Memorandum submitted by Campaign for an
English Parliament
I am the head of the media unit of the campaign
and a member of its national council. I submit this statement
on the understanding, as we have been given by the Committee Clerk,
that you and your colleagues will accept submissions as up to
7 January 2008. I read from your Call for Evidence that you "have
decided to undertake an inquiry into the impact of devolution
at the UK level and its consequences for the United Kingdom's
constitution". That is what I will address.
I wish to express the hope that on receipt of
this submission you will summon a member of the Campaign to give
oral evidence. We have been working on these issues assiduously
since our foundation in June 1998 when the Devolution legislation
was passed and enacted. We have published detailed analyses of
that legislation. We have carefully followed it through throughout
the decade. You and your fellow committee members have each been
sent both of our two latest publications. No organisation other
than the UCL Constitution Unit has published on it so copiously
and analytically as this campaign. Its director, Professor Hazell,
attended on your Committee at your request in November. I appreciate
that the establishment of an English Parliament is not an outcome
of your Inquiry that you anticipate recommending. However, as
Professor Hazell informed you "the closest to a complete
answer to the West Lothian Question is a separate English Parliament".
It is our arguments put in constant dialogue with the Constitution
Unit that have brought him to that conclusion. I think, therefore,
it would be beneficial to the Inquiry if you summoned oral evidence
from us. Our evidence as in this written submission is of its
nature incomplete without the cross-examination it merits.
The foremost and the most serious impact of
devolution is identical with the consequences of devolution for
the United Kingdom constitution. The very nature, indeed explicit
purpose, of the devolution legislation 1997-98 was to change the
UK constitution as decided by the Act of Union 1707. The "impact"
is the legislation. That first and foremost is what has to be
understood. The "consequences" of the legislation were
its explicit intent.
The 1707 Act of Union abolished both the English
and Scottish parliaments. Wales had never had one. For those two
parliaments the Act substituted one British Parliament. By its
own decision, however, as per the devolution legislation of 1997-98,
the same British Parliament revoked its own power, not absolutely
but de facto, to legislate for Scotland, and to a lesser
extent for Wales, in major areas of governance.
Furthermore, the 1997-98 legislation re-established
the Scottish Parliament, as its members explicitly, expressly—and
rapturously—stated at its first meeting. It created a Welsh
Assembly. Never before in its long history had Wales had one governing
body for its territory. The legislative establishment of the Scottish
Parliament gave a distinct and separate constitutional and political
existence to Scotland within in the Union which along with England
it had ceased to have as from 1707. The legislative establishment
of the Welsh Assembly gave a distinct and separate constitutional
and political existence to Wales within the Union which it had
never previously had throughout its history. What is more, as
is explicit in the legislation itself, both the Scottish Parliament
and the Welsh Assembly were designated the parliament and the
assembly as of distinct nations within the Union. That is also
stated expressly in the prefaces to the devolution white papers
by Blair, Dewer and Davies.There is no evidence in what I have
seen as yet from the minutes of your Committee that this fundamental
aspect of the legislation has been noticed and understood. The
Devolution legislation in other words essentially changed the
terms of the Act of Union 1707. In a word, its impact is itself.
Unless the British Parliament members understand what was enacted
in 1997-98, no inquiry it holds will be meaningful. As it reads,
your wording in the Call for Evidence does not indicate that that
understanding has been reached.
England's Parliament however, in cold contrast.
was not re-established. England was not given the distinct and
separate constitutional and political existence within the Union
accorded to Scotland and Wales. England alone of the three nations
of this island has no political and constitutional existence.
Its distinct nationhood has had no political and constitutional
recognition. Therefore the Act of Union of 1707, with one very
significant exception, de facto applies in its fullness
in terms of who rules it only to England. I say "de facto"
because the 1997-98 legislation conceded only "permissive
autonomy" (Trench 2005), it did not set up a federation.
Theoretically the UK Parliament can abolish the Scottish Parliament
and the Welsh and NI Assemblies. De facto, it will not.
The significant exception mentioned in how the Act of Union applies
to England is the legislative decision of the 1997-98 (NB. not
"consequence" but "decision") legislation
that the 1707 power of England's MPs to legislate for Scotland
and Wales was widely restricted whereas the 1707 power of Scotland's
and Wales's MPs to legislate for England was not.
This is now known as the West Lothian Question.
