Scotland has voted no. The next step must not be a return to business as usual
|
Version 0 of 1. The carnival of democracy is over. It’s back to petty party politics as usual. If David Cameron took any joy from seeing a record-breaking outbreak of voter engagement in Scotland, which now remains such a crucial part of the union he loves so much, then he hid it marvelously well. But we all know that actually, he took no joy from that explosion of political involvement. We all know that he had counted, two years ago, on the idea that people in Scotland wouldn’t talk, wouldn’t think, wouldn’t change their minds. When he finally cottoned on to the fact that people were thinking, that they were thinking hard, that they were forming opinions unwelcome to him, and on a grand scale, he feared it. How did we get here? How can it be that the UK’s prime minister sees democracy as a threat? The moment Cameron saw that he had got the result he so desperately needed, he set about reframing the 11th-hour promises he had made to Scotland as promises to England. And what small promises they are. Hasty plans to answer the West Lothian question, which has needed answering for decades, will be thrown together in the next couple of months. Legislation will be presented to parliament by January. This is not right. England, Wales and Northern Ireland deserve the opportunity to take time to think hard about this union and its system of government, just as Scotland has had. Fruitful ideas could come from such an exercise. The UK could become as exciting and dynamic a political place as Scotland has been for these last couple of years, and will hopefully remain. But Cameron has already made it clear that Westminster will be doing the talking and debating, and that the electorate will be doing the listening. Our political leaders seem to prefer indifference, even contempt, to opportunities to promote and revive our ailing democratic system. Perhaps that isn’t surprising. It is indifference and contempt that maintain the system they understand how to exploit so well, the system that has delivered them personal achievement and success. At the time when the first Blair government was offering devolution, it became obvious that the English regions had no great appetite for it. Why? Because the last thing people felt they needed was yet more politicians, forming another expensive layer of self-regard. But there’s an easy way to devolve political power to the regions without creating any new political posts at all. For instance, it is worth considering the idea of devolving one of Westminster’s houses to the parts of the UK that do not yet have their own assemblies. On the matter of the shocking disconnect between local and Westminster politics alone, this makes sense. How can it be, for example, that it is fine for Denis McShane, MP for Rotherham through many years in which vulnerable girls in his constituency were being abused and raped, to simply explain that he had absolutely no idea that this was going on? Like many of our Westminster representatives, he was too busy poking his nose into the affairs of the Middle East to see what was happening on what should have been his doorstep. Of course, it is necessary that Westminster should involve itself with global issues. But in a devolved system that would not be at the expense of constituency matters. We would all have two representatives – one, a regional representative, and one, based in London, expected to have a broader perspective. Many people seemed keen to reduce yes voters in Scotland to bitter caricatures, motivated by a hatred of the English. A tiny minority of the country is indeed this crude, atavistic, small‑minded and prejudiced. But for the most part, frustration is not directed at “the English” but at London, which dominates the UK so comprehensively, so complacently and so carelessly. We know all too well the privations that MPs suffer, having to maintain homes in both London and in their constituencies. If they ever spare a thought for people who feel compelled to leave their homes and seek work in London, without the benefit of an expense account, then there is not much evidence that those thoughts ever result in anything that could be described as actions. London becomes less accessible to the people of the UK by the day, and that is good neither for London nor for any other part of Britain. Devolved democracy could change that. The Westminster bubble isolates the media as well as politicians. The decline in the regional media over recent decades has contributed hugely to the democratic deficit that the UK now toils under. But devolved politics would mean a devolved media too, and that would be an extremely good thing, in and of itself. Jobs would be devolved. Debate would be devolved. Ideas would be devolved. Accountability would be devolved. Just a process whereby these kinds of matters could be discussed, as the yes campaign fostered discussion in Scotland, would be a great thing for all in the UK. We are not far from the next general election. We are so close that there was talk of legislating to postpone it, in the event of a yes vote in Scotland. But the three main Westminster parties, all of them so terminally enthusiastic about the wonders of competition, seem reluctant to compete with each other. Far from rushing to cobble together legislation before the next election, Cameron should be arguing that all political parties now have an obligation to present their ideas about constitutional reform to the electorate, for discussion and debate in the run up to 7 May 2015. Instead, he is doing his best to avoid such a calamity, casting Scotland as the part of the UK whose own overabundant representation has equipped it to attack the status quo, and himself as the man who can compensate England for the privations caused by Scotland’s unruly enthusiasms. We still don’t quite know what Scotland said, in its historic referendum. I’m glad the turnout was large. I’m glad the outcome was decisive. But in an important respect, it wasn’t decisive at all. How many no voters were happy with the status quo? How many would have opted for independence had devo max not been so grudgingly offered at such a late stage? Some of the people of the UK got to speak on Thursday. The truth is, that even on that day, Westminster’s machinations muddied, confused and diluted their message. Business as usual. That does not feel good. |