All Lib Dems must campaign for a Federal UK

By Ross Finnie, Wed 21st March 2012

I have always supported Home Rule, involving a new constitutional settlement giving equal status to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and thereafter each nation would promote what each considered to be the most appropriate governance arrangements within a federal state. For Scotland that meant not just the establishment of a Scottish Parliament but the transfer of the maximum amount of legislative, administrative and financial powers consonant with being a nation within a federal state.

Like most Scottish Liberals, I supported the Party’s policy position as set out in Jenny Robinson’s 1976 pamphlet: Scottish Self-Government. I was one of the overwhelming majority who voted for the motion passed at the 1982 Conference in St Andrews calling for ” … the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, elected by proportional representation, within a Federal United Kingdom … “

I believe federal Home Rule offers the most logical basis for: modernising the UK’s antiquated and inadequate constitutional arrangements and thereby providing a stable platform for the future of the UK; giving equivalence of status amongst Scotland; England, Wales and Northern Ireland; allowing the respective nations to determine their own governance arrangements in a federal structure; and allowing each nation to have economic and fiscal powers consonant with that federal structure

There is an urgent need for there to be a new written constitution that recognises the geographic and cultural diversity of the nations of the United Kingdom As Murray Leith says in his chapter in The Little Yellow Book: “Simply put, the lack of a written constitution is a problem that the UK has not addressed, and it is one that the country must consider if it is to survive as a political entity in the 21st Century. “

Our Liberal Democrat colleagues, across the UK, need to be fully engaged in the process and to understand that, in the Independence referendum debate, Liberal Democrats must be seen to campaigning for a constitutional settlement that meets the needs of the nations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the 21st Century and beyond and puts the case for the continuation of the UK beyond doubt.

If, like me, you see federal Home Rule as the constitutional solution in legislative and administrative terms, then the logical extension of that argument is to see fiscal federalism is the economic solution. That has certainly been my understanding of the position over many years. The Scottish Parliament should have the powers to raise as much as possible of its expenditure needs and should have responsibility for all taxes except those reserved to the Federal UK. Borrowing powers would have to be capable of relating to UK macro-economic policy, be operated in accordance to terms that are clear and transparent.

The aim has to be to establish the creation of a modern federal British State with Home Rule for all of its constituent parts as the long-term objective. A route map for the progressive untangling of the British equals English equals British conundrum has to be put in place. Any proposal to transfer further legislative or administrative powers to the Scottish Parliament should be framed on the basis that it ultimately would form part of a federal Home Rule Settlement that would apply equally to the other Nations and Regions of the UK. Likewise, any proposal for the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of financial powers in the form of fiscal federalism should be framed on the basis that this is the system that would ultimately apply throughout the UK.

* Ross Finnie has been an MSP and was Scottish Rural Affairs Minister for 8 years from 1999-2007

Reproduced from libdemvoice.org

UK should adopt a federal system, with regional parliaments, in event of a No vote in independence referendum, say Lib Dems

THE UK should adopt a federal system, with regional and national parliaments and assemblies across the country, in the event of a No vote in the independence referendum, according to a “home rule” commission.

It suggests Scotland could raise around two thirds of all the money it spends, with the Scottish Parliament collecting almost all income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and air passenger duty.

A federal government in London would retain powers over foreign affairs, defence, currency, welfare and pensions.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats hope other parties will adopt their proposals if voters reject independence in the 2014 referendum agreed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond.

The plans were drawn up by a commission chaired by Sir Menzies Campbell, the former party leader, and include a radical proposal to scrap the Act of Union between England and Scotland and replace it with a “Declaration of Federal Union”.

The report also states that different parts of the UK may wish to move at different speeds towards federalism, adding: “The move to home rule status for Scotland, in which it enjoys a federal relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, is a first stage that can proceed ahead of the rest.”

n to the leaked report, to be published on October 17, Sir Menzies says it is his “firm belief” that the proposals are in the best interests of every part of the UK.

He writes: “The ideas and structure we have laid out are unlikely to be achieved in one leap. Our priority is to secure and entrench a broader home rule settlement for Scotland, but there can be no doubt that this would benefit from major change at Westminster too.

“Over time, we are confident that the constitutional debate in England, currently under-developed, will progress and reach a conclusion, but time will be required for that debate.

“We expect that Scotland will contribute to the terms of that debate, at least by example, but it is for people in England to determine how they wish their own national and regional identities expressed within the constitutional structures of our United Kingdom.”

The report adds: “Scotland will thrive with the fiscal responsibility and authority that comes with home rule, but that home rule settlement can only be stable if it forms part of the move to a truly federal United Kingdom. We shall promote home rule and federalism at every opportunity.”