If it were called what it actually is, namely English MPs' legislative
powers over Scotland and Wales widely restricted, those of Scottish
and Welsh MPs over England fully maintained (a mouthful but a
fact), the inequality would be more popularly appreciated.
The WL issue contradicts the most fundamental
principle of representative democracy on which the English Parliament
(in its 500 year old history prior to 1707) and then the British
Parliament since 1707 was based and by which it operated. The
1997-98 legislation formally abolished representative democracy
as the inviolable and untouchable first principle of government.
The UK parliament showed itself willing to abolish the very basis
on which first the English Parliament and then itself were constituted.
Representative democracy however, still applies in the Scottish
Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly even though it did not originate
in either. Not however in England and in the UK Parliament. By
virtue of what is understood by the WL issue Scottish MPs can
be both ministers and legislators, even Prime Minister, Chancellor
of the Exchequer and Home Secretary, in English matters without
being answerable in elections for their actions in those matters
to any electorate, either in Scotland or in England.
This is democratically a disgraceful and shameful
situation. I stress, however, that it is not a "consequence"
of the 1997-98 legislation but is the legislation. Tragically
there would appear to have been a total absence of understanding
and intelligent reflection on the part of MPs of all parties during
the passage of that legislation with the exception of the member
whose constituency was made memorable by the disgrace and shame
the matter constitutes. What is noticeable is that still the vast
majority of MPs and all three parties exhibit no obviously genuine
concern about it at all except where it affects their constituents.
The principle at stake does not appear to be one that causes them
much concern. The WL issue is another of the ways in which the
ancient principles and liberties on which we believed governance
in this country was founded are being abolished.
What compounds the injustice to England is that
the UK Parliament excluded the people of England from any say
in what devolution would consist in as well as in whether it would
happen. The Scots living in Scotland and the Welsh living in Wales
had their referenda. Of course, with both the referenda were organised
to do their best to get the vote the Government wanted. Scots
living outside of Scotland and Welsh living outside of Wales were
excluded for the reason that the Government knew the votes of
either could have, in the case of Scotland, dented the majority
and in the case of Wales denied a majority. The experience of
living in England might have proved unsupportive. Most likely,
given the extremely narrow outcome, it would have stopped Welsh
devolution in its tracks. And the Welsh referendum was purposely
arranged to follow upon the Scottish by a whole week. The Scottish
outcome was assured, not least because only a majority vote of
any amount was needed. But the Government knew that the feeling
in Wales was very lukewarm. It looked to an assured Scottish outcome
to provide a momentum. The deeper purpose for the week's delay
however was something else. The Scottish proponents of Scottish
devolution: Gordon Brown who was the main engine driving it, Alistair
Darling, Donald Dewar, Des Browne, Robin Cook, Helen Liddell and
so on knew all too well that a Yes vote in Wales was essential
for their venture. Scotland would have looked very isolated, if
it alone had got devolution. A No vote in Wales would have placed
Scotland out on a very lonely limb indeed within the Union if
it alone was going to get not just the huge degree of Home Rule
it had voted itself with its referendum but all the immense benefits
which it is now bestowing on itself and which are denied to the
people of England. Scotland needed the Welsh to vote for devolution
to justify the very new status it had now obtained by itself and
for itself within the Union. All in all, the above mentioned Scottish
leaders of New Labour played an absolute blinder. They had their
English parliamentary colleagues paralysed, supine and docile
by a sense of guilt for being the dominant force since 1707, which
they exploited to the full in the light of the Thatcher years.
One has to hand it to Brown and his men in a way. They got Home
Rule for Scotland in some 70% plus of governance while continuing
to be eager recipients not just of English subsidies but also
of the Barnett Formula and still able to be ministers in every
department for England and vote on every single English issue.
They even had it agreed that Scottish Westminster MPs, 70% of
whose constituency duties had been taken of their hands and handed
to MSPs, continued to get a full MP's salary. Of course, without
that measure Scottish devolution would never have got through.
Salaries matters. There can be no denying it, Brown and co pulled
off the smartest coup in the whole 300 years of the Union. Little
wonder he is now the ardent evangelist of Britain and Britishness.
Britain as it stands serves Scotland very well indeed. In 1989
Brown with Darling and many other Scottish MPs and MEPs in 1989
signed the Scottish claim of right pledging themselves to "put
the interests of Scotland first and foremost in everything they
did". It is a pledge they have faithfully and effectively
carried out ever since. It was a totally unconstitutional pledge
for any British MP to take.
