A Democratic Devolution - Devolving England IV
I’ll start this post off with a very quick round-up of the online symposium so far:
- Dave Cole argues that it’s “a long way to Westminster” and the English devolution should be provided on a regional level - but he doesn’t deny that it is needed;
- Garbo claims that we don’t need an English Parliament, and can’t have one due to them complications; and
- Matt Wardman considers the way(s) in which we are governed and the the potential role of an English Parliament.
I’ll be taking the debate in a slightly different direction, with a greater consideration of the democratic implications of devolution. After all, democracy is a subject in which I am interested.
The West Lothian Question
This is the fundamental issue that underpins all the claims for an English Parliament - that Scotland and Wales have a far greater amount of say in the UK than their population warrants in a democratic system, and was first raised in 1977 by former Labour MP Tam Dalyll:
For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
For how long indeed?
There is no denying that the current system with a Scottish Parliament and Welsh and NI Assemblies is not acceptable and not democratic. This is also exascerbated by the fact that MPs in Scotland and Wales still represent smaller constituencies than those in England.
The crux of the issue is that people in Scotland and Wales have two votes - one for Holyrood or Cardiff and another for Westminster, whilst those in England have just one, for Westminster. That alone is undemoctratic, and when Scotland and Wales have more MPs than their population warrants, it becomes even more so.
A West Lothian Answer?
There are plenty of potential answers to the West Lothian Question, but few which are pratcially workable. Let’s take a quick look at a few:
- Abolish the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly;
- Reduce the number of Scottish and Wlesh MPs below that their population warrants;
- Have English MPs-only votes on legislation which will not affect Scotland or Wales;
- Create an English Parliament;
- Dissolve the United Kingdom.
These are the main options, and pretty much any other is variation on the above. Yet how many of these are actually workable? Option 1 will not happen, and so can be easily written out; option 2 would be equally unacceptable, and contrary to the Act of Union; option 3 would only partially fix the issue, but not entirely resolve it; and option 4 is the only workable solution - it’s just the details that are complicated [I'm not even going to diginify option 5 with an answer].
So, an English Parliament it is.
The only credible answer to the West Lothian question is, as briefly demonstrated above, an English Parliament. Only an English Palriament can correct the democratic deficit that is suffered by 84% of the population of the UK. The devil is,a s they say, in the detail.
Any creation of an English parliament must meet the following criteria. It must:
- Maintain the Union;
- Leave England as a single entity;
- Create equality amongst all devolved governemnts; and
- Not create an extra expensive layer of politicians.
It must, of course, also win a referendum. But that’s not relevant at this unfortunately entirely theoretical stage.
Creating Democratic Devolution
Democracy is the principle that underpins the West. Without it, we no longer have any claim to legitimacy on the stage of the modern world. How, for example, can we claim to have incaded Iraq in order to give them [or impose] democracy when we don’t even properly have it at home?
Of course, brinign democracy into things complicates matters even more due to the inherent intricacies and differences of opinion over precisely what it entails - eg. which is the more “democratic” electoral system - SMSP or PR? But for this topic, I’m going to base it on a simple premise: equality.
The current devolution system isn’t equal, as I have pointed out earlier in this article. And the only way to make it equal is through the addition of an English Parliament to the equation. But would this not make it unequal? Would not then the English Parliament become more important than the one at Westminster? Possibly, yes it could. Hence, how do you create devolution that is democratic?
All the national parliaments should have the same powers - Wales should have the same powers as Scotland and England - to claim otherwise would be the height of hypocrisy. An equal amount of influence for each country in the UK
The only real solution I can see is to make the UK federal, controlling only national taxes and setting out the parameters within which the national parliaments work. To be honest, this would probably have to mean a reducation in the authority of the Scottish Parliament in order to prevent Westminster becoming almost completely irrelevent.
But not yet another set of politicians?
So we have an English Parliament as the only solution to the West Lothian question and the democratic issue of devolution. But how can we do this without creating yet another tier of expensive politicians?
One solution would be to have the same politicans represent us at national and Westminster levels. Yet this would mean that each country would have to have the same electoral system and a population-equivalent number of members. Another would be to have part-time Westminster MPs. But each of these raises its own issues.
What should happen though is that Westminster Palace becomes the home of the English as well as UK Parliaments. There’s no way we should pay for an entire new parliamentary bulding.
Wrapping Up
The change that I propose is more than just the creation of an English Parliament, but the fundamental realignment of the UK political system. Each constituent country of the UK must have the same amount of control over internal activities and the same influence of federal UK policy.
Ever since 1999 and the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly has there been proper democracy in the UK. When one - albeit significant majority - of the population has such a smaller amount of influence over its future than what are frankly tiny minorities there are problems that ned to be addressed. This issue would not have achieved its current status had not
There can be no doubt in the minds of any intelligent person that the current system does not work and is not fully democratic. However, the way in which we should deal with it is an entirely different question. And none of these are necessarily inherently wrong or correct.
