With recent polls showing a stronger national will than ever for the break-up of the United Kingdom, what are the implications for the future?
Is this image a thing of the past?
After coming to power in 1997, Tony Blair had a terrible idea on how to deal with the rising tide of nationalism facing the four segments of the UK. After holding a referendum, the votes were counted in favour of devolution in differing degrees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The latter was a complete disaster. Centuries old differences between the Protestant and Catholic communities which had led to decades of terrorism, criminal networking, prostitution, drugs and arms trafficking, were obviously never going to be resolved for a home assembly - a ridiculous and short minded act. So it stands, devolution for Northern Ireland would have to be suspended till further notice in 2000. Lessons were not to be learned though. After being reinstated in 2001, it would go through two further 24-hour suspensions that year till its final suspension in October 2002 till present.
Wales was not the greatest of successes either. Devolution was to be welcomed so lukewarm there that the Welsh National Assembly was created with virtually no powers at all, lacking any fiscal or legislative strength, which have been retained by Westminster - a complete waste of national funds.
And now is where the real problem of devolution has come about: Scotland. Despite the enactment of devolution being in 1998, the Scottish Parliament took another four years, not till late 2002, to complete building their house of Parliament. This in itself is not a problem. The real problem lies in the fact that as each delayed year passed, so the money needed to finance the project soared. The estimated cost of public funding to the building work stands at £431,000,000, and this is before all contractor agreements have been settled.
Fortunately, there was redemption in the success of the devolved Scottish Parliament. A mixed member proportional system of voting has led to greater democracy is Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, with a government as fair and representative as it can be. They have also passed much lasting legislature throughout their few years as an independent executive. These include free further education, various wildlife conservation schemes, greater financing to public and emergency services and many others of which showing up the rest of the UK’s legislative priorities.
Though with Scottish devolution, many other problems have occurred in the UK political system. The greatest and most well known of which must be the West Lothian Question. Put simply, only Scottish MPs may pass legislation in Scotland, yet England must have its legislature decided on by a mixture of English and Scottish MP’s, since there is no English Parliament, England being led by the UK Parliament in Westminster. Just one example of where this has become a major issue of debate would be the legislation of tuition fees in English further education. This was amended and passed through Parliament by a large majority of Scottish MP’s, whereas in Scotland Scottish MP’s voted against the bill allowing free further education for all. This ‘West Lothian Question’ leads to the argument of devolution for England, and even its regions.
And this is where the revolutionary change for the worse begins. In latest polls by the ICM for the Sunday Telegraph it has been found that over two thirds of England favour their own parliament, while 48% of voters go so far as supporting a complete break from Scotland for English independence. Furthermore, 45% of our Scottish neighbours agree. After years of subsidising the Scottish economy and health services, and bearing through the resentment of the West Lothian Question and its implications, England seems to finally have had enough. Scotland too, feels it is time for a break, tired of centuries of English cultural domination, with over half of Scots not willing to consider themselves British. Obviously, none of this would ever have happened if it was not for the careless, vote-grabbing and rushed application of devolution to the UK. Do not misunderstand this, decentralisation of power for the UK would not be a bad thing. Decentralisation of power is never a bad thing. As a nation unified for over three centuries we have come to forget that the United Kingdom is exactly that, and union of four nations. It is four very different nations with their own cultures, world-outlooks, languages, ideas of education and law, etc. It can only be a healthy thing to allow these differences to flourish in their own individual way.
Yet, the way in which the New Labour Government has gone about this has left resentment, flaws in the political system, inequality between the peoples of the UK, has wasted billions of pounds with much more to be inevitably wasted in the future, and what will be an overall fragmented and weakened country for all. Blair’s tactics on this issue have left us literally with the worst constitutional crisis of the last three hundred years, the break-up of the United Kingdom. And what would this result in? Four would replace every one British embassy around the world, the entire population of the UK would have to change nationality, obtain new passports and change money when crossing the border if one part of the former UK joined the Euro. The armed forces would be carved up, already in a weakened state as they are. Foreign policy and strength to defend national sovereignty from the European Union would be severely weakened. Oil reserves in the North Sea would be left solely the property of Scotland, and England’s financial hold with London would be withdrawn from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, etc. All in all, we are talking billions if not trillions of wasted pounds, followed by four extremely poorer, weakened and confused new nations.
So, we come to the question, in what way to we devolve power from Westminster, solving all the present systems problems while not breaking up the union? It is simple – federalisation. A state parliament for each of the four segments, including England, dealing with every detail of domestic legislation and judiciary, while a Westminster based executive deals with foreign policy and economy, as well as any problems to be solved in Northern Ireland. This would leave immense independence to all four nations in the UK, while not sacrificing our economic benefits for each other, as well as our strength globally as a union. In a utopian view, it could even signal the devolution of power to the various regions of these nations, further emphasising liberty and independence down the hierarchy to all peoples from everywhere. All still while remaining strong. It all seems so simple, yet only time will tell what decision future UK governments will take. Give up tradition and other sentimental ideas of ‘Great Britain’, as well as the politicians first for centralised power, and save the UK, or continue down the present road to total break-up?