The 1997-98 legislation excluded the people
of England from any say in these fundamental political and constitutional
changes of the Union to which their country belonged. It excluded
them from any say in allowing the Scots and the Welsh to have
Home Rule, in different degrees, from which at the same time their
English MPs were allowed any input. It excluded them from any
say in the new situation where MPs from Scotland, and to a lesser
degree from Wales, can be ministers for their internal English
affairs and can vote on those internal affairs without reciprocation.
It would not be wise for any member of the Justice Committee to
argue that the people of England vested their MPs with this say
on their behalf because such an argument would have denied the
relevant referenda to the peoples of Scotland and Wales.
The "impact of devolution at the UK level"
(Call for Evidence) was therefore, first and foremost, and by
deliberate design, to alter the relationship of "the constituent
parts of the UK" (ditto) both to the UK Parliament itself
and to each other. That is not some "consequence for the
United Kingdom's constitution" (ditto) of devolution but
its intent and achievement. Home Rule was accorded to Scotland
to a very large measure and in major matters. Likewise to Wales
and NI but less so. None at all to England. England is the only
part of the UK still ruled in its entirety and in every detail
by the UK government. Furthermore, by virtue of their national
institutions, Scotland, Wales and NI now have a distinct and separate
political and constitutional existence. Their distinct nationhoods
have been given political and constitutional recognition. England
however, alone of the three nations of this island, does not constitutionally
exist. The Union therefore is essentially, per se, unbalanced.
As a consequence the centre cannot and will not hold. The legislative,
and thereby institutional, discrimination of the 1997-98 devolution
settlement against England and the English nation is the canker
within the Union which will dissolve it. There can be no other
outcome—unless the appropriate action is taken in time.
Discrimination against a nation, institutionalised in the 1997-98
legislation, is wrong. The legislation of 1997-98 was an instance
of unmitigated selfishness on the part of its proponents, the
main ones whom I have mentioned above, in that it put the advantage
of their country Scotland first and foremost at the expense of
the British Union. They sowed the wind, the Union now reaps the
whirlwind.
There are a number of very important consequences
of the 1997-98 Devolution Settlement which have had a very considerable
impact upon the UK. Some of them both further and flow from the
institutional discrimination of the Settlement legislation itself.
Such as issues over prescriptions, university fees, personal care
for the elderly, the community charge, the different administrations
of the NHS, nurses' and police pay. You know them. They are the
visible and outwards signs of the institutional discrimination
which the legislation itself is. They are the issues which are
de facto causing the bulk of the resentment among the English
people about the Union. Other consequences are equally normal.
Once the distinct and separate nationhoods of the Scots and the
Welsh were given institutional and political recognition, in an
act of departure from the Act of Union, it is only to be expected
that the political parties representing the Scottish and Welsh
nations found themselves with a platform on which to insist on
power and for that power to be extended. The belief expressed
by the 1997 government leaders that devolution would put an end
to the desire for more power, especially independence, was shown
to be what it actually was, a dismal failure to understand. Similarly
it is only to be expected that the other UK parties in Scotland
and Wales, feeling the cold air of nationalism blowing in their
faces, move towards alignment with it. The first rule of political
parties is to exist and survive. The other rule, indistinguishable
from the first, is for their politicians to take whatever steps
as are necessary to keep their positions, their careers and their
salaries. As we know from evolution, adaptation is the only way
to ensure survival.
I have directed your attention to the essential
nature of the devolution legislation, namely it revoked the Act
of Union, it revoked the concept of one British nation with one
legislative body and one government, it revoked the principle
of representative democracy, it unbalanced the Union by placing
England, Scotland and Wales each in a different relationship to
the Union and to each other, and it institutionalised discrimination
against the people of England, indeed in part against Wales too
but essentially far less so of course. The essence of the legislation
was predicated on advantage to Scotland. It did right, it behaved
progressively, in giving home rule to Scotland and Wales and in
giving formal constitutional recognition to the distinct nationhood
of the Welsh and the Scottish. It did a grave wrong in institutionally
and legislatively treating Wales as subsidiary to Scotland; a
much greater wrong of course in its treatment of England.
