Merry Christmas

We would like to wish a very Merry Christmas to all of our readers.

UK says review of EU shows bloc must relinquish power ‘in many areas’

The European Union must relinquish power “in many areas” in favour of member states, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Thursday, announcing the end of a two year review of his country’s relations with the bloc.

Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to renegotiate Britain’s ties with the EU to try to claw back powers to London from Brussels before holding a membership referendum in 2017 if he wins a national election next year.

Publishing the final reports in a civil service investigation into how the EU affects British life in 32 areas from health to immigration, Hammond said the review had found the 28-nation bloc needed to reform itself to be more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable.

“They underline the need for the EU to focus on those areas where it genuinely adds value,” said Hammond, a possible leadership contender for the Conservative party who has said Britain must be prepared to exit the EU if it can’t overhaul it.

“There are many areas where action can and should be taken in member states rather than at the EU level,” he said, saying the reports provided further evidence of the need for a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU.

via UK says review of EU shows bloc must relinquish power ‘in many areas’ | Reuters.

Whilst the EU has many far-reaching powers, Member State governments like to take credit for the good that comes from the EU, whilst bashing what their current political affiliation views as bad.

The answer to an EU that speaks with a voice that all of it’s members can stand by: Federalism, true democracy in a Europe that appears to have a large number of disenfranchised voters.

Learn more about the aspirations for a Federal Europe at the Federalist Party and the Federal Union UK

Conservative MSP calls for a federal UK

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser is expected to call for a federal UK in a speech at Glasgow University.

Mr Fraser will say that a federal option could create “common ground” between supporters and opponents of Scottish independence.

His proposals include a written constitution and replacing the House of Lords with a senate to represent the federated areas of the UK.

SNP MSP Stuart McMillan called the proposals “pie in the sky”.

Murdo Fraser has a reputation for radical thinking in the Conservative party.

He lost out on the Tory leadership in 2011 having argued for the Scottish party to breakaway from the UK Conservatives.

The MSP is now turning his attention to redesigning the UK if there’s a “No” vote in the independence referendum.

He believes a federal UK could be an “alternative” to independence that would unite many nationalists and unionists.

Mr Fraser acknowledges that England has shown little appetite for regional government but argues this may change as Holyrood gains new powers.

The SNP said his proposals were “pie in the sky” because they do not represent official Conservative party policy.

The Yes Scotland campaign said only independence would guarantee the powers it believes Holyrood needs.

He said the changes Mr Fraser was advocating were “simply not on the table” and the “No” campaign parties had “completely failed to reach any common position on more powers for Scotland”.

Mr Fraser, the Scottish Conservatives’ spokesman on enterprise, energy and tourism and a former deputy leader of the party, will give a lecture organised by the think tank Reform Scotland.

‘Common ground’

He is expected to say: “A referendum with a binary Yes/No question was always bound to polarise opinion.

“But is there really no common ground between these two different stances? Is there no alternative around which a substantial majority of the Scottish people could coalesce?

“I would suggest that federalism within the UK, if it were workable and could be achieved, is a solution which could unite both unionists, and many nationalists, and provide a secure framework for the future.”

Mr Fraser will argue that federalism for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be “comparatively straightforward” as the three nations have devolved administrations.

He will call for devolution to English regions, giving the example of the creation of the London Assembly and an elected mayor for the city.

Conservative leader Ruth Davidson outlined her party’s devolution proposals earlier this month

Mr Fraser’s comments go further than his party’s devolution proposals, which would give the Scottish Parliament additional responsibility over VAT, income tax and welfare if voters reject independence in the referendum in September.

The option of federalism or further devolution will not be put to referendum voters, who will be asked the Yes/No question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

‘Full powers’

Mr McMillan, from the SNP, said: “The ‘No’ campaign parties accepting that Scotland needs more powers is galvanising the ‘Yes’ vote.

“Scotland needs the full economic and welfare powers of independence, which only a ‘Yes’ vote can deliver, and barely a third of people trust Westminster to deliver anything. That is why a ‘Yes’ vote is so important.”

