The Scottish referendum and the accidental emergence of the English voice

Robert Henderson

The outcome of the Scottish independence referendum has resulted in the breaking of a particularly effective omerta within the British political classes, namely, that there should be no acknowledgement of the wilful damage done to English interests by the devolution settlement of the late 1990s which has excluded her from having a national political voice while Scotland, Wales and Northern  Ireland were given such a voice and ever increasing devolved powers.

Having denied England her due for 16 years the Tory Party has suddenly embraced the idea constitutional equality with the rest of the UK, with the necessary changes being made in tandem with the new powers so recklessly promised by Gordon Brown during the last days of the Referendum campaign.    No matter that the Tory Party has had this sudden conversion to being the upholder of English interests because it is a way of marginalising the Labour Party through both threatening to remove the influence of its many non-English seat MP and placing it in a very awkward position if they do not back the idea a strong English political voice; no matter that so far all that is proposed is English votes for English laws rather than an English Parliament; no matter that the Labour and LibDem leaders have rejected the idea. What matters is that the English devolution train has started to move and once moving it will be very difficult to stop.

Cameron’s “solution” to the constitutional imbalance

The morning after the NO in the Scottish independence  referendum vote David  Cameron  proposed  this:

“Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.

The rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced as well.

It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom.

In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh Government and Assembly more powers.

And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations.

In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.

I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England.

We have heard the voice of Scotland – and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard.

The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question –requires a decisive answer.

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.”

Whether Cameron could deliver much of this in the seven months before the General Election is highly dubious, both on the  grounds of time and the difficulty of getting agreement with the other major Westminster parties . Labour leader Ed Miliband has already refused to back the idea of linking English constitutional reform to the granting of extra powers to Scotland. This is for a crude political interest   reason: without Labour MPs from outside of England the Labour Party would have no chance of forming a government in England for the foreseeable future.  LibDem leader Nick Clegg has also refused to back Cameron’s proposal,  but  will support the formation of an English Grand Committee to scrutinise and amend English-only legislation. However,  this would still leave Parliament as it is present constructed with the final say , which would include votes for MPs sitting for  seats outside of England.

But  even if  Cameron  could  do it in the time and the other major Westminster Parties agreed to his proposal, it is difficult to see how Cameron could achieve what he wants – an equality of control over  national affairs in the four Home Countries – because he is determined not to have an English Parliament.  English votes for English laws suggests he wants to have only  MPs for English seats voting  on issues  which affect only England. But it is not clear at  present whether Cameron would exclude Welsh and Northern  Irish MPs . If  they were not excluded,  the problem of non-English MPs voting on English issues would remain.  But there is a difficulty in doing this insofar as Welsh and Northern Irish devolved powers are less than those already in Scotland and will be even more inferior to a Scotland with the Scottish parliament’s  proposed new powers.  The solution to this is to give all four Home Nations equal devolved powers. However, this could meet with a refusal of such powers by Wales and Northern  Ireland , whose assemblies and governments have been unwilling to use all the powers they currently have., most probably because of the responsibilities they bring.

But excluding non-English seat MPs from voting on English issues would not  entirely  solve the problem.  There would still be the question of who makes the policy on which  MPs vote.  It is easy to see how a situation could arise where a Labour government  or a coalition  government with MPs drawn  from non-English seats  could have an overall majority in the Commons ,  but be in the minority amongst English-seat MPs.   If that was the case it would not be for such a government to make laws for England because it would be non-English MPs making English policy.  English laws would have to be formulated and developed  by an executive drawn only from English-seat MPs. That would  mean   two executives in the Commons, one dealing with English affairs and one with all other affairs.  It would be unworkable.    If there was both an English Parliament and a Federal government the problem would not exists because the two executives would be clearly delineated and their areas of responsibility  obvious.

Consider also the position at a UK wide general election.  How would those standing for seats outside of England campaign? If such MPs were allowed to be   part of the policy making process  for English-only legislation but were not allowed to vote,  what exactly would they put in their election manifestoes about such a  situation? Similarly what would the parties they represent put in the general  Party manifesto?  If MPs outside of England were excluded from both voting and  policy making on English-only matters  would the Party manifestoes for seats outside of England  have to exclude any mention of what the Party manifesto for England said on English-only issues?