England is not just some employment park of
huge proportions or trading estate or car park or shopping mall
providing the platform for politicians to be of international
notice and the Treasury on which to draw. England is itself. It
is not Britain. It is not Scotland, it is not Wales. It is the
oldest unified state and nation in Europe. It has its own deeply
loved people, landscape, countryside and coastline with their
own profound cultural, spiritual, economic, scientific, industrial
and political history and contribution. Certain politicians and
certain institutions prefer to deny it its separate identity and
lose it somehow in the notion of "Britain" while proclaiming
the distinctiveness of Scotland and Wales at every turn. That
was the very nature of the 1997-98 legislation; it is now the
motivation behind the present drive of government to insist on
Britishness. It is gravely wrong, it is gravely discriminatory,
it will not succeed, it will in fact destroy the Union. We will
not put up with a "Britishness" and a "Union"
which discriminates against us and works to suppress our identity.
It is not fair. Each of the three historic nations of this island
must stand in the same relationship to the Union and to each other
if the Union is to survive.
What I have described we know as the West Lothian
Question and the English Question. The latter is the fact that
unlike Scotland and Wales the 1997-98 legislation gave no home
rule to England, no English Executive, no separate parliament
formed by English MPs (EMPs) elected in a separate election. On
13 or 14 November 2007 you took oral evidence from Professor Robert
Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit. I have not been able
to find the minute of that evidence, it exists of course but as
of yesterday and today 7 January I cannot find it on the internet.
However, Professor Hazell has been reported as stating to you:
"the closest to a complete answer to the West Lothian Question
is a separate English Parliament".
I am fortunate to have the acquaintance of Professor
Hazell. Together he and my colleagues in the campaign have debated
the issue of an English Parliament and the way forward for devolution
for England ever since he set up, with generous grants from UK
institutions, The Constitution Unit located in Tavistock Square
as part of UCL, in the politics department of which he holds a
chair. In the year 2000 he gave the State of the Union Speech
to the first general meeting of the Unit, its council and its
advisory board, peopled by the great and the good of politics
and academia. That lecture should be read by all your committee
members, as indeed should the 2005 book edited by his colleague
Professor Trench and his own 2006 collection of statements titled
The English Question. To a degree the lecture is a fair
presentation of both the WLQ and the EQ but it suffers the drawback
of being representative of the founding principle of the Constitution
Unit that it would not support any solution to either the WLQ
and EQ based on England as a distinct political unit and nation
with its own separate political institution, above all an English
Parliament. We met up with Hazell and his academic colleagues
on many interesting occasions such as Jefferies, Curtice, McLean,
Trench, Russell and Lodge.
However, for all its acceptance of the political
and constitutional case for an English Parliament, the Constitution
Unit does not support it. It still is where it started (cf
its 2000 State of the Union lecture), namely hankering after the
division of England into regions, still hoping against hope that
somehow, sometime, maybe "in 20 years", the four to
one rejection of them by the people of England's North East cities
and counties in 2004 will be revoked. A lot could be said about
this attitude but just two statements might serve best. Will Hutton,
economist and head of the Industrial Unit, writing in the Observer
well described what the policy of the regionalisation of England
actually implied: "A veritable witches' brew of internecine
rivalries". My own statement is that England like Scotland
and Wales, is one nation, indeed the oldest unified nation in
Europe. It should not be balkanised. Its nationhood should be
respected. That does not seem a lot to ask for. When devolution
is accorded to it, as in due course it will, it should be as to
a nation, precisely as devolution was accorded to Scotland and
Wales. The Scottish MPs who were the backbone of the Scottish
Constitutional Convention which demanded a Scottish Parliament,
such as the present British Prime Minister and Chancellor of the
Exchequer, did not propose the balkanisation of Scotland into
regions even though culturally and linguistically there could
well be a case. The Islands and Highlands is linguistically and
culturally very distinct, the Orkneys and Shetlands have their
own Nordic (historically non-Scottish) history and culture, the
Lowlands linguistically and genetically are Anglian, the Central
Belt is different from all the rest. One can find reasons for
anything. That is the way we are. It is interesting however how
the break-up of England into regions has become so attractive
in recent years, i.e. since 1997-98, to specific sections of the
UK political establishment.
