Politicians must be bold on UK federalism

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/09/politicians-must-be-bold-uk-federalism

Version 0 of 1.

In your editorial of 4 February you once again edge gingerly towards advocacy of a federal UK. Next day David Davis (Letters, 5 February) equally cautiously tiptoes towards the same solution. The Liberal Democrats favour federation but seem too timid to spell out its advantages or to answer misguided objections to it.

England’s preponderant size is a reason for the safeguards for the smaller nations provided by a federal system, not an objection to federalism; and federalism would reduce the number of professional politicians around the UK, not increase it, even with the new English parliament and government which would eventually be an indispensable feature. It offers the only satisfactory answer to Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian question; ends the gross over-centralism that still disfigures our present constitutional arrangements; permits and encourages further devolution within each of the four nations; brings government decisions closer to the people they affect; and works fine in many comparable western democracies from whom we can and should learn.

It would sharply reduce the scope and powers of the Westminster (federal) parliament and government, which may be why it’s so fiercely resisted by machine politicians. Everyone else would benefit. Labour, the party that started the still unfinished devolution process, should adopt it as a very long-term aim and promise to start the long process of consultation and research required to precede it.Brian BarderLondon

Devolutionary initiatives of the past 20 years have produced a more opaque constitutional political landscape than ever

• It is apparent that the devolutionary initiatives proposed and enacted over the past 20 years have produced a more opaque and anachronistic constitutional political landscape than ever before. Instead of settlement and clarity we have confusion and uncertainty. The problem is generated by constitutional “conservatism” and a reluctance to address the broader questions beyond narrow party political lines (eg “vows” I & II). In this system, devolution is always seen as a concession to be made, rather than a way of improving democracy (George Robertson’s “Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”). The current chaos is the latest attempt to add constitutional sticking plaster to a wounded Westminster that is clearly dysfunctional. The habit of relinquishing too little too late has roots in our colonial past (cf colonial North America, and Irish home rule), and here we see the same process in the current piecemeal legislation in progress now.

The solution is a bold step to a fully federal UK which would consist of parliaments of each of the nations. This would produce crystalline transparency. The Commons would return to being the parliament of England, and the Lords would be transformed into a new UK-elected superior House. This would add no legislative layer or cost and would have the advantage of producing a much more stable constitutional settlement.

So, yes, David Davis is correct to propose federalism, but will we take this path, or continue to muddle on to inevitable separation?Euan BrownEdinburgh

• Gordon Brown’s proposal for a constitutional convention to reform the Lords, regions, voting system etc in a single package is just political prevarication. Such a bland-sounding exercise would take years and yet never find all-round agreement, least of all from the SNP.

William Hague’s plan on the other hand is moderate, workable and fair to the majority in the UK. If there is a hung parliament Scottish MPs would still be able to determine which party forms the government. Giving English MPs control over English-only laws would certainly have majority support from the voters and might even be adopted by the next parliament.

As to Brown’s jibe comparing Cameron to Lord North, that just exposes himself to the counter thrust, viz: Brown will always be remembered as a dithering, failed PM. Keith Hindell London

• Might I suggest a union of the western isles of Europe? The United Kingdom and Great Britain are as much history as the empire was when a transition took place to form the Commonwealth of Nations.

In the manner that the term Scandinavians links Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, with a Nordic council, so the Western Isles of Europe might unite England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each nation would have its own parliament and initially each country would meet, say, quarterly, hosting the union in rotation. By 2020, with the union established, the meetings would be twice a year, still hosted in rotation.

Topics for discussion at the council of the Western Isles of Europe would settle down to borders (air, land and sea), transport, defence, economy, culture, heritage etc. Our geographical European form was recognised by the Romans 2,000 years ago and it is time for us to identify the beauty and form of our four great nations and use our topography to form the state of our union.David RhodesHarrogate, North Yorkshire