Wales was not the greatest of successes either. Devolution was to be welcomed so lukewarm there that the Welsh National Assembly was created with virtually no powers at all, lacking any fiscal or legislative strength, which have been retained by Westminster - a complete waste of national funds.
And now is where the real problem of devolution has come about: Scotland. Despite the enactment of devolution being in 1998, the Scottish Parliament took another four years, not till late 2002, to complete building their house of Parliament. This in itself is not a problem. The real problem lies in the fact that as each delayed year passed, so the money needed to finance the project soared. The estimated cost of public funding to the building work stands at £431,000,000, and this is before all contractor agreements have been settled.
Fortunately, there was redemption in the success of the devolved Scottish Parliament. A mixed member proportional system of voting has led to greater democracy is Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, with a government as fair and representative as it can be. They have also passed much lasting legislature throughout their few years as an independent executive. These include free further education, various wildlife conservation schemes, greater financing to public and emergency services and many others of which showing up the rest of the UK’s legislative priorities.
Though with Scottish devolution, many other problems have occurred in the UK political system. The greatest and most well known of which must be the West Lothian Question. Put simply, only Scottish MPs may pass legislation in Scotland, yet England must have its legislature decided on by a mixture of English and Scottish MP’s, since there is no English Parliament, England being led by the UK Parliament in Westminster. Just one example of where this has become a major issue of debate would be the legislation of tuition fees in English further education. This was amended and passed through Parliament by a large majority of Scottish MP’s, whereas in Scotland Scottish MP’s voted against the bill allowing free further education for all. This ‘West Lothian Question’ leads to the argument of devolution for England, and even its regions.
And this is where the revolutionary change for the worse begins. In latest polls by the ICM for the Sunday Telegraph it has been found that over two thirds of England favour their own parliament, while 48% of voters go so far as supporting a complete break from Scotland for English independence. Furthermore, 45% of our Scottish neighbours agree. After years of subsidising the Scottish economy and health services, and bearing through the resentment of the West Lothian Question and its implications, England seems to finally have had enough. Scotland too, feels it is time for a break, tired of centuries of English cultural domination, with over half of Scots not willing to consider themselves British. Obviously, none of this would ever have happened if it was not for the careless, vote-grabbing and rushed application of devolution to the UK. Do not misunderstand this, decentralisation of power for the UK would not be a bad thing. Decentralisation of power is never a bad thing. As a nation unified for over three centuries we have come to forget that the United Kingdom is exactly that, and union of four nations. It is four very different nations with their own cultures, world-outlooks, languages, ideas of education and law, etc. It can only be a healthy thing to allow these differences to flourish in their own individual way.
Yet, the way in which the New Labour Government has gone about this has left resentment, flaws in the political system, inequality between the peoples of the UK, has wasted billions of pounds with much more to be inevitably wasted in the future, and what will be an overall fragmented and weakened country for all. Blair’s tactics on this issue have left us literally with the worst constitutional crisis of the last three hundred years, the break-up of the United Kingdom. And what would this result in? Four would replace every one British embassy around the world, the entire population of the UK would have to change nationality, obtain new passports and change money when crossing the border if one part of the former UK joined the Euro. The armed forces would be carved up, already in a weakened state as they are. Foreign policy and strength to defend national sovereignty from the European Union would be severely weakened. Oil reserves in the North Sea would be left solely the property of Scotland, and England’s financial hold with London would be withdrawn from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, etc. All in all, we are talking billions if not trillions of wasted pounds, followed by four extremely poorer, weakened and confused new nations.
So, we come to the question, in what way to we devolve power from Westminster, solving all the present systems problems while not breaking up the union? It is simple – federalisation. A state parliament for each of the four segments, including England, dealing with every detail of domestic legislation and judiciary, while a Westminster based executive deals with foreign policy and economy, as well as any problems to be solved in Northern Ireland. This would leave immense independence to all four nations in the UK, while not sacrificing our economic benefits for each other, as well as our strength globally as a union. In a utopian view, it could even signal the devolution of power to the various regions of these nations, further emphasising liberty and independence down the hierarchy to all peoples from everywhere. All still while remaining strong. It all seems so simple, yet only time will tell what decision future UK governments will take. Give up tradition and other sentimental ideas of ‘Great Britain’, as well as the politicians first for centralised power, and save the UK, or continue down the present road to total break-up?