Professor Hazell, in the same breath as when
he acknowledged that a separate English Parliament was the only
complete answer to the West Lothian Question, gave as his reason
for not supporting it that it lacked public support. It was somewhat
unacademic of him to make that assertion. Three opinion polls
conducted by the best of organisations contradict it flatly. The
July Mori Ipsos Poll registered 41% for an English parliament,
the January 2007 BBC poll registered a 61% support for it in England
with 51% in Scotland and 48% in Wales, and the ICM poll conducted
for the Observer November 2006 registered 68% in support.
I have myself in the recent past brought those polling figures
to Professor Hazell's attention.
You will find our arguments fully presented
in two CEP booklets, both of which have been sent to all members
of your Committee: Devolution for England. A Critique of the
Conservative Party Policy of English Votes on English Matters
and the English Question. Chapter 3 of the latter I am
including as an appendix. From the former I quote a summary of
our arguments:
The Union has changed and changed for good.
Devolution within the Union on the basis of distinct nations is
a fact of life. The tide of history cannot be reversed. The clock
cannot be turned back. Devolution cannot be abolished. The two
principles on which it is founded constitute a very sound and
sensible way in which to run a state which is a union of nations,
which both factually and legalistically is precisely what the
United Kingdom is. Those two principles, the genuine distribution
of real power from the centre to constituent parts and that distribution
being based on nationhood, now require application to the English
nation.
The advantages for the Union will be immense.
If English matters were the business of a separate English Parliament
as in Scotland and Wales, the British Parliament would then have
more time to concentrate on the important national and international
matters that are genuinely British matters because they concern
the whole of the UK, namely the issues that are reserved to it.
Every Union MP would have total equality with each other and would
have an undivided interest in the subjects under consideration.
Ministers would have greater time to devote to issues affecting
the destiny of the United Kingdom and preserving its interests
internationally. It would be quite strange of any political party
to think that the Parliament of a Union of 60 million people dealing
with such huge issues as defence, foreign affairs, international
trade, taxation, internal defence against terrorism and immigration
can be part time. The new Union Parliament would require a smaller
but much more focussed and dedicated membership with the devolved
affairs of the constituent nations being dealt separately by the
legislative institutions of those nations. Courage, common sense
and vision are now required. No political party should fossilise
itself through an attachment to a bygone age. All must be open
to change within a changed Union.
The resolution of all these issues lies with
a two tier United Kingdom legislative system. The Union Parliament
will be one tier. The other will be the parliaments of each of
the three historic nations of the island of Britain and an assembly
for the province of those six of the eight counties of the Irish
province of Ulster which are part of the UK. The relationship
of the three national parliaments and the six counties assembly
to the Union Parliament can take two forms. It can be the same
as presently enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh
Assembly, namely a relationship of "permissive autonomy"
(Alan Trench. The Dynamics of Devolution. The State of the
Nations 2000 page 138). In this relationship, which is our
tradition, the UK Parliament is legally empowered not just to
strike out any act of legislation of a devolved body but also
to abolish the devolved body itself. Our tradition is that Parliament
is supreme. The 1998 devolution legislation has not changed that
in any way. It might be said to be a uniquely British system of
democratic government. The alternative is the federal relationship
which would involve a written constitution for the United Kingdom
that would legally enshrine the powers of the nations and the
province that form the United Kingdom. Either constitutes genuine
devolution.
There can be no question that devolution to
England on the same principles as devolution to Scotland and Wales,
namely its own parliament, will require vision and commitment.
However, the devolution legislation of 1998 contained the germ
of a very new and very democratic vision of what Britain can be.
Historically Britain has been a very centralised state. Power
has been excessively centralised for many centuries in London,
so much so that since the Act of Union none of the three historic
nations of this island effectively had any degree of self-government
at all. For 300 years not one of them even had any political and
constitutional existence whatsoever. It has been a very unnatural
state of affairs. It has been a version of a Union which brooked
no challenges to centralised power, when decentralisation could
have been a vibrant catalyst for political and cultural innovation.
It might have seemed all right in an age of Empire expansion and
recurring wars. It is now out of date. There is now a political
and cultural vibrancy in this island that demands change. There
is a throbbing awareness of distinct national identities rooted
in our history which is irresistibly insisting on their own political
expression. It is a new form of Unionism we are encountering.
It should not be opposed or suppressed. It is no threat. It should
be embraced.
Its enactment should be achieved with commonsense.
No one wants more government. No one wants more politicians. No
one wants to spend any more money on either. Unfortunately the
devolution programme of 1998 took a form which carefully avoided
anything that disturbed, even threatened to disturb, the existing
salaries and ministerial prospects of UK MPs in any way whatsoever.