Meanwhile, Alistair Darling, the former chancellor and leader of the Better Together campaign against independence, said the UK should remain together for economic, emotional and cultural reasons.

He claimed the SNP vision of independence, with Mr Salmond, the FIrst Minister, wanting a separate Scotland to enter a “currency union” with the remainder of the UK, was “like serfdom”.

He added: “If Scotland became independent it has got to have its own financial services regulatory regime. What you have now is a genuinely open, single market. You have to ask yourself why are you doing this, what is the purpose for it all?

“I think to enter into an economic union where we are giving up the influence we have got just now, when you have to enter into a fiscal pact which means that Scotland’s tax and spending would have to be approved by and agreed to by the UK, that isn’t freedom, that is more like serfdom.”

Reproduced from the Telegraph online

OPEC Policy Ensures U.S. Shale Crash — “A major strike against the American market”

Naked rambler gets no help from European Court of Human Rights – Diarmuid Laffan

UK Human Rights Blog

Gough v UK (Application no. 49327/11), 28 October 2014 – Read judgment

The applicant in this case has been repeatedly arrested, convicted and imprisoned for breaching the peace by walking around naked in public. In a judgment handed down recently, the European Court of Human Rights found the UK authorities’ restriction of his rights under Articles 10 and 8 of the Convention, proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime.

Stephen Gough has a strong conviction that there is nothing inherently offensive about the human body, and that he harms no-one by walking around naked. A really, really strong conviction. Since he set off on a naked walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats in 2003, he has been nicknamed the ‘naked rambler’ and has spent most of the last eight years in prison, and most of that time solitary confinement.

View original post 1,771 more words

Merchants of death’s luxury dinner in Tower of London

Dear Kitty. Some blog

This video from Britain says about itself:

Campaign Against Arms on UK arms trade (20 January 2014)

Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against Arms Trade talks about the UK’s willingness to sell military equipment and police equipment to despot countries and terrorists around the world for a quick buck.

From daily The Independent in England:

The ‘crass insensitivity’ of Tower’s luxury dinner for arms dealers, days after poppy display

Event was held just days after ceramic poppy display was focus of Great War commemorations

Cahal Milmo

Thursday 27 November 2014

The Tower of London has been accused of “crass insensitivity” by hosting a £240-a-head networking dinner for arms manufacturers days after its hugely popular sea of poppies made it the focus of the First World War commemorations.

Nearly 200 representatives of Britain’s arms industry, along with senior Ministry of Defence officials and foreign defence attachés, attended the…

View original post 653 more words

Towards a federal future for the UK: The FT

Leading up to the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 the Financial Times published the following piece:

The “Better Together” campaign, which opposes independence, has recently gained ground. Last week the writer JK Rowling handed the pro-union side a coup by not only adding her voice to its cause, but giving £1m to its campaign. Polls show that the mini-surge by the Yes campaign earlier in the summer has now stalled.

But even if the pro-union side does ultimately prevail, the British establishment cannot assume that the status quo will simply roll on. As part of their contributions to the campaign, the main UK political parties have recently been giving thought to what might happen in Scotland should it vote to retain the union. All three have accepted that there will need to be more devolution if Scotland is to be firmly anchored in the UK.

The boldest of these plans was the one set out by the Conservatives at the start of June in a report from Lord Strathclyde. The Tory proposal promises to give the Scots substantial new fiscal powers, including control over their own income tax. The Scottish government would be responsible for financing at least 40 per cent of its budget.

True, this position is not universally held. The Labour party, for instance, is much more wary about such a radical extension of fiscal devolution. But the pledge to extend new tax-raising powers is in principle a good one. In spite of devolution, Scotland raises far less of its money spent on its own territory than the German Lander or the Canadian provinces. Given the amount of public money it disperses, Scotland should take more responsibility for raising it.

If the Conservative proposal for further Scottish devolution is the one finally adopted, this would not be the end of the matter. A shift to far greater fiscal devolution north of the border would have to be mirrored across the rest of the union. It would require a whole new constitutional settlement whose purpose would be to create a more federalised Britain. This would have three main elements.

First, Wales and Northern Ireland would need to gain similar powers to those in Scotland to raise, and vary, tax rates.

Second, the Westminster parliament would need to overhaul its procedures. MPs from the devolved regions should have less say – or none at all – on matters, such as health and education, which affect England only.

Lastly, there would be a strong case for looking again at House of Lords reform. In a more federalised Britain the upper house should contain not only leading figures from the four parts of the UK, but perhaps also delegates from the city regions.

