The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Will Cameron answer the English question?

The promise of greater powers for Scotland means Cameron cannot avoid the issue of English devolutio

By George Eaton Published 20 February 2012 12:25

David Cameron's offer of further devolution for Scotland hasn't been well received by everyone. In today's Scotsman, the former Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth, one of the Tories' Unionist attack dogs, accuses Cameron of playing into the SNP's hands. He points out, reasonably enough, that Cameron has undermined Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who was elected on a promise of no further devolution, and complains that the PM has allowed the debate to shift from independence to "devo max".

"If this is a tactic, it is a tactic that plays into Alex's hands, because the very last thing he wants is people actually talking about what independence would mean," he says.

But Forsyth doesn't confront the danger that denying Scotland greater powers only increases the attractiveness of independence. If Scots conclude that the only way to achieve fiscal autonomy is to vote Yes to secession, the Union may well be doomed.

It's a risk that ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie recognises in his persuasive piece in today's Guardian. He writes:

[T]he UK will be kept together by ensuring that voters normally get the type of government they vote for. Current arrangements are unsustainable. You can't have responsible government in Holyrood when, as now, MSPs control 60% of public expenditure in Scotland but only raise 6% of tax revenues. Devolution that ensures Scotland has to balance its budget is not another step towards independence but a final step towards a sustainable settlement.

He also urges Cameron to take up the mantle of devolution for England. An English Parliament, as I've argued before, is a non-starter - Westminster would never allow the creation of so powerful a counterweight - but the government could introduce ""English votes for English laws", a reform that would amount to the creation of an English Parliament within Westminster. As Montgomerie writes: "The quid pro quo for introducing devo plus north of the border must be English votes for English laws south of the border." Every Conservative manifesto since devolution has included a pledge to introduce this reform, and a government commission is currently examining the issue.

As Pete Hoskin argues at Coffee House, this is fertile territory for Labour as well as the Tories. The UK is now neither a unitary nor a federal state and its largest constituent group - the English - feels increasingly unrepresented.

But it's not hard to see why Ed Miliband's party remains resistant to English devolution. Deprived of the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs, a future Labour government could struggle to pass contentious legislation. Alternatively, a future Labour opposition could face what Montgomerie calls a Tory "supermajority". Were non-English MPs excluded from voting on devolved issues, the Tories would currently have a majority of 63. For this reason, among others, Labour has already denounced the West Loathian commission as "partisan tinkering with our constitutional fabric".

All of which means the federalist road is Cameron's for the taking.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Scottish independence

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

31 comments

Thu, 2012-02-23 11:24 — Drew Edward (not verified)

Even if the outcome of the independence referendum in Scotland is a No vote, Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs should be abolished to allow the devolved governments become the full time elected representatives even for reserved matters. Westminster holds the voting power in favour of English MPs anyway so the role of the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs is largely redundant. Westminster can then vote on UK matters after receiving the considered democratic view of the other home nations via their respected and strenghtened devolved parliaments, and neither of the four nations can interfere in each others domestic agenda. It would also save money on MPs expenses not having to travel to London.

Tue, 2012-02-21 23:05 — JoBro (not verified)

@Stephen Gash

I was considering getting worked up about your comments until I got as far as the word 'LibLabCON'.

For those not familiar with the term then try Googling it - it's a favourite buzzword amongst the BNP / EDL.

You wouldn't happen to be this Stephen Gash would you....

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Stephen_Gash

Thu, 2012-02-23 12:57 — Stephen Gash (not verified)

JoBro
I'm possibly the only one posting here who has stood against the BNP in elections. Why would I associate myself with anything British when I consider the British to be the worst enemies of the English?

I am not EDL because it is not in fact English but British. Nevertheless I support its campaign against Islamic extremism. However, I go much further in my aims than the EDL.

The "LibLabCON" was first coined by English nationalists, not British nationalists. The Johnny-come-lately BNP jumped on the bandwagon only after the expression gained considerable popularity. I wasn't aware that the EDL used the term.

Thu, 2012-02-23 13:16 — Stephen Gash (not verified)

JoBro
I cofounded SIOE whose slogan is "Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense".