Otherwise it is likely it wouldn't have got through so smoothly,
if at all. The parliamentary payroll paid for by the taxpayer
was added to by 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 60
Members of the Welsh Assembly in the form of salaries, expenses
and paid assistants. Yet, even though the MSPs took over the responsibilities
of the Secretaries of State for both Scotland and Wales, both
Offices were retained as were their place in the Cabinet, and
with them their salaries. Likewise the range of Government portfolios
available to MPs was retained in full. The devolution proposals
made by the Scottish Constitutional Convention and implemented
in 1998 were designed to preserve the career prospects of its
country's MPs at Westminster and Scotland's ability to legislate
in English matters. They were designed both to transfer as much
power over Scotland back to Scotland as was feasible with remaining
within the Union and to maintain its power and influence within
the Union to the maximum. The Members of the Scottish Parliament
took over the majority percentage of the constituency duties of
the Scottish Members of the UK Parliament, yet the salaries of
the latter were likewise retained in full. As the responsibilities
of the Members of the Welsh Assembly are not as extensive, the
issue for Welsh MPs is not as serious, but it is there.
There is no way this can be repeated when England
gets its own parliament. Probably Scotland and Wales got away
with it because they make up only 13.5% of the UK population,
but with England being 84% it simply will not be tolerated. Neither
is it at all necessary. Devolution does not increase the size
of the population. The collective number of MPs, Union and English
Parliament, must not be increased unless there is a clear and
defensible benefit in it for the paying electorate. The cost of
government must not be determined by the pockets of the people
who govern us. There therefore should be no need to increase the
amount of parliamentary representation, the number of politicians
or cost of government. That should be the iron law of all devolution,
or at the very least the aspiration and the ideal. The public
which foots the bill will not put up with anything else.
There is one standard objection made by those
who oppose devolution to England. It is that of the size of England's
population. The Constitution Unit expresses it as follows:
An English Parliament would appear to be a
neat solution to the fundamental asymmetry in the devolution arrangements.
It would create a federation of the four historic nations of the
UK. The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England in
comparison with the rest of the UK England with four fifths of
the population will be hugely dominant. On most domestic matters
the English Parliament will be more important than the Westminster
parliament. No federation has operated successfully where one
of the units is dominant". (The English Question
2006 chapter 11 R Hazell p224).
The objection is two-fold, that within a devolved
UK England with its own parliament would be dominant, and on domestic
matters, an English Parliament would be more important than the
Union Parliament.
The reply to both objections is straightforward.
Ever since the start of the Union 300 years ago England for the
very reason the objectors provide has always been "hugely
dominant". That demographically, economically and geographically
is what England is within the Union, yet the Union has been very
successful. One can only wonder why it should become a problem
now. As for an English Parliament being more important than Westminster
on most domestic matters, well that is precisely what devolution
intends. That is what devolution is about. It is called the principle
of subsidiarity. It is precisely the situation in the devolved
Scotland. Mr Blair and Mr Dewer spelt all that out very clearly
in their preambles to the devolution white papers. Curiously,
the Constitution Unit does not appear to have grasped what is
after all the very point of devolution, namely self-government
where domestic matters are concerned.
There are two other errors in this Constitution
Unit statement which are relevant to the issue before us. It refers
to "four historic nations". However, there are only
three in the UK: England, Scotland and Wales. The six counties
of Northern Ireland which are within the UK do not constitute
a nation. They are not even a province. The Irish province of
Ulster consists of eight counties, two of which are in the Republic.
And the 45% of the six counties who are Catholic consider themselves
to be part of the Irish nation. Secondly, English devolution need
not necessitate a federal system. As has already been pointed
out, an English Parliament would just as easily exist within the
devolution system of "permissive autonomy" as do the
Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly at present. Permissive
autonomy in fact is our tradition (cf A Trench. Op cit.)
An English Parliament established on the same principles of the
Scottish Parliament will constitutionally and legally have powers
and responsibilities as decided by the Union Parliament, restricted
to matters internal to England precisely as those of the Scottish
Parliament are restricted to matters internal to Scotland. The
supremacy of the Union Parliament over its constituent parts remains,
established in law and unchallengeable in law; and its remit will
be precisely as it itself has already been decided for Scotland,
namely those matters which affect the welfare and security of
the population of the Union as a whole.
