This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/25/one-state-solution-england-devolved-uk

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The one-state solution to England's role in a devolved UK The one-state solution to England's role in a devolved UK
(6 months later)
Next year, on 18 September, the Scots will decide whether they want to remain British. But as Douglas Alexander, Labour's shadow foreign secretary, argued earlier this month at Edinburgh University, all of us need to consider not only who we are, but how we are, and how our identity is to be expressed.Next year, on 18 September, the Scots will decide whether they want to remain British. But as Douglas Alexander, Labour's shadow foreign secretary, argued earlier this month at Edinburgh University, all of us need to consider not only who we are, but how we are, and how our identity is to be expressed.
The McKay Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons, whose report was published on Monday, was established to consider how English identity is best expressed. England, after all, is by far the largest part of the United Kingdom; yet it has no devolved body to speak for it. This means that MPs from outside England can vote on English domestic matters – such as education, health and housing – while English MPs cannot vote on devolved domestic matters in the non-English parts of the kingdom.The McKay Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons, whose report was published on Monday, was established to consider how English identity is best expressed. England, after all, is by far the largest part of the United Kingdom; yet it has no devolved body to speak for it. This means that MPs from outside England can vote on English domestic matters – such as education, health and housing – while English MPs cannot vote on devolved domestic matters in the non-English parts of the kingdom.
How should this conundrum be resolved? Logically, there are three answers. The commission rightly rejects them all.How should this conundrum be resolved? Logically, there are three answers. The commission rightly rejects them all.
The first answer is to create English regional bodies with legislative powers. But not even the most extreme devolutionist proposes a system with different laws in different parts of England.The first answer is to create English regional bodies with legislative powers. But not even the most extreme devolutionist proposes a system with different laws in different parts of England.
The second answer is an English parliament, championed by Ukip. But in no effective federal system does one of the units represent 85% of the population. Federal systems in which the largest unit dominates have little chance of survival. That is the lesson of the former USSR, dominated by Russia; Czechoslovakia, dominated by the Czechs; and Yugoslavia, dominated by the Serbs. A United Kingdom federation with an English parliament would be unbalanced and almost certainly unworkable.The second answer is an English parliament, championed by Ukip. But in no effective federal system does one of the units represent 85% of the population. Federal systems in which the largest unit dominates have little chance of survival. That is the lesson of the former USSR, dominated by Russia; Czechoslovakia, dominated by the Czechs; and Yugoslavia, dominated by the Serbs. A United Kingdom federation with an English parliament would be unbalanced and almost certainly unworkable.
The third answer is "English votes for English laws", championed by the Conservatives in their 2010 manifesto. But this would mean that, whenever a government depended upon Scottish MPs for its majority, the Commons would become bifurcated. There would be a UK majority for foreign affairs, defence, economic policy and social security; but an alternative English majority for health, education and other devolved matters. English votes for English laws would undermine the principle of collective responsibility – according to which a government stands or falls as a whole, commanding a majority on every issue that comes before parliament.The third answer is "English votes for English laws", championed by the Conservatives in their 2010 manifesto. But this would mean that, whenever a government depended upon Scottish MPs for its majority, the Commons would become bifurcated. There would be a UK majority for foreign affairs, defence, economic policy and social security; but an alternative English majority for health, education and other devolved matters. English votes for English laws would undermine the principle of collective responsibility – according to which a government stands or falls as a whole, commanding a majority on every issue that comes before parliament.
The McKay Commission proposes a fourth answer which, however, is somewhat feeble. It suggests adapting the Commons procedure, perhaps by creating an English grand committee, so that the English voice can be more effectively heard. But it is a fallacy to believe that the English voice is not heard at present. Of the 650 constituencies represented at Westminster, 534 are English. England remains the dominant nation. It has no need to beat the drum or blow the bugle. If it does, it will strain the devolution settlement to breaking point. At present, the English seem to accept devolution in Scotland and Wales, but do not seek it for themselves. The United Kingdom rests on such continued restraint by the dominant nation.The McKay Commission proposes a fourth answer which, however, is somewhat feeble. It suggests adapting the Commons procedure, perhaps by creating an English grand committee, so that the English voice can be more effectively heard. But it is a fallacy to believe that the English voice is not heard at present. Of the 650 constituencies represented at Westminster, 534 are English. England remains the dominant nation. It has no need to beat the drum or blow the bugle. If it does, it will strain the devolution settlement to breaking point. At present, the English seem to accept devolution in Scotland and Wales, but do not seek it for themselves. The United Kingdom rests on such continued restraint by the dominant nation.