There is also a serious procedural  problem with English votes for English laws, namely, who would decide what is an English only issue. It has been suggested the Speaker would make the decision. That would place a dangerously large  amount of political power and influence in the hands of one man. (Imagine the present speaker John Bercow making such a decision  when faced with a Tory government).  But whatever the arrangements for making such a decision  there would be immense opportunity for dissension and many seemingly English-only issues could end up classified as not qualifying as English-only.  Indeed, while the Barnet Formula remains any English legislation with spending implications could be argued  to not be English-only because what England gets to spend is linked to what Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive: England gets more for the NHS, the other home nations gets a proportionate boost to their spending and so on. That difficulty could be removed by abolishing the Barnett Formula, but that would engender  a great uproar amongst the Celtic Fringe.  There would also be the a problem if the Welsh and  Northern Irish assemblies were not given the same powers as the  Scottish parliament because  that would also cause great confusion and argument.

But the question of English representation goes beyond mere numbers. Even if  a Westminster government  is formed with a majority of English MPs, the fact that MPs from outside of  England would still be able to both vote on and help frame  English-only legislation  and policy would colour that legislation and policy  because personal relationships between politicians of the governing party would compromise  the desire of the government to act in England’s interests. The smaller the government majority  amongst English MPs  the more influence non-English seat MPs would be able to exert because their voice would be louder and the Government would  always be afraid of a general rebellion by the non-English seat MPs if non-English  interests were  not  pandered to.  A government with a tiny majority of English seats this could well itself defeated in such circumstances.

If the Westminster government with a majority English-seat MPs  was formed by a party with strong representation in one or more of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, the temptation not to act solely in English interests would be strong because of the fear that what was done at Westminster could damage their standing in the other Home Countries.   A coalition with an English-seat majority  which excluded the Tory  Party would be particularly difficult  for England because it would have non-English seat MPs  from different parties pulling in different directions.

The only practical  and honest solution to the constitutional mess  is an English Parliament. It would allow an exact equality of powers and national focus to be granted to each of the Home Nations. The Parliament  could be created very simply at little or no additional cost: only MPs for English seats would be elected to the  House of Commons which would become what it was originally, an English institution.

An English Parliament would remove not only the practical difficulties of  deciding who should make policy to put before  the Commons and  what legislation was to be dealt with only by English seat MPs, it would force England’s representatives to concentrate on England’s interests first, second and last.

The UK federal Parliament could be created simply by forming it of the MPs of the four Home Country national Parliaments.    With federal matters restricted to a handful of important issues – defence, macro fiscal policy, foreign affairs, homeland security and suchlike – the federal parliament would not have that much to do. This would allow it to  meet at Westminster if a physical gathering is required or it could be conducted through linking the four national parliaments via the Web  The federal government would be formed as the UK government is now, on a majority drawn from the four Home Country parliaments.

The attempts to fudge the English constitutional question

There are  already frantic elite  attempts to fudge the English question  in play. As soon as the NO vote was certain the mainstream media and Libdem and Labour politicians started pushing the idea of devolving the powers Scotland had to either English regions or councils. The BBC was particularly assiduous in this respect with Radio 5 who started their propagandising for devolution which would deny England a Parliament as soon as it became clear in the early hours of the morning  that the NO vote would win.

Devolving to English regions or even councils  the powers enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament after the new powers are added  manifestly cannot achieve  what Cameron wants, namely, equality of treatment for England.  For example, Scotland is to have new tax raising powers over income tax. If  such powers were given to English regions or large conurbations , this would  result in a hideously complex post-code lottery which would set one area against another.

But it would not simply be  a matter of setting one area against another which would be an ill consequence of such devolution. Imagine what would happen if  one area suffered a severe shortfall in revenue under such a tax regime?  This could happen because they set the rates too low  for any new taxpaying businesses or individuals they attracted to cover the tax they had forgone by lowering the rate or because there was a flight from higher  tax areas. Would what remained of central government in the UK  be willing to stand idly by and allow vital public services in the afflicted area  to fall into disuse? Most probably not, but that would raise a problem: if much of the revenue raising had  been devolved where exactly would the money come from to bail the at risk region or council out?   But even if central government did have the funds,  it would be politically toxic for them to be handing out money to a region or city which could not fund its public services because it had set its local tax rates too low or left them too high. Solvent regions or cities would be up in arms. There would be plenty of issues such as this. The whole thing would be an administrative mess of heroic proportions. The disaster of Spain’s  devolved regions provides a lesson what can happen if  important  fiscal powers are given to regions of a country.

