GORDON Brown put sorting out the loose ends of constitutional reform as one of the objectives of the Government, and boldly so.
Dabbling in constitutional matters is rarely popular and public interest is disappointingly low. But these difficult and complex matters need to be addressed.
The Prime Minister is soon to publish a Bill on constitutional reform which, among other
things, will consider the future of the House of Lords, whether parliament should take the decision to go to war, and even the issue of flag-flying. I hope to add my own contribution on the future structure of the Union.
There appear to be three constitutional options for the UK. The first, an integrated British unitary state, is no longer a realistic choice. The second, independence for the four parts of the Union, would be a damaging solution, and is anyway opposed by an overwhelming majority in each of the four countries. Breaking the most successful Union in history, both in political and economical terms, would have disastrous consequences for each part. The only other stable solution, drawing from existing structures of government around the world, is some form of federalism.
Federations across the world are some of the most stable and sustainable structures of governance. They facilitate stability in large countries with major regional divergence. Many, such as India and Malaysia, consist of states with individually unique histories and culture. Indeed, federalism may be a good solution for some African countries, whose borders where drawn artificially during the colonial era and now face problems due to their ethnic composition; the Democratic Republic of Congo is currently considering such a structure, and it might be a solution for Kenya too.
The four countries of the UK have more in common with each other – culturally, historically, geographically and in many other ways – than many federations around the world. Adopting such a political structure, carefully crafted and adapted to our specific needs and heritage, should be the direction we drive toward, in order to achieve a stable, just and sensible solution to the constitutional question. We are already moving step by step towards that structure.
So how would it work? There would still be a UK Parliament at which Scots, English and Welsh MPs would meet and decide on matters such as the economy, foreign affairs, defence and social security. But legislative powers could be devolved to some kind of English forum in the same areas as they currently are to Scotland. That could either be a new English Parliament or an English Grand Committee of the House of Commons.
Federalism in the UK is usually dismissed because England's size would make it a somewhat asymmetrical federation. However, almost all other successful federations around the world are asymmetrical. Nearly 60% of Australians live in two of the country's eight states and territories, and in economic terms these two states are even more dominant. In Canada, the prominence of Ontario and Quebec over the other 11 provinces and territories is even more striking. The states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are together responsible for nearly half the GDP of the 26-states-strong Brazilian federation. Even Switzerland, with 26 tiny cantons, has some substantially more powerful than others.
Another factor which would help would be a reconsideration of English regional assemblies. I am not suggesting that legislative powers similar to Scotland can be handed to them, but a form of administrative devolution – as was initially the case in Wales – would be a start. Despite the failure of the 2004 referendum in the north east, it may well be that the success of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has changed English minds.
More generally speaking, the case for localism is on the rise. Consumption of local food produce is in vogue; localism in architecture, art and design is trendy; even localised electricity generation, we are told, is more efficient and less wasteful. Devolved administrations thus achieve improved efficiency both politically and in management terms, and reflect nuanced regional differences more accurately.
Devolution is being misrepresented by separatists as a hybrid, interim solution. The fact is devolution is a comprehensive and coherent philosophy which argues some policy areas are better decided and scrutinised regionally rather than nationally. Some form of federalism is a more sensible, stable and proper solution.
George Foulkes is a Labour Lothians list MSP and also sits in the House of Lords