He added: “In an independent Scotland we will get the government we vote for every time, instead of Tory governments we reject – as well as saving taxpayers some £50m per year by getting rid of the Westminster tier in Scotland.”

via BBC News – Scottish independence: Conservative MSP calls for a federal UK.

 

A federal UK? Home Rule all round? We have been here before.

There are fewer truly new things in politics than you think. The present constitutional uncertainty – which, it should be said, could scarcely have been avoided – is no exception. We have been here before, all of us, even if we choose to forget our previous gallops around this track.

A century ago – on September 18th, to be precise – a bill for Irish Home Rule was finally passed. It had taken three attempts and nearly 30 years but it was passed at last. There would, once again, be an Irish parliament.

Or there would have been had it not been for the Kaiser’s War. The guns of August delayed Home Rule; Easter 1916 (and, especially, the response to Padraig Pearse’s mad provocation) killed it. Nothing would recover; nothing would be quite the same again.

Nevertheless, it is useful to recall just how similar many of the arguments over Irish Home Rule are to those we hear now about the future governance of these islands.

Here, for instance, is Herbert Asquith addressing the future entitlement of Irish MPs to sit at Westminster:

[W]hatever other changes may be made, and however far the devolution of local affairs to local bodies may be carried, the House of Commons must continue to be the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, fairly representing all its constituent parts and inviting the cooperation of each of them in the supervision of their common interests, the transaction of their common business, and the discharge of their joint and corporate trust to the Empire as a whole. It is true that for a time, and until there are further applications of the principle of devolution, Irish Members will be here with an unfettered right to vote. For the reasons I have already given, a very substantial reduction in their number makes that a matter of much less practical importance than it was, and we think it may well be found to be the duty of the House of Commons—after this Bill has become the law of the land—the duty of the House of Commons, which is absolute master of its own procedure, to anticipate in some degree further developments of statutory devolution by so moulding its own Standing Orders as to secure the effective consideration and discussion of legislation affecting only one part of the United Kingdom, by those who, as representing that part, are alone directly interested.

As you can see, the West Lothian Question was preceded by what one might deem the West Meath Question. Perhaps, in time, something like an English Grand Committee would be needed. Note, too, however, that reducing Irish representation from more than 100 members to just 42 would necessarily make it vastly less probable that these MPs could make a decisive difference to the governance of the nation. In similar fashion, and subject to the new Scotland Bill transferring significant responsibilities to Holyrood, a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs sent south may not iron out the constitutional anomaly but it renders its impact less substantial. Besides, nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timber of the British constitution. English votes for English laws is, in any case, as the historian Tom Holland quipped, an issue of great importance for the kind of people outraged by the sorry lack of an International Men’s Day.

Other concerns seem just as fresh. The Barnett Formula – nearly 40 years old and plainly in need of recalibration – was itself an adjustment to the Goschen Formula introduced in the late 19th century. Never let it be said that we move too hastily on these matters. As Asquith, again, noted:

When a grant is made to England, Scotland and Ireland at once step in and claim an equivalent whether they need it or not. […] It is in no-one’s interests to be economical and, on the other hand, it is to everyone’s interest to make fresh and growing demands upon the Imperial Exchequer.

Well, indeed. But hark too at what Edward Carson, the great bulwark of Ulster Unionism, had to say:

What is the object of the United Kingdom? As I understand it, it is that all parts of that Kingdom should be worked together as one whole; under one system, and with the object that the poorer may be helped by the richer, and the richer may be the stronger by the co-operation of the poorer. If you were to take certain counties in England at the present moment—I shall not name any, as it might seem invidious—and work out what their contribution to the United Kingdom is, you will find that many of them do not pay for their upkeep. Is that a reason that they should be deprived of that upkeep? No; and I say this further, that a worse, a more foolish, and a more impossible policy it would be impossible to inaugurate than to suggest that either Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, whether large or small, should be allowed to go back in the race of progress, and civilisation, and not to be kept up to the same standard as you yourselves, or as near thereto as possible. The whole of this argument is based upon a fallacy, because the moment you make a common Exchequer you have no right to segregate any unit paying into that Exchequer towards local or Imperial upkeep. As Ireland pays exactly the same taxes as Great Britain pays, you have no right whatsoever to segregate her.