Regional assemblies would not work  even if their remit was restricted to genuinely local matters and their taxation powers remained small. . This is because there are no English regions which have anything approaching  as strong an identity as any of the home  nations. Most  of England has no strong regional identity.  Even the North East and Cornwall – the two English areas most commonly touted as having a strong regional identity – would be unsuitable.  The North East is comprised of Northumberland and  Durham but that has strong antipathies within it, for example, the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland.   Cornwall is too small to stand on its own – with much of its population not being Cornish but incomers  – and  a South West Region comprising Cornwall, Devon and Somerset  would have no natural unity. The Northwest would include Manchester and Liverpool, two major  cities with little love for one another.

At the level of devolution to towns and cities, this would raise the problem of what to do with the considerable stretches of England without large cities or substantial towns.  That would rule out extending the powers of large cities and towns to the surrounding countryside in much of England..

What needs to be done now?

Although English votes for English laws on policies developed by MPs from England and put forward by an English executive  would be very messy and ultimately impractical, the adoption of the scheme   could be  a springboard to an English parliament. This would be partly because the public would see that it was not working efficiently or fairly and partly because the habit of publicly speaking about English interests and English constitutional circumstances would have been formed. That would embolden politicians and the mainstream media to advocate an English parliament.   If it was only English votes for English laws with MPs outside of  England still forming part of the policy determining  group for the legislation for England,  this clear evidence of  blatant inequality between England and the other Home Nations  would boost demand for  English votes for English laws to be scrapped and English Parliament put in its place.

The danger for England is that she will end up  without anything which goes anyway towards remedying the disadvantage she is presently under.  Nothing will be decided let alone implemented  before the 2015 General Election and if Labour form a government, whether on their own or in coalition with the parties other than the Tories, the chances of English votes for English laws getting off the ground is remote. In such circumstances the issue of English devolution would be likely to be kicked into the long grass with things such as a constitutional convention and the devolution of some unimportant extra powers to the cities. I doubt whether regional assemblies would be attempted because of the resounding rejection  of an assembly in the North East in 2004. It would also look like treating England as a second class citizen. Moreover, the idea of devolving important powers such as those  granted to Scotland to cities  would be a non-starter because it would take so much power from Westminster.  MP  turkeys would not be voting for Christmas.

If the Tories have a modicum of sense they will go to the country on a platform of  English rights. Ideally, this should  contain support for an English Parliament , but even English votes for English laws would have considerable traction with English electors because at long last there would be a major Party which appeared to be “speaking for England”.  Such a platform would place both Labour and the LibDems in an impossible electoral position because a refusal to allow the English to have the same powers as the Scots, Welsh and Irish would be self-evidently unreasonable.


But there are dangers . The problem with giving Scotland ever greater powers is that it prepares them for independence. (Wales and NI need not be worried about as serious independence candidates because they are such economic basket cases and their politicians know it). Personally I am very angry about devolution full stop because the centrifugal forces it has released may well end up splitting the union. But there is no going back so the only way England can be protected is to go for full federation with an English Parliament and equal powers for all four Home Country houses plus a federal parliament consisting of the members of the four Home Country houses.

In addition, England should work to remove all the potential bargaining chips that Scotland has  England should go for this:

  1. The removal of Trident from Scotland.
  2. All military equipment to be made outside of Scotland.
  3. The removal of public service jobs in Scotland which deal with English administrative functions such as the administration of English social security near Glasgow.
  4. A limited written constitution defining the relationship between the four Home Countries with clauses which would make it a legal requirement to (a) make any decision to leave the union a matter for the entire UK electorate and (b) any referendum on independence to only be held after the terms of independence have been agreed.
This entry was posted in Anglophobia, Devolution, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Scottish referendum and the accidental emergence of the English voice

  1. Pingback: The Scottish referendum and the accidental emergence of the English voice | The Libertarian Alliance

  2. England, at 53 million and growing fast, is far too large a political unit. Any central govt is going to feel remote and will behave as such. I disagree with your contention that the Englsh regions do not have a strong identity. What about Yorkshire? Who can ever forget Parkinson’s repeated reminders to his viewers that he was a Yorkshireman first and foremost. OK, I know Yorkshire at present is not a region, but that can change. Anyway, even if you are correct, this is not to say that old regional identities cannot be resurrected and nurtured. Germany had federal regions imposed on it after WW2 – I’m not at all sure that all of them had strong local identity. Pity perhaps that we didn’t lose the war. The NE region may have rejected home rule but that was always a half-hearted scheme. If all the regions were offered it, it might be a different story. Scotland 5 million, Wales 3 million, N.Ireland 1.5 million – ENGLAND 53 MILLION???!!! ABSURD.