I have campaigned and demonstrated many times against homophobia, mysogeny and the genocidal persecution of minorites in Muslim countries. I have continuously fought the lying Western media that openly propagandise war in Muslim countries then censot the outcomes. A typical case is Libya where Gaddafi's supporters were demonised, NATO ended up killing thousands of Libyans, so-called rebels brutally killed and tortured prisoners and now black people are being ethnically cleansed. Disgracefully, the state-funded BBC censors the post-Gaddafi atrocities, preferring to move on to stoking up another war in Syria.

It is perfectly sensible to ask why Saudi Arabia isn't using its brand new British jets and German tanks fighting Assad and also the "perverters of Islam" Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

To put this back into context with the article above. If each country comprising the United Kingdom had its own elected parliament, and if these devolved parliaments subsidised a federal UK parliament, there would be far fewer politicians and no illegal wars.

Tue, 2012-02-21 12:59 — Toque

No Cameron won't answer the English Question, because only the people of England can answer the English Question and he won't ask us.

Thu, 2012-02-23 14:25 — Stephen Gash (not verified)

Thomas McBride
I tried rebuffing your accusations several times but the post never appeared, so I'll try one last time with a shorter one.

You wrote "I have yet to meet one person who votes SNP out of some misguided anti-Anglican notion."

You obviously don't get out much.

Please name me one Scot, especially a politician, who had remarked that England is getting a raw deal from devolution. This is what I meant when I said devolution has exposed just what our "fellow Brits" think about we English.

Far from saying we are getting the rough end of the stick we are constantly told how much better Scots are at running Scotland and how much more compassionate they are. This efficiency and compassionate evaporates when Scots in the shape of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Alistair Darling, John Reid, Des Browne, Douglas Alexander etc etc bagpipe into England to mess up English affairs.

Because of these flagrant double-standards we English nationalists call the Scots the Clan Macakeneatit and the SNP is stereotypically Clan Macakeneatit with its devo-max that it arrogantly asserts is no business of the rest of the UK.

Mon, 2012-02-20 12:59 — Stephen Gash (not verified)

The Tories should have ignored the SNP's victory at Holyrood altogether, just as Scots-led Labour ignored and suppressed English opinion. Welshman John Prescott gave the people of Northumberland and County Durham (and also a little bit of Yorkshire) a referendum on regional assemblies. They were profoundly rejected by 78% of the voters. Labour blithely imposed them on the rest of England.

The Tories should not pander to the SNP they should quietly tell them to produce a majority of Scottish MP at Westminster, that is, 30 out of 59. Presently 31 Scots are MPs in English constituencies, so we English can reasonably demand that Scottish voters provide 30 SNP MPs at Westminster before we take any notice of their blackmailing. For that is what it is, blackmail. Of Scotland's 59 MPs 41 are Labour (maybe more now). That is because Scots voted for a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had signed the Scottish Claim of Right. They knew a Brown-led Labour government would continue shovelling jobs and money into Scotland. When Labour were trounced in England Scots voted for the blackmailing SNP and Cameron, being a total lightweight as Obama recognised, fell for it.

The SNP and Scots scoff at the Tories having just one MP in Scotland. Well the SNP's paltry six is nothing to crow about.

Scottish independence and especially devo-max are not matters for Scots alone.

Referenda should be held across the whole of the UK asking people of each country whether they too want independence.

At the very least the English should be given, this year, a referendum on an English parliament. We have been excluded as a nation from the devolution process, simply because the LibLabCON do not recognise the English as a nation.

Devolution has shown just how low our "fellow Brits" regard we English, and for that matter all but a handful of British MPs. The English come off worse on every measure, not least in democracy.

No self-respecting English person trusts the current rabble of MPs to fight England's corner come Scottish separation. We need an English parliament filled with England-loving English men and women to do that.

Will the warmongering British give us the opportunity? Not a chance. They care more about Libyans, Egyptians and Syrians getting fair government than they do the English.

Mon, 2012-02-20 13:41 — Mark Duffy (not verified)

The comments from Mr Gash maybe a bit on the extreme side, however his view that there should be an English Parliament voted for by the people of England, funded by the revenues and taxes of the people of England is exactly what the vast majority (over 60%) of Scots also want for Scotland.