I personally think that an English Parliament is the only way to go, as I hope I have shown in this article.
There are of course many potential issues that I have either skated over or entirely ignored thus far, so please raise them in the comments or in your own article in this symposium.
Should interesting comments arise, I hope to investigate some further potential solutions in another post.
Categories: All WW, Comment, Local Politics, Politics, Symposium
Personally I prefer option five - an independent England.
Why won’t you ‘dignify’ question 5 with an answer? What are you so scared of?
Agreed Wyrdtimes abd Northumbrian. What is so undignified about 5 that you can’t give it an answer? I personally believe option 4 will eventually lead to option 5 anyway. I would say by going with 4 you already dignifying 5.
(small note of correction - I do not think we can’t have an english parliament, I just do not think it is in the best interests of England).
Also, it is little over the top to say we do not have democracy in England. We patently do have democracy, you and many others just do not think that it in the right form.
You leave out London in this too. Londoners get a vote in City Hall and a vote in Westminster. Should we also declare independence from London?
I’m not “scared” of anything. But there is no way that a break-up of the Union is imminent or called for by any sort of significant number of people. Hence why I won’t dignify it with an answer.
Garbo - I’m not saying that we do not have democracy in England, just that there is a democratic deficit. There is no denying that the West Lothian Question exists, and that we need to do something about it.
London is local government, without the same level of powers that Holyrood and Cardiff exercise. We have a diectly elected Mayor in Watford, but that doesn’t correct the democratic deficit.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Everybody Stand For The EU Anthem
I’m not “scared” of anything. But there is no way that a break-up of the Union is imminent or called for by any sort of significant number of people. Hence why I won’t dignify it with an answer.
Garbo - I’m not saying that we do not have democracy in England, just that there is a democratic deficit. There is no denying that the West Lothian Question exists, and that we need to do something about it.
London is local government, without the same level of powers that Holyrood and Cardiff exercise. We have a directly elected Mayor in Watford, but that doesn’t correct the democratic deficit.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Everybody Stand For The EU Anthem
Hmmm- I would say 48% of the English is a significant number of people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535193/Britain-wants-UK-break-up,-poll-shows.html
“There is no denying that the current system with a Scottish Parliament and Welsh and NI Assemblies is not acceptable and not democratic.” - but I take your point.
The GLA has powers of transport and energy, planning, etc. More to the point, Londoners get more votes than the rest of England in their say for who makes decisions from them. Londoners get their local elections, european and national, like the rest of england, but also vote on the GLA assembly and Mayor. My point here is, is it the principle that bothers you or the fact it has got to an unacceptable level in Scotland/Wales?
Also, do you think the Union will survive with an English Parliament - particularly one that sits in Westminster? Do you not feel the Scots will then regard Westminster as the home of English democracy and will further alienate them?
“There’s no way we should pay for an entire new parliamentary building.” - why not? The Scots did and as we are being so fair in all this, it seems only right that if we do have own parliament, it should not be in the same building as the British (incl. Scottish representation) parliament.
Then there is the issue of who is the PM of the English Parliament? Under the current system it could not be Gordon Brown. Who would it be?
Suppose the opposition in the British parliament were the largest party of the English parliament, do they all swap sides in the house when an English debate comes up? This is just a small example of a whole list of constitutional conventions that would cause complications by housing both parliaments in the same building.
Do the head of Departments that represent English issues have a constitutional obligation to be English? Even if that department also deals with British matters? How would that go down with the rest of the union and how fair would that be?
I am unclear if what you are actually suggesting here is English only votes or if your solution devolves so much power to England that it makes the British government virtually obsolete within the confines of the current system.
It seems that, if you do not mean english only votes, what you propose would, in effect, require a system more on the blueprint of the US federal system. Again, I see this as unnecessary, inappropriate and ultimately damaging to the UK. It would mean fundamental change of just about every level of the political structure of the UK. It would not just be a case of having English only votes by English MPs. For example, under a federal system there is the serious point of what do we do with the monarchy? The British government’s role would be reduced to that of a president taking on foreign policy issues and not much else - having a Westminster parliament with all those MPs would be a great expense for not much at all.
I can see the sense in English independence - though I do not think it necessary or beneficial. But I just can not see the sense in an English parliament. It is unworkable. There are only three responses to the West Lothian question: reverse devolution, abolish the union, carry on as we are. None are very appetising, but the third is the least damaging.
Garbo
>I would say 48% of the English is a significant number of people.
Hmmm. Results on Independence vary heavily with the question. Anthony Wells on Scottish independence:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1104
“The only question that consistently produces a plurality in favour of Scottish independence is in response to the straightforward question of whether respondents are in favour of Scotland becoming a country independent of the UK. Responses vary over time, but more often than not the balance is in favour of independence.”