England is what England is. It is the size it
was at the Act of Union. England has always been dominant in the
Union. It cannot be anything else. The Union of 1707 was then
what it is now, a union of nations, one of which was then and
is now four fifths of the Union population; and therefore England
has always been "hugely dominant"; and that fact has
not stopped the Union being a success for the past 300 years.
England is over 60% of the landmass and 84% of the population
whichever way anyone twists, turns, interprets and spins the Union.
England's dominance in terms of population has never before been
put up as a constitutional problem. It is difficult not to conclude
that it is now being made an issue of in order to oppose devolution
being granted to England.
The Scottish people are in the Union by choice.
In their judgement union with their more populous partner has
been well worth it. The English people run a very open society.
They have made their politics, their media, their financial institutions,
their public services and every single one of their commercial
institutions available to all-comers on the basis of talent. England
has always opened all its doors to people seeking work and opportunities
from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and in recent years from plenty
of other countries too. England's wealth, institutions and achievements
have always been open to all citizens of the Union. England's
size is historically and constitutionally of the very nature of
the Union Parliament at Westminster. That is what the Union is.
However, there is another aspect to this objection
it which needs to be considered. There is the possible implication
that England with its own parliament will be able to exercise
more power either over or than the other constituent nations of
the Union. However, the reality will be that the very opposite
will be the outcome. It will indeed be the establishment of an
English Parliament, its powers constitutionally restricted to
domestic English matters, which will reduce even further any possibility
of English dominance within the Union. England will not be able
to interfere in the internal affairs of Scotland and Wales. Their
internal affairs will be constitutionally reserved solely to the
jurisdiction of their own parliaments without fear of interference
not just by England but also by the Union Parliament itself. The
outcome will be a very balanced, stable and harmonious Union.
The time has finally come for the distinct voice
of the people of England to be heard. The voice of the people
of Scotland resounded in its Scottish Constitutional Convention
and it was listened to. Its voice now rings out clearly and independently
through the instrument of its own Parliament. The voice of Wales
is now heard loud and clear in the instrument of its Assembly.
It has made the declaration that its Assembly is the Forum for
all the concerns of the Welsh nation. Yet England has no such
voice, it knows no such existence, its distinct historic identity
has been submerged within that of Britishness; and large sections
of the British political and academic Establishment are united
in their antagonism to England being recognised for what it historically
is, the oldest unified nation in Europe, intellectually and culturally
among its most vibrant and successful, and being given the political
recognition they have been willing, indeed eager, to give to Scotland
and Wales.
An English Parliament definitively resolves
both the West Lothian Question and the English Question while
at the same time it will not only maintain the Union but in fact
will renew it, strengthen it and make it relevant in our post
1998 devolution era. It will secure an harmonious and equal relationship
of the Union's nations and province to each other and to its Parliament.
It will satisfy the requirement that all members of the British
Parliament maintain full equality with each other. It provides
in other words a sensible and workable form for the policy of
English-votes-on-English-matters to take. England will have the
same degree of self government as Scotland. We are on the very
cusp of a new Union, different from the old as our times now require;
but equally strong and vibrant.
However, such an achievement requires general
consent. The present government and a large section of the cultural
and academic UK Establishment are strongly opposed to any form
of devolution for England as a nation despite granting devolution
to both Scotland and Wales on the basis of their distinct nationhood.
There is a deep-rooted mindset of hostility to England in many
quarters.
England is just at the beginning of the process
of working out the devolution it wants to have. There is the question
of: the location of an English Parliament, its Executive and its
Civil Service, possibly even its Judiciary; the size both of an
English Parliament and of the Union Parliament; what form elections
should take such as PR as in the case of the Scottish Parliament
and the Welsh Assembly; what form local government in England
will take, be it the counties, or regional assemblies or unitary
local councils; how much power can be devolved to them in the
interests of a revival of local democracy and local identities,
cultures and traditions. With open-mindedness and commitment,
learning from what has been experienced and achieved by our fellow
citizens in Scotland and Wales, cooperating fully with all UK
ministries, the democratic prospects and possibilities are exciting
and immense.
The great English mystic, artist, poet and writer
William Blake etched a line into one of his engravings: "Liberty
shall stand upon the cliffs of Albion". That must be our
goal.
Michael Knowles
Campaign for an English Parliament
January 2008
|
