Henry McLeish

Henry McLeish has called for a federal United Kingdom on at least a couple of occasions in the past (one here), and here he is doing it again in the Holyrood Magazine:

The constitutional question will not go away! Labour and the other parties need to embrace the politics of identity, diversity and nationality (not nationalism) and evolve an intelligible and coherent alternative to independence.

This has to be a form of federalism. We need a solution for Scotland and not for any particular party; one that will secure all the practical benefits of independence while remaining within a UK union; will stop well short of independence as a political or constitutional reality; and offers the prospect of a radical reform of both Scotland and the Union.

Devo-max represents an option which provides the maximum powers, some form of full fiscal responsibility and retains Scotland within the UK. Independence, in sharp contrast, transfers all powers to Scotland, with full fiscal autonomy and breaks completely the historic, constitutional and political link with the UK. There is now an opportunity for Westminster to join this new debate around a serious alternative. Federalism is the powerful alternative which will allow us to address the “England question” as well as the Barnett formula, the West Lothian Question and the unresolved reform of the House of Lords.

I don't argue with the vision, it's the likelihood of it happening that's the problem. It really is a shame that the Calman Commission was tasked only with looking at - and securing - Scotland's place in Union, when what really needed to be looked at was the Union's place in the governance of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As usual we take a piecemeal approach and preferentially pander to whichever separatists make the most noise, failing completely to address the British Question or understand the nationalist equilibrium, particularly in regard to England's place in the Union.

The Lib Dems want Holyrood to have total control over raising funds, the Scotsman tells us:

HOLYROOD should be given complete control over income tax, the Liberal Democrats are expected to demand as part of the review of devolution.

The findings of the Steel Commission, chaired by the former Liberal leader Sir David Steel, has supported the view that new tax-raising powers and far more strategic policy control should be given to Scottish Parliament.

Fine by me. If Scotland funds its own education system directly through taxes raised in Scotland, then the taxes spent on education in England are minus any Scottish contribution. Why, therefore, should a Scottish prime minister, or indeed any MP from Scotland, have any say whatsoever in how those taxes are spent?

This rhetorical question is not to suggest that England's democratic deficit should prevent Scotland adopting a more transparent system, merely that financial devolution can't happen fairly until England has political devolution. Otherwise you have democratically unaccountable Scottish MPs deciding how money is raised and spent in what is, for all intents and purposes (to them), a foreign country. Namely, England.

The Scotsman's political editor is clearly thinking along the same lines as myself if the final two paragraphs are anything to go by:

The Liberal Democrats received a boost when former Labour first minister Henry McLeish also came out in favour of a federal system for the UK.

He wants Scotland to have more tax raising powers and said that there should be an equivalent English parliament to Holyrood. His comments followed an admission by Gordon Brown last week that Holyrood needed to be more accountable for raising money not just spending it.

Unfortunately the type of federalism envisaged by the Liberal Democrats is not the same as the sort McLeish is thinking of. When asked whether he supported an English parliament Nick Clegg had this to say:

The real English Question is in a sense the same as the Scottish Question or the Welsh Question - it's about breaking down an overbearing, over-controlling central state and returning power to local communities and to individuals. I don't think that English people primarily see this as a question of exact symmetry - the question is one of democratic control. The answer isn't to try and divide MPs into sheep and goats and risk creating problems whereby one party is in government, but doesn't have a majority for English affairs. We need to move beyond this sterile debate and look to devolve power within England, and continue the push for a whole new constitutional settlement. Remember - every decision not taken in Whitehall is a decision where the West Lothian Question doesn't apply.

Presumably then it will be local communities and individuals raising taxes in England, so no need for an English parliament?

Henry McLeish was an 'architect of devolution' and certainly wants to see devolution work. We must assume, therefore, that he sees an English parliament as being part of a 'new union' and not the threat to the United Kingdom that others in the Labour Party believe it to be.

Well lookee here, the former Scottish First Minister, Henry McLeish, calling for a federation:

The “New Union” strategy should also make a powerful statement about nationality, not nationalism; identity, not isolationism; and diversity, not division. It should embrace the idea of shared sovereignty and shared power between Edinburgh and London; encourage England to develop its own political voice; and promote the positive benefits of some form of federation for the Government of the UK.

It smacks of desperation. Back in May McLeish warned that Wendy Alexander's "Bring it on" could backfire:

If the name of the game is to try and shoot the fox by having an early referendum, the danger is it could backfire and we have a result which does not suit the unionist parties but will suit the SNP – because it will be the first recorded, proper vote on independence, which will only make their enthusiasm that much greater.

The "fox" in this case being the "the verdict of the Scottish people" on the Union. It's such a far cry from the lofty ideals of the Scottish Claim of Right, to which Henry McLeish added his signature as Scottish Devolution Minister.

The contradiction between Westminster sovereignty and Scottish popular sovereignty was fairly obvious back in 1998. I wonder if McLeish can see it now?