Again, this is strikingly familiar is it not? So is this:

Does the right hon. Gentleman really tell this House that he is going to have Home Rule all round? Does he say that until the other Constitutions are completed the Irish Members are to be here dealing with the local affairs of England and Scotland, and England and Scotland are to have nothing to say about the local affairs of Ireland? No. If you were in earnest you would have these schemes, whether brought in in one Bill or three all operating together. I will put it to the test. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which will test his sincerity upon the subject. Will he agree to hang up this Bill until he has framed the others? Of course he will not. Do hon. Members think he would be allowed? The truth of the matter is that all this is simple hypocrisy. When you are granting to Ireland this system, which is said to be part of the federal system, there is really behind it a much deeper matter than the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with. Before you can grant a federal system at all you must make up your mind as to what is the demand, the real demand, of Ireland.

[…] Just picture what you are setting up. Do picture it in relation to the complicated system of taxation you are setting up, and which I venture to think will not last six months, and try to realise what it is that will then happen. Just think of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing in his Budget and explaining to an Irish House of Commons mainly composed of agricultural Members that it is necessary to raise more money, and that it must come from the land, or if he had the power, which he never will have, from the industries of Ulster. What will be his argument? He would tell the Irish House of Commons, “This is a very bad system; you have got your instalments to pay to that brutal English Government; they have reserved that to themselves. You have got a great many other taxes to pay, but the one thing we are not allowed to set up is a system of taxation which we know and believe would be best for our own country. We cannot help it. It is the brutal English Government that has done this.”

As I say, there are fewer truly new things than we think. And what of feeding the nationalist beast? Well, here’s John Redmond speaking in the same 1912 debate:

[In the] circumstances of this case, the onus undoubtedly lies upon those who argue that what has proved to be good and just everywhere else in the world is bad and unjust and mischievous in Ireland. What are the main arguments against the principle of self-government for Ireland? The first of them is the question of separation, and Unionist orators, especially in the country—I notice more in the country than in this House, where they are face to face with their opponents—have constantly been saying that the Irish people want separation, and that the Irish leaders are separatists. I will be perfectly frank on this matter. There always have been, and there is to-day, a certain section of Irishmen who would like to see separation from this country. They are a small, a very small section. They were once a large section. They are a very small section, but these men who hold these views at this moment only desire separation as an alternative to the present system, and if you change the present system and give into the hands of Irishmen the management of purely Irish affairs even that small feeling in favour of separation will disappear, and, if it survive at all, I would like to know how under those circumstances it would be stronger or more powerful for mischief than at the present moment.

That might, it is true, have proved wishful thinking. Nevertheless it is another example of how today’s Scottish debate is in many respects a refreshment of the Irish argument from a century ago.

We cannot, as I wrote in the Scottish edition of The Times this week, know if the Asquith-Redmond Home Rule bill would have lasted. There are grounds for thinking it would not, not least because of the Ulster complications. Nevertheless, it might have and, more importantly, the fact it was passed at all should remind us that our own constitutional affairs can be resolved.

Of course it is more complicated now. Government has grown since 1912 and its tentacles now extend to places unimaginable a century ago. Cleaving Scotland – and Scottish finances – from the rest of the UK is not so simple as liberating Ireland a century ago. And it was a complicated enough business back then. For instance pensions, reserved to Westminster then, are an even greater issue now. Ditto the wider provision of welfare. That’s one reason why the new Scotland bill will not, in some areas, go as far as the Asquith-Redmond Irish Home Rule bill. The unravelling is a more perilous business these days.

Still, Ireland offers an example and, perhaps, a warning. To members and supporters of all parties. We have, after all, been here before.

Alex Salmond to stand for Westminster seat

From the BBC News

It would appear that former SNP leader and First Minister for Scotland, Alex Salmond, sees the importance of sitting in Westminster to make change to the nation; he is to stand for a seat at Westminster at next May’s General Election, the BBC understands.

He will contest the Gordon seat held by retiring Lib Dem MP Sir Malcolm Bruce.