We, in Scotland, do not think we are subsidised by England. Nor do we want to force our MP's voting on English laws (SNP MP's are required not to vote by Party rules on any issue in Parliament not related to Scotland) - the same is not to be said for Lib Dems, Labour or even Tories.

I think many people will vote for independence as they need a change in constitution. Ruth Davidson (leader of the Scottish Conservatives) said a line has been drawn in the sand, and this was as much power as Scotland would ever get, Mr Cameron (who is not her leader) is now arguing voting no in the referendum and there MAY be more powers!

So lets keep this about England and the lack of their referendum on a Federal UK.

Should England have its own Parliament, not the one in Westminster? Of course they should!

Should the nations of the UK become federalised? Of course they should, taxes made in England should stay in England, and of course Scotland and Wales.

Will Mr Cameron's "pig in a poke" stop a 50.1% vote to break up the union. I very much doubt it. And heaven help us all if a court in London says a democratic elected chamber in Scotland (based on PR)has no right to hold a referendum (that will lead to BAD things).

If Mr Cameron and his Lib Dems friends (whom of course favour this system as part of their parties constitution) got together and stole the debate, not about Scottish Independence but a UK Federal state, only foreign and defence held nationally. Then I think a massive majority of Brits would want this.

So its really up to "Call me Dave"!

Either he leads the fight saying vote No in Scotland and you will get this EXACTLY, or we will more than likely see Scotland break away from the UK completely.

The vote no and you may get more only leads to the SNP saying ,which I see today they have already, what exactly? The same defence the Unionists say about Independence.

Mon, 2012-02-20 14:11 — Thomas McBride (not verified)

@Stephen Gash

"Scottish independence and especially devo-max are not matters for Scots alone"

What a ridiculous statement.

I think you will find it is, in fact a matter for Scotland alone. Why should England, Wales or Northen Ireland get a say in whether Scotland gets Independance or even Devo Max? It is nothing to do with them. It is a matter of the people of Scotland (as it would be with any country seeking Independance). If other members of the UK want to follow suit, there is nothing stopping them from launching their own camapaign.

Also, may I add:

"Devolution has shown just how low our "fellow Brits" regard we English"

Ignorance at its finest. I have yet to meet one person who votes SNP out of some misguided anti-Anglican notion. I wish this idea would stop being flaunted about like it's a fact.

Tue, 2012-02-21 15:43 — Siôn Jones (not verified)

What is apparent is that the UK is coming apart at the seams. Salmond's very well defined and positively communicated vision of an independent Scotland contrasts so starkly with the negativity - the transparent lies and contradictory statements made so far by the unionists - that there will be only one result in 2014 - bye bye UK.

Cameron tried to paint a positive picture of the rosy future for a Scotland that has voted no to independence - but NOBODY in Scotland believed him. And in promising more powers, he left his Scottish NCO , Cpl Davidson, out to dry! It was apparent that not only had she not been consulted, she had not been informed of his intentions!

The other thin Cameron did was demolish the Status Quo as an option - the no option. Now this might well have been the preferred choice of the timid and feeble minded, but, it is no longer an option. He has shot himself in both feet with a single bullet. Good going even for a Tory Toff!

As for the English question - you will not find a Celtic nationalist that does not believe that England deserves better that the arrangement it has been dished out by Westminster. Westminster is not fit for purpose.

Mon, 2012-02-20 14:25 — Wyrdtimes

An English parliament may be a non starter for the British establishment - but how about letting the English decide the government best suited to our needs?

I'd argue that would be a parliament dedicated to working in the English interest - an English parliament. Why should the English settle for less?

Mon, 2012-02-20 14:36 — David B. Wildgoose (not verified)

@Thomas Bride

No, you're the one who has made the ridiculous statement. Independence may indeed be a matter for Scotland alone, but Devo-Max is altering Scotland's relations with England, Wales and Northern Ireland - and that is most definitely a matter for ALL those affected, not just Scotland alone.

Your arrogance in thinking otherwise really is "ignorance at its finest".

Mon, 2012-02-20 14:52 — Graeme (not verified)

"Loathian" for goodness sake.

