Devolution General Discussion Thread.

[afleitch]

I sort of feel I need to make a ‘speech’ being one of only two active Scots on the forum. At the same time, there are new issues to be faced by the whole of the UK which is why I've started this thread. Though forgive me for opening it with some personal reflection.

I was a passionate supporter of the Yes campaign which for me was the culmination of a number of years in my life in moving towards that position. I used to be opposed to independence, wishing for a federalist settlement for the whole of the UK and it was only when this campaign began back in 2012 that I made a decision to back it. Devolution is and should always be a process but over the past ten years there’s been a reluctance to do anything else with it. All parts of the UK have different dreams and aspirations and when you set up assemblies for 3 of the 4 nations and the nation’s capital, the idea of the UK being a unitary state is already a fallacy. The problem with further devolution in other parts of nation is that the polls and the one referendum conducted, show that the ‘regions’ of England don’t want it for themselves. Yet at the same time it is crowed that Scotland (and what is notable is that NI and Wales are often excluded from this rhetoric) votes for ‘English’ laws. It’s the West Lothian Question. And it remains unanswered. And what’s more, I agree that it’s a problem.

The problem you have is that a century ago, before the welfare state the big national issues were defence and foreign policy and spending (as examples) Today at the GE, it’s the social and welfare issues that matter to the public and that form the centre of the party political platforms. Those are largely devolved in the Celtic nations but not so in England. As such, they are subject to both scrutiny and vote by MP’s who don’t live there. The problem with ‘English votes for English laws’ is that one party might have a majority in the whole of the UK but another a majority in England. This creates potential instability. Whether it actually would is another matter. The only post war elections that would apply to would be 1964 and February 1974 where the Conservatives would lead in England despite Labour leading in GB and October 1974 where Labour would need some Liberal assistance or abstention. 2010 counts too, but only on the basis that the Conservatives could govern outright. One could perhaps assume in the spirit of post war consensus that ‘arrangements’ in both 1964 and 1974 would have probably been successful. The House of Commons has to adapt to these changes.

The other alternative, given that regional assemblies are probably a non-starter, is to deliver Greater London Authority style powers to various parts of England. The problem we have is with local government. The Local Government reforms of the 1970’s have been watered down to such an extent that many of the old units of government; strong county councils and metropolitan authorities which could help deliver these powers locally are now non-existent. Local Government reform in England post 1996 has been piecemeal with local reviews decentralising and then centralising some areas of the country into unitary authorities. You cannot deliver effective local devolution until you tackle local government.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What?
UK is devolving!


...sorry, I've always found that term funny.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, back to serious stuff... very interesting analysis. The best solution to me would be recreating strong local government at the county or regional level. The idea of devolving power to an entity that represents over 80% of the country's population is just ridiculous.