Mr Salmond stood down as SNP leader and Scotland’s first minister after the “Yes” campaign was defeated in September’s independence referendum.

He is expected to confirm his decision when he addresses a meeting in the constituency on Sunday morning.

‘Wait and see’
There has been intense speculation that Mr Salmond would seek to return to Westminster ever since he announced he was stepping down as first minister.

He currently represents the constituency of Aberdeenshire East in the Scottish Parliament and had indicated he would continue in that role.

At the 2010 general election Mr Bruce held the Gordon constituency in Aberdeenshire with a majority of 6,748 over the SNP, having been an MP since 1983.

BBC news correspondent Catriona Renton said there was an enormous amount of momentum behind the SNP since the independence referendum and Mr Salmond was likely to have a good chance in the Gordon seat.

It had not come as much of a surprise because he had hinted at it on the BBC’s Question Time recently, she added.

On Question Time, presenter David Dimbleby asked Mr Salmond whether he would consider a return to Westminster.

He replied: “The answer to your question, David, absolutely decisively I can tell you I haven’t made up my mind. So you’ll have to wait and see.”

In response to Mr Salmond’s candidature, Mr Bruce said: “People in Gordon rejected the first minister’s independence plans overwhelmingly at the referendum.

“I am sure that they would be delighted to have the chance to reject him again in May. Bring it on.”

The Lib Dems’ candidate for the constituency, Christine Jardine, said she intended to be a “strong voice for all the people of Gordon”.

‘Changed for better’
Mr Salmond was the MP for Banff and Buchan between 1987 and 2010. He stood down as an MP after being chosen as first minister, a role he served between 2007 and 2014.

He used his resignation speech as first minister in the Scottish Parliament to describe the job as the “privilege of my life”.

Alex Salmond opted for Westminster over Holyrood after his first spell as SNP leader ended in 2000; and it looks like he’s once again going to seek election as an MP having stood down as the party’s leader and Scotland’s First Minister.

Since the Yes campaign lost the referendum back in September, he’s been hinting at a return to Westminster politics. It’s expected he’ll seek to become the SNP’s candidate for the rural seat of Gordon in Aberdeenshire.

When the SNP won the 2007 Holyrood elections, Mr Salmond made a triumphant return to the equivalent seat at Holyrood, knocking out the Liberal Democrat incumbent in the process.

With the opinion polls in flux following the referendum, Mr Salmond – and indeed the SNP as a whole – are sensing an opportunity to carve a significant political role for themselves at Westminster.

He said: “Scotland has changed – changed utterly and much for the better over the 15 years of this parliament and over the seven years of this government.

“I’m happy to say with every degree of certainty that more change and better days lie ahead for this parliament and for Scotland.”

The referendum on Scotland’s future saw voters turn out to reject independence by 55% to 45%, on a turnout of almost 85%.

‘No coalition’
Speaking last week, Mr Salmond said it was unlikely that the SNP would be part of a formal coalition government with Labour at Westminster.

The new SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has ruled out helping the Conservatives if David Cameron fails to win an overall majority of MPs in May.

Mr Salmond was named Spectator magazine’s Politician of the Year at a ceremony in London last week, which he was also awarded in 2011 after the SNP’s victory in the Scottish elections.

He said: “This has been a momentous year for Scotland and, while the Yes campaign may not have won in the referendum, there is no doubt that Scotland has been changed utterly.

“With the SNP now the third biggest party in the UK, with more than twice as many members as the Lib Dems, and support for the party surging in the polls, there is a determination in Scotland to ensure that real progress is delivered.”

Campaign for a Federal UK says:
It would appear that an early de facto Federal UK government maybe beginning to be formed, should the SNP become the third party within Westminster.

With growing demands for further self rule for Scotland following the countries vote to remain in the Union, it is only a matter of time before the other constituent provinces begin to ask the same.

Only a Federal UK can offer fair governance with the UK offering effective self rule for all whilst giving the security of the remaining Union.

At Campaign for a Federal UK we call for self ruling parliaments for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to be held together with a fully elected UK Parliament and scope for further democracy to regional powers where needed.

Join our campaign by following this site, writing a piece for us and signing our pledge, to be released soon.