I expect the same applies to England, and your poll asks the simple question:
“Should England become independent of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland”.
So I question that part of your argument.
>There are only three responses to the West Lothian question: reverse devolution, abolish the union, carry on as we are. None are very appetising, but the third is the least damaging.
I don’t see leaving alone as being an option. The situation is unstable.
Matt
“My point here is, is it the principle that bothers you or the fact it has got to an unacceptable level in Scotland/Wales?”
The unacceptable level. Were they much less powerful, and the level of Westminster votes properly reorganised, then this issue would not exist to the same extent.
“Also, do you think the Union will survive with an English Parliament - particularly one that sits in Westminster? Do you not feel the Scots will then regard Westminster as the home of English democracy and will further alienate them?”
Not really. What point is there in building a new building? Westminster housed the English parliament before the British parliament. It’s also arguable that with an English parliament, the need for the Lords is removed and so could house the EP instead.
“Then there is the issue of who is the PM of the English Parliament? Under the current system it could not be Gordon Brown. Who would it be?”
What’s the problem? He can’t be Scottish FM either. So where’s the change with the current system?
“Do the head of Departments that represent English issues have a constitutional obligation to be English? Even if that department also deals with British matters? How would that go down with the rest of the union and how fair would that be?”
The UK parliament would only have departments for the things it could affect, and/or for overview purposes. Hence it wouldn’t make a difference whether a Scottish, English or Welsh MP were SoS.
“I am unclear if what you are actually suggesting here is English only votes or if your solution devolves so much power to England that it makes the British government virtually obsolete within the confines of the current system.”
That’s part of the debate. What should be done on a country and what on a state level? So long as it is equal across all, that matters less to me.
“It seems that, if you do not mean english only votes, what you propose would, in effect, require a system more on the blueprint of the US federal system. Again, I see this as unnecessary, inappropriate and ultimately damaging to the UK. It would mean fundamental change of just about every level of the political structure of the UK. It would not just be a case of having English only votes by English MPs.”
If we have devolution at all, a fundamental change is essential. Any form of devolution requires this. We have a choice of either removing it entirely or shifting the entire system.
“I can see the sense in English independence - though I do not think it necessary or beneficial. But I just can not see the sense in an English parliament. It is unworkable. There are only three responses to the West Lothian question: reverse devolution, abolish the union, carry on as we are. None are very appetising, but the third is the least damaging.”
I can’t see any sense in independence but I can in an EP. Your options are wrong. We *cannot* carry on as we are, reversing devolution is impossible, and abolishing the union is plain unworkable. The *only* solution is an English Parliament. The difficulty is sorting out how to make it work.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Lords of the Cabinet - Part II
[...] my post, I’ve taken the debate in a slightly different direction, with a greater consideration of the [...]
Matt - you are absolutely right about opinion polls, and you have to be careful interpreting them. I am not saying we should speed ahead on English independence on the back of this poll. However, the question was fairly neutral and the fact that half of the population answered that they do want independence at least suggests the issue should be dignified by an answer.
My point is that an English parliament is so unworkable that it will create so many problems and will almost inevitably lead to the break up of the Union anyway. If you back an English parliament, at the very least you have to accept an outcome will be end of the Union.
TD- “then this issue would not exist to the same extent.” - either problem exists or it doesn’t. It seems that on the one hand you argue for an English parliament on the principle of there being a democratic deficit and on the other you argue for one because it has reached an unacceptable level.
For the reasons I have already outlined - a truly English parliament could not sit in Westminster.
Yes, but in Scotland you have MSPs and a first minister on top of Scottish MPs. If we used the same MPs in Westminster as we used for the English Parliament, who would be the First Minister? It could not be Gordon Brown. Does Brown appoint one? If so, they would either be sock puppets like Wendy Alexander was for Brown in Scotland or they would become more powerful than the PM and undermine him. Either way, there would be a democratic deficit still.
Of course it would make a difference. Parts of Transport and Energy policy cross over the boarders for example.
I can only see your plan working as one of federal government rather than devolution. But that would mean a complete and utter re-structure of the political system and its mechanics at every single level and it still leaves many of the problems I have mentioned created by devolution. It will also almost certainly weaken the Union and lead to its break up. I can see how independence would work, I can not see how an English Parliament would work and, as yet, no one has demonstrated how it would.
Now, you might argue that we can deal with these things later. But this has been debated for years and years with no satisfactory solution. It would be madness to head blindly in to devolution for England without a plan or understanding the implications.
“either problem exists or it doesn’t. It seems that on the one hand you argue for an English parliament on the principle of there being a democratic deficit and on the other you argue for one because it has reached an unacceptable level.”
No, it wouldn’t be such an urgent issue that needs to be resolved NOW had it not reached such an unacceptable level. The deficit would still exist either way.
