A new UK constitution
In this writer’s opinion, the proper response to the challenge posed by the Scottish National Party’s bid – led by Alec Salmond (Party Leader) – to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom is to recognise that the constitution of the United Kingdom as it now stands is an undemocratic muddle of patch and bodge measures applied to placate different pressure groups, dating back at least 100 years.
We should seize the moment to propose an entirely new constitution to provide the British people with the means of conducting their affairs efficiently, transparently and fairly. All four parts of the UK would need to approve the new constitution individually.
See “A new constitution for all of the United Kingdom” on the “British Constitution” page of Britain Watch.
August 25th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
The estimates for oil revenues accruing to a separate Scottish state given in the article would be further reduced, possibly more than halved, if the Shetlands stayed in the United Kingdom. Sullom Voe is the chief terminal for oil from Britain’s northern sector of the North Sea, and the latest big (£3 billion plus) investment announced by BP is in the sector west of the Shetlands, 100 miles north of the mainland.
The Shetland Isles’ capital, Lerwick, is as far from Edinburgh (400 miles) as Edinburgh is from London. The people are not Highlanders, there is no clan tradition and there is no tradition of Gaelic-speaking which the SNP is trying to promote.
The Shetland Isles were transferred from the Norwegian crown to the Scottish crown as late as 1471, although strong links with Norway have endured, reinforced by a common interest in the North Sea oilfields. Shetland flies its own distinctive flag – a white rectangular cross on a blue ground (i.e. the reverse of Findland’s). Apart from the Orkney Islands to the south, their nearest neighbours are the Faroe Islands which are a self-governing dependency of the Danish crown. The Shetlands’ population of about 23,000 is only half that of the Faroes (about seven times the Falklands) but it is richer. It is also recorded as being the happiest place in the UK, with one of its highest life expectancies. Scotland’s largest city, Glasgow, has the lowest.
In short, the Shetland Isles have every possible reason for demanding the opportunity to vote on separation from the rest of Scotland in the proposed referendum seeking to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom. (The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has denounced the MSP for the Shetlands making this point as a “mischief-maker”.)
As of now however there is no sign that the UK government led by David Cameron, though verbally in favour of the Union, is alive to this prospect and prepared to promote it. More fundamentally even, there is every sign that Alex Salmond’s bullying references to the UK Electoral Commission, “This will be a referendum made in Scotland by the people of Scotland” (i.e. by himself) will prevail in plain defiance of the legal position in which constitutional matters are exclusively for the UK parliament to decide.
As remarked in Stephen Bush’s post of 23rd January 2012, “Scotland and the United Kingdom”, there is the usual hand wringing defeatism abroad in Civil Service circles when faced with an intransigent bully.
There has also been no publicly declared discussion on absolutely vital issues such as the minimum proportion of the electorate needed to win a referendum on independence (as there was in the first Labour devolution Act in 1978) and whether, as in the case of the Shetlands, parts of Scotland can vote to stay in the UK irrespective of the overall Scotland vote.
The only public discussion on the details of the referendum and its aftermath is Salmond’s wish to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote, again in plain defiance of Electoral Law and his refusal to acknowledge that an independent Scotland would have to pay its fair share of the UK national debt and the (separate) cost of bailing out the two Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS.
My basic comment is that the paper by Stephen Bush entitled “A new constitution for all of the United Kingdom” posits a very attractive alternative to the SNP’s Scotland-only referendum which will appeal to both English and Scottlish voters, if not to all of their politicians and placemen.
Top| Home
September 13th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“A new Constitution for all of the United Kingdom” is well prepared and presented.
“Instead of letting Salmond make all the running” sums up the situation prefectly. It appears that all those supposed to be campaigning for the Union are waiting for Salmond to present his proposals some time next year. They should be attacking him now.
Under “Financial Consequences” it states that “a major difficulty would be income tax”. I do not know how you came to that conclusion? PAYE collected by all Scottish businesses would be sent to the “Scottish Revenue Office”. The self-employed could present the same problem as the UK authorities face today, but a Scottish Government could overcome this by applying PAYE to everybody.
You wrote that “The urgency of the situation . . . should concentrate minds” but there is little sign of urgency in your proposals. Therefore although they may be the best long-term solution I believe we ought to be aiming for something to bring change sooner.
Many efforts have been made over the years to free the UK from the European Union with little success. But this may come from events on the Continent. House of Lords reform has been attempted for a much longer time with the same lack of success. Indeed some would say with disastrous results. Only two short sentences are given to these complicated and emotive subjects.
Top| Home
September 13th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Many expatriates on the Continent and in the Gulf make a point of moving their domiciles at 6 monthly intervals so they never reach the higher tax bands in any jurisdiction. The tax treatment of redundancy pay also differs across the EU so people move to get sacked in the lowest tax jurisdiction. How much greater would be the scope for these forms of tax dodging if Scotland were separate from the UK, particularly with self-employed people working in both countries! PAYE for the self-employed has been looked at many times by the Treasury and the Revenue and rejected on grounds of sheer impracticability.
The same problem doesn’t arise with property taxes which is why the Treasury always resists substituting local income tax for council tax levied on people’s houses which are immovable.
