English regions run by anonymous, powerful, unelected, US-style Govenors

On Sunday Kenny Farquharson had an article in Scotland on Sunday in which he made a very valid point about the Calman Commission:

And why is Calman trying to wear such a bewildering array of hats? Why is he taking the position of the Englishman who is concerned about the high level of public spending north of the border? Or pondering the dilemma faced by UK Government ministers on how to give different parts of Britain a fair share of public spending? Surely these are matters beyond Calman's competence? Doesn't this risk a very real backlash from south of the border as the English express their resentment at 14 Scots deciding what is best for them?

Yes, there probably will be a backlash. But most probably because Calman has, for the most part, ignored representations from England. If the Scottish Parliament wanted a Commission without input from the English then it should have been funded by Scottish money. But since we English financed it, or at least most of it, the report should have included far far more of the English perspective.

Farquharson's suggestion that the constitutional debate needed to include "voices from the English regions" drew predictable objections along the lines of "England is a country, and no more a collections of so-called 'regions' than is Scotland." Surprisingly, and to his credit, Farquharson responded:

Very interested in the comments about the English regions. Yes, I accept the move towards regional assemblies in England is dead in the water.

I spent some time in Newcastle during the campaign leading up to the referendum that was held in the North-East, and the opposition was overwhelming.

But the posts that insist England has one single tier of government are wrong - it has a dozen or so regions, each run by an unelected civil servant who acts like a US-style Governor.

They are anononymous, but extremely powerful. And each of these Governors has a budget from the Treasury.

Whether or not this tier of government is brought under democratic control, there is still a debate to be had about how each regions' share of UK public spending is allocated.

I imagine this will happen in tandem with deciding a funding mechanism for Scotland.

The Barnett Formula doesn't allocate money to "regions", it allocates money to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a percentage of what is spent in England. Extending the Barnett Formula to cover English regional spending might suit the centralising instincts of the UK Government, but it's no equitable or transparent way of going about matters.

When asked to deconstruct the suggestion that the Calman Commission threatens to undermine Scottish "values and beliefs" Farquharson came back with this:

Scotland is more collectivist than England, and it has a greater adherence to the idea of the Welfare State.

Those were the values I was talking about.

I don't believe at all that Scotland is morally superior to England.

I believe, for example, that England - in general - is a far more tolerant country than Scotland, with a greater belief in the idea of fairness.

Spot on. Which is why it's ridiculous to bind Scotland to English spending commitments, and why it's also ridiculous for English taxpayers to contribute more to Scottish welfare than they would spend on their own.

Farquharson also believes that devolution-max will weaken the Scottish separatist's case:

"...continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."

Calman is reading this in a curious way.

My interpretation, which I think is the general view, is that Scotland's position within the Union will be secured only when Scotland's small-n nationalist instincts are satisfied.

Diehard Unionists seem to have a view that devolution is a zero-sum game - that every extra power given from Westminster to Holyrood weakens the Union and strengthens the SNP.

In fact the opposite is the case. Only a much stronger form of devolution can save the Union.

I happen to agree. But the problem is that devolution-max for Scotland moves power away from Westminster in a way that damages English voters. The problem becomes not Scotland's place in the union, but England's. Scottish MPs become more pointless than ever, and Westminster looks less like a Union parliament and more like an English parliament each day.