"The Tory bluff must be called. If "English votes for English laws" has become a new constitutional principle of overriding importance, then the UK cannot last. A Tory administration overseeing English health, transport, education, social security and environmental policies would be so powerful it could not take orders on foreign affairs and taxation from a Labour Westminster government in charge of the last non-devolved issues. Imagine Cameron in charge of spending, administering across most of daily life, in dispute with a Labour Treasury. How long could that last? And who would have more authority?
You cannot dodge this by saying that England-only legislation would be starred in the Commons and voted on separately, but that government would continue as before. If the Tories had a majority for most domestic policies, they would get their manifesto through - and wherever they sat in the chamber, and whatever they called themselves, they would be the lawful government of England. The thinness of the remaining non-devolved agenda, and the weakness of some kind of federal UK government, would lead to formal talks on separation within a year.
So the first question they need to be asked is this: are you content to embark on this road? Are you so worked up about the English question that you are prepared to see Britain disappearing as a political union? Are you happy about where that leaves England's voting weight in the EU? Have you thought through the implications for a British presence on the UN security council? It should be said that since public spending is higher in Scotland, separation could mean lower English taxes and therefore many would cheer. But I have a strong suspicion that Cameron and the rest of the Tory frontbench would be horrified at all this. They must be smoked out now, before they have finally committed themselves."
But what if the Tories, through ignorance or short-sightedness, think that 'English votes for English laws' is a temporarily sustainable and politically advantageous position, regardless of the ultimate consequences? And would the large mass of English voters find the dissolution of the Union so abhorrent? Do they really care one way or the other about a union with this small country tacked on to the top of their own? It would be truly ironic if the prediction that devolution was the stepping stone to independence proved to be true, not because of the Scots but because of the English.
3 comments:
I rather think that is the direction we are headed.
Last summer I entered the EU (in the form of Sweden) from Norway. The most traumatic thing that happened was the 18 kr toll on the bridge. No one watched us cross, and there was no question of passports.
I'm vaguely nationalist in opinion (not, however, a big fan of the SNP), and I've long been boring people by saying that we have a redundant level in Scotland: either the home nations, the union, or the EU should go.
The Tories' scheme would be a fantastic source of trouble for the UK Parliament. It requires that the speaker of the House of Commons would decide what an English bill was. The House of Commons for English matters would obviously have a different composition from the House of Commons for UK matters. Scots MPs saved the UK Government's majority on university tuition fees in the last parliament. Could the Ministers for Education, Health, Transport, Agriculture or the Home Office continue in office, if they could not command an English majority. One way a UK Government might react would be to get at the speaker and make sure controversial bills were defined as UK bills. Would a Government be willing to see the election of an independent-minded speaker?
Post a Comment