The proposals do respond to the urgency of the situation. If it were made clear by the beginning of 2013 that, if the Scottish people voted “No” to separation, a new “Equality” constitution would be drawn up for all four parts of the UK along the lines of the above proposals, it would take the wind out of Salmond’s sails and also calm the fears of many English people who believe that almost any agreement with Salmond on its own would be to the detriment of England.
The reason why House of Lords reform has consistently failed is because it doesn’t have a purpose other than being an elaborate reward system for displaced politicians. That is why I propose simply to abolish it and use its space at Westminster for an elected UK parliament, the present House of Commons chamber being used for the new English parliament as described.
Obviously details need to be worked out, but these proposals would deflect the Westminster establishment away from its present defeatist attitude of resignation to Scottish separation.
Top| Home
September 14th, 2012 at 8:10 am
Because I’m new and crazy I’m going to throw my my opinion into this melting pot. The SNP don’t want independence right now. (I can’t be bothered getting the evidence – Sally Magnusson questioned the bold Nicky Sturgeon after their last election win and she said it.) Scotland’s health care and unemployment issues mean being part of the UK Government is beneficial. Yes, and we’ve got all that oil. However, the cost of operating Scotland (NHS, police, unemployed, general recession etc) is exactly why the SNP are not forcing through a referendum on independence right now and why they can’t put a date on it. Ask, and I have, lots of English people if they want Scotland to be independent and they’ll say yes, tell them to clear off. This is because we represent 8% of a much larger and greater collection of countries.
I’m Scottish and don’t want independence. In my opinion independence is plain stupid and the SNP will have egg on their face if they don’t hold a referendum, or, if they hold a referendum and lose, which is the inevitable result. Scotland has a great ride as part of the UK, especially with the SNP in power (I’m pro-SNP, except for the idiotic notion that independence will make us better off). If anybody can explain why independence will demonstrate a better existence for Scotland I’d love to hear it. Please take into account the balance of payments – what really will we be able to do that will benefit the average Scot on the street? Will we have more money to throw at the NHS to help the heart attack capital of the world?
Might I also add that being part of the EU is no bad thing. Whilst globalisation has its pros and cons (a prime example of a negative being the recession) there is a safety in numbers effect which is why people want to join. I understand your point about the EU making decisions, however the decision makers of the EU are appointed by each country e.g. with a democratic vote.
Top| Home
September 14th, 2012 at 9:55 am
One of the most hapless remarks by a member of the British political classes in recent years(admittedly up against stiff competition) was the Labour minister who opined that devolution would kill the Scottish independence movement “stone dead”.
Instead it was obvious from the beginning that any form of Scottish Parliament given any powers whatever would then immediately agitate for more until it received the lot.
It is a basic rule of the public sector: any department set up to deal with a problem, that depends for its own existence on there being that problem, will never solve it. Instead it will announce in lengthy and frequent reports that although it has made tremendous progress and that the staff deserve financial reward accordingly, the situation has become worse and therefore it needs more staff, a bigger budget, better offices and more regulatory powers.
So it is with the Scottish Parliament, which conscientiously applied one of the sub-clauses of the guiding principle of government spending – never buy one when you can have two at three times the price – by overspending on a magnificent scale on its own building.
Salmond meanwhile represents another great British political paradigm: the classic opposition politician. His ultimate goal is stated to be Scottish independence (he means more independence from London, and greater dependence on Brussels, so the word “independence” is actually a great misnomer, and his party should be renamed accordingly eg SDOEP – Scottish Dependence on Europe Party). But the one thing which would be a personal disaster for Salmond would be to obtain it. Presently he can make any promise whatsoever to the electorate about what he would achieve if given independence, secure in the knowledge that he can’t be disproven until it actually happens. If it does, he will find himself transformed into a northern version of Nick Clegg, unable to translate his grand schemes into reality. Clegg, once he was actually part of the ruling coalition instead of a tiresomely irrelevant corner of the opposition, was left blaming everyone and everything but himself and his bad ideas, claiming that the Tories don’t support him or something external like “economic reality” has gotten in the way (without acknowledging that his opponents always said it would).
Salmond for his part once severed from London would have to try and blame an unfair devolution settlement for any difficulties in implementing his grand plans, and claim it was still all the fault of London. We could expect his successors to continue doing so for about as long as the former colonies in the third world have done (about sixty years and counting for some of them).
Top| Home
October 21st, 2012 at 1:55 pm
How Scottish is the SNP?
Alex Salmond sees the forthcoming independence referendum as a moment of truth for a resurgent nation, denied an identity for 300 years. But I wonder if my fellow countrymen in Scotland are aware of just how leftist and internationalist the First Minister’s agenda really is? The SNP seems to be a party in favour of the large-scale immigration and multiculturalism that has so changed the identity of England – referring to the growing non-European numbers in Scottish cities as “the new Scots”. And although the party is now saying that a secessionist Scotland would remain in the sterling zone and maintain the monarchy, Alex Salmond’s earlier battle-cry was for “independence within Europe” – his party even sharing a platform at the launch of their referendum campaign with the anti-Royal Scottish Socialist Party. Just how “Scottish” is the SNP?
Top| Home