    • Voxangliae says:

      Do you suppose that every German “Land” is equal in size? Do you think that all USA states or all Ausrtalian states are equal? Whether in size or wealth? Yet their federal systems work,no doubt because they’ve built in safeguards.
      Why should England have to undergo balkanisation for the sake of the faux-celtic fringe? Bring on a Federation of the Isles, bring on an English Parliament!

    • SJ NM says:

      The elephant in the room – as I see it – isn’t England at all, but the union, and England’s continued presence within it. If the argument against home rule for England is that “England is too big”, yet the argument in favour is that England is a historic nation in its own right, then maybe the problem isn’t England at all, but rather the United Kingdom.

      Abolish the United Kingdom (or at least England should remove herself from it) and then we in England can have the “best of both worlds” (as the Better Together mob in Scotland would put it) namely an independent English parliament and regional assemblies too.

      We have to free ourselves from the thinking about what’s best for Britain, and instead think about what’s best for England.

    • Balkanisation is a very emotive term and anyway the wrong one to use in this context as I am not proposing a dozen independent states but a federation or (maybe better) a con-federation. As for the variation in size of states I don’t see the relevancy of that either – anyway nowhere did I suggest they should all have the same population, just that “England” is far too populous, and increasingly so, for a single government.

      • SJ NM says:

        Ahh, now we’re getting somewhere aren’t we.

        I notice you chose to put the word England in quotation marks. Well I’ve got news for you, England is a real nation, and is deserving of recognition, self-determination, and its own government.

        England is not too big, but simply too centralised. Abolish the UK, free England from the shackles of “Britain”, and then we can talk about regional devolution.

  3. I wasn’t my intention to downgrade or belittle “England” in any way, just put it there for emphasis. I think we’re on the same page.

  4. Bob says:

    The population of England has nothing to do with the situation per se, many of that population is “British”, and has no legitimate right to be in our England. “British” is not a race of people, nor is it a country, “British” is a political state of mind, you could go further and say “British” is a cult. Many of the people who are in England are part of a cult organization, many are people from other countries who have been planted into our England for political reasons. There is no “British” in the Magna Carta, nor the Petition of Right, nor the Declaration of Right, nor the Bill of Rights.

    “British” only turns up when the Freemason James the Sixth of Scotland wrongly took the throne of England, against the common law. It was a Welsh Satanist, John Dee together with an Irish satanist Edward Kelly who conspired the “British Empire”. The project has ever since been a cult project driven by secret society, and all those who say they are “British”, are merely members of a cult. James the Sixth of Scotland became James the First of England, he told the English parliament he was to be called “Emperor of Great Britain”, in line with the directions of the satanists Dee and Kelly. The English parliament broke out in laughter at the suggestion, and the common law courts prohibited the title.

    It was a traitorous English parliament under secret society influence which agreed the Treaty of Union in 1707, forming “the United Kingdom of Great Britain”. Since secret society corruption nullifies a treaty, “Great Britain” has never existed, and also the common law does not recognize “Great Britain”, it is purely de facto, and the project of the occult. So a “British” federation is also a nonsense concept, there can only ever be a confederation between England and Scotland. Wales unless they wish to raise a war of independence against England, is a dominion of the throne of England.

    As for the stupid Yorkshire bigots, and I can say that since I live in Yorkshire, they are deluded lunatics. Yorkshire is merely a part of the country of England, as is every other county, Yorkshire is simply named after the city of York, and it is an administrative district. England is a unitary country, as if Yorkshire no mates can declare themselves independent of England, in such a case all England could raise an armed force to deal with a threat to their national security. If Yorkshire bigots do not think they are English, then pack your bags and leave our England. Perhaps Yorkshire bigots are also part of the occult, trying to stop the English people having parliament, perhaps Yorkshire bigots have got something to hide, are they part of the paedophile networks we keep hearing about?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s