembly has access to. In my opinion, the European Parliament constituencies make a lot of sense and make it possible to govern at the five to ten million person level, which seems to strike a good balance between being too small to matter and too large to care.
And speaking of, your point about financial regulations is important. If we remember the subsidiarity idea, we don’t try to do anything nationwide that can be done better more locally, and vice versa. Financial regulations are a great example of an issue that clearly can’t be done better more locally, and really in today’s world probably needs to be done on a larger scale than individual nations so that we can prevent the race to the bottom.
@ T-J – “Hopefully, we will be able to keep the condescension and the parental metaphors to a minimum though.”
This only applies in the event of of continued post “no” harping, but rest assured if it continues so will I.
They are my ‘family’, i’d be failing in my duty to do otherwise.
That the United Kingdom should be a Federal State is so obvious and so straightforward to achieve. It should be modelled on Federal Germany and the Netherlands, and would surely be acceptable to all. But, notwithstanding how the Scots might vote next week, the whole country should have the opportunity of voting in a referendum for any constitutional change in our Union of Nations – even to the extent of agreeing to the withdrawal of any member nation seeking to rescind the Act of Union of three hundred years ago. Whether they like it or not,the Scots cannot just go walk- about,threatening the whole of our economic and political well being.
That the United Kingdom should be a Federal State is so obvious and so straightforward to achieve. It should be modelled on Federal Germany and the Netherlands, and would surely be acceptable to all
It wouldn’t be acceptable to me, or to those who voted against an English Assembly when the idea was put to them.
There are already too many levels of local government bureaucracy in England; the only people who want yet more are political geeks who get turned on by the thought of even more elections and public-sector workers who see yet more well-paid positions shuffling paper opening up.
The rest of us, the real people who aren’t interested in politics, don’t want such a massive waste of money and extra hassle.
I would not really want an English Home Rule, but would be looking at Home Rule for Wessex.
I’m not so sure Federalism is the answer. I actually think Scotland will breakaway from the UK sooner or later. Scots simply feel more Scottish than they do British. At the moment the voting margins are too narrow to call but the swing is inevitable. Labour sent Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling because they are Scots not because they are closer to old Labour. At the moment there is just enough fear and uncertainty to make the result seem doubtful. Five or ten years down the line it will be inevitable. Talk of federalism if anything will simply strengthen the independence argument.
So, Dav, you’re so real and disinterested in politics that you spend your time here on a website for a party you don’t support, arguing about… politics. Hmm.
Still, your point is worth addressing. People aren’t interested in politics. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter when they do take an interest. Turnout is down, engagement is down and disillusioned cynicism is riding high. Politics is about as interested in people right now as they are in it, and getting out of that situation is a chicken and egg question.
There are two ways to handle this. You can just decide that the situation is unchangeable and convince yourself its good because you can cast an ineffective cathartic vote for whatever insurgent angry party. Or you can look at the cause and try to fix it.
Disengagement between people and politics is partly caused by remote institutions. You can’t avoid a certain amount of remoteness when you’ve got 60million people being represented by one parliament. The only way around that problem is to have subsidiary levels of government. England in particular suffers because its local authorities are too small to matter and its national government is too big to care. The solution is to amalgamate local governments into larger regional assemblies and allow influence to spread down to them from the central government.
Dav: Yes there are far too many levels of bureaucracy in the U.K. Creating four or five federated states within the Union could go along way to reducing this. Unitary authorities, with responsibility for all services, could replace the whole gamut of local councils, Quangos and self appointed fiefdoms that control our lives. I would go further and suggest that such a federation could well be based upon the pre-Norman saxon Kingdoms, plus the Celtic Nations on the fringes.
Thanks T-J. I didn’t mean to moan too much, I pretty much agreed with the article, I just felt the pro single market argument needed to be promoted a bit more.
Regards
Andrew is on the right line. The Saxon Kingdoms would be a good start to look at.
Heptarchy. Back to 850.
“g 9th Sep ’14 – 7:13am
Can you English not wait until the referendum is settled before turning it in to something all about yourselves?”
Why? Is there really anything left to be said on the Scottish referendum that has not already been said a thousand times?
Paul Walter, some of us want to maintain the union and find it very hard to deal with the charge from nationalists that politicians and people in england don’t care about scotland. this is made all the harder when politicians and people in england use the subject of the scottish referendum to talk about themselves, not scotland.