Wed, 2012-02-22 22:19 — Chester Drawers (not verified)

@JoBro

I notice you used the word Islamaphobic. BTW this word was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood who are responsible for influencing Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram. I am guessing that you used that word because of your naivety and not because you are a supporter/sympathiser.
You cannot describe a party as right wing just because it opposes Islamism and all it's vile prejudices, or because they want controlled immigration, you need to look at all the policies of a Party. Don't forget the origins and original meaning of right and left wing

Wed, 2012-02-22 22:21 — Chester Drawers (not verified)

@cornubian
What is Cornwall's culture, identity or economy?
I was under the impression Cornwall's economy was tourism, of which the vast majority of tourists come from England!

Tue, 2012-02-21 16:43 — Home Rule for England

Will Cameron answer the English Question? No, but we English will. I predict Scotland will vote NO to independence, the English Question will be left unanswered and the English will leave the UK!

Mon, 2012-02-20 15:38 — Homo Sapiens

"English votes for English laws" is not a satisfactory answer to the West Lothian question. It makes no sense to have full-time MSPs, and full-time Scottish members of the federal parliament, but part-time English MPs doubling as ex-officio part-time members of an over-blown federal parliament. What is needed is an English parliament, and a small federal parliament controlling foreign affairs (including the EU) and defence. It is disgusting that our self-seeking politicians only ever consider long-term constitutional affairs, however important and far-reaching, through the lens of trivial short-term political or personal advantage.

Mon, 2012-02-20 15:39 — Gregor Addison (not verified)

If Scotland becomes independent it raises issues for other parts of the UK. Out of 550 MPs, 510 MPs would represent English constituencies, 92% of the rUK would be in England, 5% in Wales and 3% in Northern Ireland. Westminster would effectively become an English parliament. If unionists want to preserve the union, then it seems the only satisfactory political responses are independence for Scotland or some form of federalism. Scotland voted Labour in 2010 and elected 41 Labour MPs. The Tories got 1 MP in Scotland (the party came fourth). The result was 1 Tory MP in government and 41 Labour MPs out of government. What kind of democratic political system is that? Clearly, one that takes no note of regional difference. Other democracies do accept that there are different regional patterns of voting and have federal systems: Canada, the USA, Germany, Spain (where devolution is far more extensive than in the UK). There is an opportunity to transform our democracy in the UK, if we stop seeing Scotland as 'the problem'. Around 68% of people in Scotland want more powers. They are not just saying so to spite the English. But Cameron strikes me as a one nation Tory - sadly, Labour and the Lib Dems also seem to have become one nation unionists. The Lib Dems talk of home rule in Scotland and Wales while ignoring England (and England is the solution to the imbalance in the UK's political structure). I think Cameron split the Unionists last week with his offer of something-we-know-not-what. Labour will have their idea of what that something should be and run with it because they want to win Scotland back to the party. Already, Lord Forsyth and the Telegraph have cautioned against giving anything. So what's it to be? What exactly is on offer? Cameron has done nothing but muddy the unionist waters.

Wed, 2012-02-29 00:23 — Englands Rose (not verified)

I am English and believe that Scotland should go Independent. As England are sick to death of the same old argument. But there must be no Devo Max offered this is what Alex Salmond has been hankering for all the long. He knows Scotland even with the oil, are going to toil long term, i say let Scotland go Independent and if Cameron even looks like offering the Scots Devo max I think the whole of England should stand together to ensure.. that he does not give it to them. We should also fight for our own English Parliament.And get rid of prime ministers that do not fully have the interest of England at heart.
Cameron is becoming a bit of a joke, he states devo max is not a option then hints that he will give the Scots more powers. Does England really want a Prime Minister that has not got the balls to stand up to Scotland. Even Thatcher would of made a meal of Salmond. Cameron is just a joke ! England has a population of 50 million its about time we made our selves heard at Westminster just like the Scots do.

Mon, 2012-02-20 16:14 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Thank you Mark Duffy for your well argued comments. The only reason I can see for not allowing a Referendum on an English Parliament is the vain glorious posturing of the "elite Westminsiter village and there hangers on" like George Eaton.