“a truly English parliament could not sit in Westminster.”
Why not? It’s only a building.
“Yes, but in Scotland you have MSPs and a first minister on top of Scottish MPs.”
Then why not abolish them and just use Scottish MPs? Or have MEPs. Either way.
“Of course it would make a difference. Parts of Transport and Energy policy cross over the boarders for example.”
And those would maintain UK departments. I fail to see your point.
“I can only see your plan working as one of federal government rather than devolution. But that would mean a complete and utter re-structure of the political system and its mechanics at every single level and it still leaves many of the problems I have mentioned created by devolution.”
Frankly, a federal UK has been pretty much the inevitable outcome since devolution started.
“I can not see how an English Parliament would work and, as yet, no one has demonstrated how it would.”
What cannot happen is that the status quo remains. Something has to give. We have little choice left. Either we go to a federal UK or we abolish devolution entirely.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..A Democratic Devolution - Devolving England IV
Unfortunately, Westminster is not just a building. It is the the bicameral house of British democracy. You can not put another parliament in to it for practical, constitutional and symbolic reasons.
On departments, my point is it would very unfair to the Scots and Welsh if you could only appoint an English MP to head a department that also oversees Scottish matters. You are creating a democratic deficit by doing so. You have still not explained the relationship between the PM and English First Minister and how they would be appointed.
However, that last point is now mute as you are now not talking about devolution to an English Parliament but federalism. That is whole different ball game. I could and might even end up writing why that is not satisfactory - though I concede it probably beats an English parliament. However, it is just about inconceivable that you could have a federal system that has MPs that sit in both the National and regional parliaments - the system would be more like the American model.
The bottom line is, the further we pursue these ideas the closer we get to the break up of the Union.
Not sure why you won’t consider Option 5.
It eliminates all your attempts not to have another set of ‘expensive politicians’ representing us, at a stroke.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can represent themselves at their own parliaments, and Westminster is free to become a truly English Parliament.
To have all those devolved ‘MPs’ in Westminster, together with the new English ‘MPs’ - is there room in Westminster? Its pretty much straining with the 600-odd MPs now.
It wouldn’t be so easy to reduce the devolved MP numbers either. The Scottish Parliament with all its committee systems - there being no second chamber - does require a substantial amount of MSPs for it to effectively operate.
If 129 MSPs landed at Westminster, the new English MPs must number well over a thousand for parity.
To solve this I expect some solution could be gerrymandered, but why go to the trouble? As the other comments have suggested its not an easy fix.
Option 5 is clearly the most neatest and simplest option.
We’ll see if you’re expected numbers about independence bear fruit. I think in Scotland there is a demand. I expect the nationalists to win that referendum. Bring it on!
[...] on ‘Devolving England’. It follows on from pieces by Dave Cole, Garbo, Matt Wardman and the Thunderdragon. If you would like to contribute a piece, please blog AT davecole DOT [...]
[...] The Thunderdragon looks at devolution and democratisation. [...]
While I can see the issue of fairness is an important one, politics is the art of the possible, as someone once said, and an English Parliament is not. The United Kingdom is signed up to a regional government process within the EU which allows for specific parts of the UK to have forms of ‘devolution’. Even the borders of these regions are fixed. An English Parliament is simply not part of the process as in size and flavour it represents too much the essence of the United Kingdom. The process of regionalisation along the lines it is following began under the Tories, and indeed under Labour, Wales and Scotland were the right sort of starts for the process of ‘elected’ devolved bodies. And London as well. But attempts to create a North East elected ‘government’ simply didn’t stack up with the voters…so government kept with unelected regional governance because cannot NOT have these regions according to the rules. What better than the quote from one EU fanatic Winfried Boettcher: “This is conditional upon the relinquishing of national, power-oriented sovereignty and submitting to a common will. The nation-state has fulfilled its historical function. Nowadays, it is one of the major troublemakers in the European integration process. […]Our counter model is based on a concept of a Europe of the regions…” And those regions cannot be nation-state size.
There is a danger one can become diverted by form rather than substance on devolution (the buildings, the titles, the totemic change of wording from ‘Assembly’ to ‘Parliament’ etc - “gosh, this must really mean something”) - but discussing the minutiae of the devolved bodies and their lim ited legislative role is possibly missing the big picture of where real power actually lies and where it will increasingly lie.
[...] between us we came up with an English Parliament at Westminster, more regional democracy in the UK, reform is needed but we don’t need more politicians, making [...]
[...] The Thunderdragon looks at devolution and democratisation. [...]
[...] The Thunderdragon looks at devolution and democratisation. [...]
[...] It is time to rectify the democratic issues that have been left behind. Even if the issue of an English Parliament is ignored, there can be no doubt that it is not democratic that in our one democratically elected [...]