The truth is that, with asymmetrical devolution, the "English question" cannot be answered. But the McKay Commission draws attention to a crucial lacuna in our system of government – that the precise relationships between the different nations comprising the UK have still not been properly delineated.The truth is that, with asymmetrical devolution, the "English question" cannot be answered. But the McKay Commission draws attention to a crucial lacuna in our system of government – that the precise relationships between the different nations comprising the UK have still not been properly delineated.
In 1997 Ron Davies, the Welsh secretary, declared that Welsh devolution was a process, not an event. The same is true, surely, of constitutional reform in general. Issues such as the future of the Human Rights Act, a bigger problem for many than the English question; the role of the non-elected House of Lords; the strengthening of local government in the great cities of the Midlands and the north; Britain's role in Europe; all badly need clarification. In the last resort, only the people can provide that clarification.In 1997 Ron Davies, the Welsh secretary, declared that Welsh devolution was a process, not an event. The same is true, surely, of constitutional reform in general. Issues such as the future of the Human Rights Act, a bigger problem for many than the English question; the role of the non-elected House of Lords; the strengthening of local government in the great cities of the Midlands and the north; Britain's role in Europe; all badly need clarification. In the last resort, only the people can provide that clarification.
In Edinburgh, Douglas Alexander called for a Scottish Convention similar to that of 1989 that paved the way for devolution. But the 1989 convention took place at a time when Scotland had no forum in which to articulate its views.In Edinburgh, Douglas Alexander called for a Scottish Convention similar to that of 1989 that paved the way for devolution. But the 1989 convention took place at a time when Scotland had no forum in which to articulate its views.
The future of Scotland should not be seen in isolation from that of the rest of the UK. The need, therefore, is for a UK-wide constitutional convention, with popular participation, to consider both how devolution can evolve in the non-English parts of the United Kingdom, but also how the English can be better governed even in the absence of an "answer" to the English question. Such a convention would strengthen the unity of the UK.The future of Scotland should not be seen in isolation from that of the rest of the UK. The need, therefore, is for a UK-wide constitutional convention, with popular participation, to consider both how devolution can evolve in the non-English parts of the United Kingdom, but also how the English can be better governed even in the absence of an "answer" to the English question. Such a convention would strengthen the unity of the UK.
One way of reaffirming that unity would be through a constitution. Britain, after all, remains one of just three democracies, together with New Zealand and Israel, without a codified constitution. If one joined a tennis club, paid one's subscription, and asked to be shown the rules, one would not be pleased to be told that the rules have never been gathered together, that they are to be found in past decisions of the club's committee over many generations, and lie scattered among many different documents. In addition, some of them have not been written down at all – these are called conventions. You will pick them up as you go along. But – frankly – if you have to ask, you do not really belong.One way of reaffirming that unity would be through a constitution. Britain, after all, remains one of just three democracies, together with New Zealand and Israel, without a codified constitution. If one joined a tennis club, paid one's subscription, and asked to be shown the rules, one would not be pleased to be told that the rules have never been gathered together, that they are to be found in past decisions of the club's committee over many generations, and lie scattered among many different documents. In addition, some of them have not been written down at all – these are called conventions. You will pick them up as you go along. But – frankly – if you have to ask, you do not really belong.
Such a rationale might have worked in the deferential past for a homogenous Christian society. It will hardly do for the multidenominational and multicultural country Britain has now become. Gordon Brown was right to argue that a British constitution could reaffirm a sense of Britishness, just as the US constitution has done in the United States.Such a rationale might have worked in the deferential past for a homogenous Christian society. It will hardly do for the multidenominational and multicultural country Britain has now become. Gordon Brown was right to argue that a British constitution could reaffirm a sense of Britishness, just as the US constitution has done in the United States.
The left, therefore, should take the lead in calling for a UK-wide constitutional convention so that Britain, once a country house for those prepared to fit in, can become a genuine home for all. In the meantime, unionists would do well to remind themselves of Disraeli's famous dictum that England is governed not by logic but by parliament.The left, therefore, should take the lead in calling for a UK-wide constitutional convention so that Britain, once a country house for those prepared to fit in, can become a genuine home for all. In the meantime, unionists would do well to remind themselves of Disraeli's famous dictum that England is governed not by logic but by parliament.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.