Discarded, but not forgotten. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brokering democratic change: the possibilities of English devolution with a Scottish accent

The regions of England and Wales should take a leaf out of the SNP's book.

Democratic revival in Scotland was galvanised by the simplicity of a yes/no referendum last September, but it has reverberated right through into the General Election campaign. The people of Scotland, having rejected independence, have nonetheless swung in droves behind the Scottish Nationalist Party, who now could be king-makers come May the 8th. But what price might they exact for their votes?

There is little doubt that the SNP will want to lock down and then extend the devolution deal hammered out in the Smith Commission, and although Nicola Sturgeon has said that SNP MPs will now vote on English matters, it it is unlikely that their demands immediately after an election will stray too far beyond Scottish affairs. But increasingly, the SNP is seeking to lead a bigger debate about decentralisation across the British Isles, making common cause with others who want to drag powers out of Westminster. We saw this with Sturgeon's 'friendship' speech at the SNP conference this weekend, where the First Minister sought to break bread with progressive English MPs and voters.

Beyond all the bluster of the election campaign, the nationwide prospect of securing a constitutional settlement to bring British democracy into the 21st Century is coming into view.

At IPPR North we have long-advocated the idea of ‘asymmetrical’ or ‘multi-speed’ devolution. In many respects Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and to a lesser degree London - have been given a 15-year head start. But this incremental approach is taking hold in England too. The ‘City Deals’ of 2011/12 have now paved the way for bigger ‘devo deals’ with Greater Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds city regions. All of the mainstream parties are now advocating more of the same.

The Conservatives who have pioneered this deal-making approach have effectively set up an open door policy for English devolution for any local authorities prepared to unite their collective capacity under a directly-elected mayor. Labour appears to prescribe less conditionality around their £30bn package of devolved funds for economic development but exercises much more caution around devolving public services, while the Liberal Democrats are offering ‘devolution on demand’. None of these represent anything like the level of devolution offered to Scotland, not least because there is very little for England by way of the powers to raise and spend tax revenues.

Herein lies the opportunity for the SNP to inject Scotland’s democratic energy into the English debate. What if, in the name of a UK-wide federal settlement, the SNP were to hold out for a more generous devo deal for England? What if Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were to stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the city leaders in England and Northern Labour MPs who have for a long time wanted more power outside London? Salmond’s enthusiasm for starting high-speed rail 2 between Edinburgh and Newcastle represents just such a cross-border offer. And what if – in the turbulence of an unclear election result - the people of England were to seize their devolutionary moment too?

So what might be on the table? It should be taken as read that the best that the mainstream parties currently have on offer would be set as a baseline: a devolved £30bn plus economic development pot; unringfenced and five-year funding allocations for joined-up public services; and a much bigger proportion of business rate revenues. All with very few strings and loopholes. But there are three areas where any deal making could go a lot further.

On fiscal autonomy, the Smith Commission makes provision for Scotland to have greater control over income tax, to retain a proportion of VAT and to have extended borrowing powers. It devolves control over a number of key benefits such as housing benefit (including power to get rid of the so-called “bedroom tax”) and the ability to make discretionary welfare top-ups. And it gives control over other important economic tools such as air passenger duty and the Work Programme. Many English counties and cities look enviously at such powers, and are starting to chalk up demands to run employment programmes, take control of Housing Benefit, and gain new fiscal powers. Those demands should be met.

One of the most difficult issues upon which English devolution so often falters is the form that it should take. What level of government are we devolving to? Right-sized, unitary and combined authorities but with dynamic neighbourhood and parish councils should be the aim with a clear process and timetable for their formation and penalties for those determined to cling to empty vessels. In Scotland, local government is elected by proportional representation. Liberal Democrats, Greens and Labour reformers would welcome that in England too.

Proportional Representation (PR) for English local government could be part of a three-way Lab-Lib-SNP democratic reform package, along with votes for 16-year olds – the vote young Scots had in the referendum and will get in Holyrood elections -  and a federal senate to replace the House of Lords. And what of a proper constitutional settlement with the same promises now made to Scotland for a permanent parliament and government also extended to English (and Scottish) local government, once and for all.

But let us remember that what gives the SNP clout is not simply the careful strategy of Sturgeon and Salmond but much more the support of the Scottish public who – in turning out in their masses during the independence campaign – now have all the parties queueing up to placate their devolutionary demands. English voters should take note. Political alternatives in the regions of England are few and far between, but where we find common interest in bringing powers closer to home we too should speak up for English devolution and adopt more of a Scottish accent in our politics.

Ed Cox is Director at IPPR North. He tweets @edcox_ippr.

Getty
Show Hide image

John Major's double warning for Theresa May

The former Tory Prime Minister broke his silence with a very loud rebuke. 

A month after the Prime Minister stood in Chatham House to set out plans for free trading, independent Britain, her predecessor John Major took the floor to puncture what he called "cheap rhetoric".

Standing to attention like a weather forecaster, the former Tory Prime Minister warned of political gales ahead that could break up the union, rattle Brexit negotiations and rot the bonds of trust between politicians and the public even further.

Major said that as he had been on the losing side of the referendum, he had kept silent since June:

“This evening I don't wish to argue that the European Union is perfect, plainly it isn't. Nor do I deny the economy has been more tranquil than expected since the decision to leave was taken. 

“But I do observe that we haven't yet left the European Union. And I watch with growing concern  that the British people have been led to expect a future that seems to be unreal and over-optimistic.”

A seasoned EU negotiator himself, he warned that achieving a trade deal within two years after triggering Article 50 was highly unlikely. Meanwhile, in foreign policy, a UK that abandoned the EU would have to become more dependent on an unpalatable Trumpian United States.

Like Tony Blair, another previous Prime Minister turned Brexit commentator, Major reminded the current occupant of No.10 that 48 per cent of the country voted Remain, and that opinion might “evolve” as the reality of Brexit became clear.

Unlike Blair, he did not call for a second referendum, stressing instead the role of Parliament. But neither did he rule it out.

That was the first warning. 

But it may be Major's second warning that turns out to be the most prescient. Major praised Theresa May's social policy, which he likened to his dream of a “classless society”. He focused his ire instead on those Brexiteers whose promises “are inflated beyond any reasonable expectation of delivery”. 

The Prime Minister understood this, he claimed, but at some point in the Brexit negotiations she will have to confront those who wish for total disengagement from Europe.

“Although today they be allies of the Prime Minister, the risk is tomorrow they may not,” he warned.

For these Brexiteers, the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations did not matter, he suggested, because they were already ideologically committed to an uncompromising version of free trade:

“Some of the most committed Brexit supporters wish to have a clean break and trade only under World Trade Organisation rules. This would include tariffs on goods with nothing to help services. This would not be a panacea for the UK  - it would be the worst possible outcome. 

“But to those who wish to see us go back to a deregulated low cost enterprise economy, it is an attractive option, and wholly consistent with their philosophy.”

There was, he argued, a choice to be made about the foundations of the economic model: “We cannot move to a radical enterprise economy without moving away from a welfare state. 

“Such a direction of policy, once understood by the public, would never command support.”

Major's view of Brexit seems to be a slow-motion car crash, but one where zealous free marketeers like Daniel Hannan are screaming “faster, faster”, on speaker phone. At the end of the day, it is the mainstream Tory party that will bear the brunt of the collision. 

Asked at the end of his speech whether he, like Margaret Thatcher during his premiership, was being a backseat driver, he cracked a smile. 

“I would have been very happy for Margaret to make one speech every eight months,” he said. As for today? No doubt Theresa May will be pleased to hear he is planning another speech on Scotland soon. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.