So, Scotland having voted to remain in the Union but with an understanding that there will be greater devolution to their Parliament, we can now move on to what it means for the rest of us.
Luckily, as a Liberal Democrat, I understand and accept the logic of devolution, of subsidiarity and federalism, which is that things will be different in different places, with a greater priority placed on X in Y, as opposed to Z. And, frankly, assuming that we can annex the Waveney Valley and North Essex, and make Ros our constitutional monarch, the notion of a free Suffolk is a strangely alluring one...
But, seriously, the Scots, the Welsh, and even the Northern Irish have it fairly easy, in that their boundaries are clearly defined, and they have an established tier of governance. For the English, however, it isn't necessarily as simple.
England is big, disproportionately so by comparison with the other constituent nations, making the conflict between it, and a federal United Kingdom, potentially debilitating. And yet, can English regions be credibly treated as being on a par with Scotland, for example? Indeed, can you design English regions that would encompass everyone and retain a sense of attachment in their residents?
In other federal states, such as the United States, Germany and India, there is no such dominant single element, so there is little help there to be had, and we will have to come up with an answer that enables Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to feel that they have a real state in a federal union, yet prevents the English from feeling as though they are being constrained or otherwise taken advantage of.
This offers a real challenge to politicians, especially Westminster ones, most of whom were elected to exercise power, rather than to give it away. If the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament are to be mirrored in England, what is the purpose of Westminster as it is currently constituted? Indeed, whisper it quietly, where does the House of Lords, elected or otherwise, fit in?
If Westminster is to become the home of a federal Parliament, how many representatives do you need, and what are they for? Is London the right place for the English Parliament, and do you need regional and sub-regional tiers? You could, for example, offer a choice between regions and counties, so East Anglia might emerge as an administrative tier, or Suffolk might take on extra powers.
Six months ago, this would have seemed entirely esoteric, and a debate for constitution geeks. Now, everyone has a stake in this even if they don't really understand it. But, it's a debate that is firmly on the turf of Liberal Democrats, and we have an opportunity to make the case that we've been rehearsing for decades. A federal Britain in a federal Europe - what's there not to like?...
2 comments:
Well said.
I was discussing with a non-LD friend this morning, if we added a question to the Census of 'what do you call the region that you think you live in?' what the results would be?
For eg what are the Home Counties; is the West Country the same thing as South-West England; are Sheffield, Nottingham, and Chester in the Midlands? Ah, the fun we could have...
@ Matt,
Indeed, and even some of the apparently more obvious regions, like East Anglia, have some real rivalries within them.
Post a Comment