Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Tories Press for English Devolution

With the Scots promised more powers after they rejected independence in last week's referendum, the constitutional settlement in the UK appears to be in a severe state of flux. While the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish all have some kind of local legislature, there is no such thing for England. At a conference today at Chequers, many Tory MPs have made it clear to the Prime Minister that they want "English votes for English laws." It would only be fair.

This journal has long supported the idea of a Federal Republic of Britain, and it is prepared to take the federal part separately from the republic part if need be. Federalism for the British has been on the cards since the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly came into being. When the Stormont Assembly was revived in Northern Ireland, the situation was magnified.

Back on November 14, 1977, during the debate on devolution for Scotland and Wales that didn't occur, left-wing Labour MP Tam Dalyell asked, "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" This has gone down in history as the West Lothian question, but it remains unanswered.

To its credit, the Scottish National Party has a rule that its members never vote on issues that are "English only." The trouble is that if the other parties'members from Scotland followed that rule, the government could lose a vote on a major matter. In truth, actually, only a Labour government could because the Tories have 1 MP in Scotland, and the LibDems don't form governments on their own.

One possible solution is to alter the rules of the House of Commons regarding who gets to vote on what measures. This would create a hierarchy of MPs at Westminster which some oppose as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, Graham Brady, MP, the chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee in the Tory Party, offered support for the idea saying, "Some days we could sit as an English Parliament, other days as a UK Parliament, Some variant of English votes for English laws is the minimum to meet the expectations of the English electorate."

Another option, of course, is a separate English parliament altogether, sitting in York or Liverpool, and legislating on England's affairs. This is a better solution in general, but it creates a situation in which 5.3 million Scots have a parliament, 1.8 million Northern Irish have an assembly as do 3.1 million Welsh, while 53.5 million share an English parliament. Does this comply with the democratic ideal of one citizen, one vote? Will such a parliament be responsive enough for England?

A more radical notion would be to create regional governments in England of smaller size. The north of England might benefit from running its own affairs; it certainly hasn't flourished under the current system. Might the West Country govern itself as well? Surely East Anglia merits consideration as well. And of course, London might operate better with greater powers; Singapore doesn't do badly as a city-state.

The Scottish referendum was an opportunity for Scots to have their say in how they would be ruled and by whom. At the same time, it has created a chance for Britons to redefine their constitutional arrangements. This should have been done with the end of the empire -- better late than never, though.

© Copyright 2014 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home