Is the size of the population of California or New York a reason to refuse them a State because they would be larger than the others? of course not. Lets forget all this rubbish about English votes on English Matters!

Mon, 2012-02-20 16:47 — Callum (not verified)

A vague promise of more powers by a Tory Prime Minisiter will mean more YES votes. Vague promises by a former Labour minister Alistair Darling on more tax raising powers will mean more YES votes. Vague outlines by former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell of more powers will mean more YES votes. You have to say that the Unionists are playing a blinder in convincing Scots to vote YES.

Mon, 2012-02-20 18:45 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Gash,
Your prejudice coming gushing through your post. The English should have their own parliament but other than that your post is nonsense.

Mon, 2012-02-20 18:46 — fromarsetoelbow (not verified)

The Tories are ultimately comfortable with a federal solution so long as a) England is a unitary state with an inbuilt Tory majority (as forseen by Tim Montgomerie), and b) England dominates the federal system (and thus most tax distribution) based on poulation.

This is why the SNP/Plaid focus on historic cultural boundaries is ultimately bad news for the Left. The real dividing line in the UK runs from the Wash to the Severn. The so-called English question will further entrench the disadvantaged position of the North of England.

Tue, 2012-02-21 19:12 — Stephen Gash (not verified)

Rae

Do please explain where exactly my post is nonsense. Indeed please explain where any of it is not factual.

Wed, 2012-02-22 14:08 — Chester Drawers (not verified)

@JoBro,

I read the link to Stephen Gash and it seems that the abbreviation LibLabCON is also used by an individual who cares for National Democracy in England.

What is your point?

Mon, 2012-02-20 21:28 — Bob Morris (not verified)

What about giving the people of England a referendum on what form the governance of England shouls take? We hold the same citizenship as people in the devolved countries, and pay the same taxes (although we pay more, in effect, as so few social servcices are free at the point of delivery in England). If democracy is good enough for 15% of the Divided Kingdom's population, it's good enough for 100%

Wed, 2012-02-22 14:56 — JoBro (not verified)

@Chester Drawers

My point is that no matter what opinion you have regarding the Scottish Independence debate it's extremely important to be aware of where people are coming from. On a forum like this it's very easy to voice support for someone's opinion without realising that they're starting out from a position that you might fundamentally disagree with.

Having looked into it a bit more I now realise that the views are expressed are much closer to the English Democrat's position than to the BNP's. As far as I can tell they're both parties campaigning on a fundamentally Islamaphobic, anti-immigration stance. The main difference between them is that whilst the BNP takes a Unionist stance the ED views itself as a specifically English movement.

I believe that it's important to be conscious of the way in which Far Right parties of every ilk attempt to insinuate themselves into the debate by dressing themselves in populist clothes - hence the reason why I've decided to call them on it whenever I see it happening.

Personally I think it's an absolute disgrace that in the 13 years since Devolution the Unionist parties have done nothing to address the West Lothian question. I also believe that no matter what the outcome of the independence referendum there is no way that the UK can continue operating without adopting some form of federal structure.

If the Unionist parties continue to bury their heads in the sand about the question of an English parliament then all they are doing is surrendering ground which the ethno-nationalists will be only too keen to occupy. And that should be a concern to everyone in every part of the UK.

Thu, 2012-02-23 20:30 — JoBro (not verified)

"I go much further in my aims than the EDL" - wow. In that case I genuinely hope for all our sakes that MI5 are keeping a really, really close watch on you.

And with that my work here is done.

Tue, 2012-02-21 03:27 — Jim Lambie (not verified)

Gregor Addison a previous poster on
this subject is in my opionion correct let Scotland Go and the regions of England will benefit greatley

Tue, 2012-02-21 21:28 — cornubian

An English Parliament? No thanks. I'm Cornish, I have no real sense of attachment to the English nation and another centralised parliament far away in London would do zero for Cornwall's culture, identity or economy. In 2002 the Cornish autonomist movement gathered a petition of 50,000 signatures (10% of our population) calling for a Cornish Assembly. This was supported by opinions polls at around 55% in favour.

The Cornish Constitutional Convention: http://www.cornishassembly.org/