None of these reforms are without difficulties. Other parts of the UK may have far less appetite for fiscal devolution than Scotland. Northern Ireland, for instance, receives a pretty generous deal under the current block grant arrangements.

Slotting England into a federal constitution would also be difficult. Accounting for 85 per cent of the UK’s population, it would be the dominant legislature, setting standards and regulations for the others. Were the party forming the UK government not to enjoy a majority in England, the possibilities for constitutional deadlock would be legion.

But while these are complex challenges, Britain’s main political parties have no time to lose in discussing them. If Scotland votes No to independence in September, the UK will doubtless become consumed by the 2015 general election and the possibility of an EU referendum two years later.
But the creation of a new constitutional settlement for Britain is not a matter that can be left on hold.

Reproduced from the Financial Times online.

An argument for an English parliament in a federal UK

By George Foulkes, 23 April 2011

With the current blizzard of constitutional legislation, from the referendum on AV to the impending bill on Lords reform, there is one glaring omission which is the one that should be top of the list.

Now that the Welsh assembly has had its powers enhanced we have three of the four nations of the United Kingdom with powers over most domestic matters controlled by devolved parliaments. In each case those domestic laws need only pass through one chamber to become law. The House of Lords has no say and in each country there is no demand for what, in Scotland, might be a ‘House of Lairds’.

Meanwhile domestic laws which apply only to England are voted on by Scottish, Welsh and Ulster MPs and have also to pass through the Lords, where we ethnic peers also vote on them. Understandably this has upset a few English MPs. Although many of them are Tories, some Labour members have also expressed concern. This is not surprising. Indeed it is astonishing the protests have not been louder and more widespread, The anomaly was foreseen by the former West Lothian MP Tam Dalyell who used it to argue against devolution, and has since been dubbed the ‘West Lothian Question’.

It is better described as a major democratic deficit in our constitution. English politicians and public have taken it so far with such equanimity for a few reasons. Many have previously seen England and the UK as interchangeable terms, real-term effects have been relatively minimal, and, above all, there has been no focus for opposition. That now looks like changing. With Scotland, for example having free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly and free higher education provided, in the view of some English people, by English taxpayers, dissent is growing.

Apart from the peripheral Campaign for an English Parliament, with apologies to Gareth Young, and a few fringe groups, there has been little political support. Labour has been opposed to an English parliament because they believe it would have a permanent Tory majority.

This need not be so. We are already seeing the same electorate in Northern Ireland and Wales vote differently for devolved parliaments to how they do in UK elections, and this is now beginning to be apparent in Scotland. And, of course the outcome crucially depends on the electoral system which is adopted. This is an issue which will not go away. It will, instead, become a growing grievance.

There are three constitutional structures for the UK which are inherently stable. The centralised system which existed previously was stable but has now been overtaken by events. Of course, it would be possible for Scotland and Wales to become independent and Ireland to be unified, but this break-up of the UK is not favoured by the vast majority and would be economically disastrous.

The remaining stable option is federalism. It was once the favoured option of the Liberals and is the one I strongly support. At present we have an imperfect form of federalism. To make it stable we need to complete our process of phased federalism with the creation of an English parliament responsible in England for all those matters devolved to Holyrood in Scotland. The UK parliament which might then be able to become unicameral would remain responsible for foreign affairs, defence, the economy, employment and welfare, which remain common in all parts of the UK

The English and their politicians would then be able to better define and express Englishness, to celebrate St George’s Day, have dinners with readings from Wordsworth and to support both English and UK teams with enthusiasm and without apology.

Reproduced from Progress Online – Labour’s Progressives

It is now time for a Federal UK

Now that 45% of Scots have voted for a split from the UK and more importantly Westminster and the agreement of further devolved governmental measures for Hollyrood today, it is clearly now time that the UK became a Federalised institution; it is the only fair way that the nation can be run.

Many have called for further devolution in the UK as a whole, including local regional rule inside England whilst those against the idea have used the excuse that such a thing would create another level of bureaucracy to the country and that it would cost too much money to achieve.

Well, when should money ever get in the way of democracy? And do we not already have bodies in place that make decisions for local people, such as county, borough, local and parish councils?

The nation even already has a tier of government that could be used to run as a federal parliament for the UK; it is called the House of Lords and is still in need of serious change, including chucking out all peers and complete democratic elections for it’s members.

We shall look at all of these possibilities over time and shall report on federal stories as they appear in the news

The Campaign for a Federal UK is a non-aligned centrist movement and welcomes all those who are interested in promoting and working for a movement for a Federalised UK. Please contact us, follow the blog and if interested contribute to the campaign.