Maintaining the Union in the face of the English Question
In his keynote address to the Constitution Unit's Inside Devolution 2008 Conference Prof Robert Hazell noted that "the Union is itself defensible because at least for now, it is supported by a majority within all parts of the Union". He then offered his advice - the five Cs - on how the UK Government could defend the Union: consent, custodianship, constitutionality, consistency, and confidence.
The most important principle underlying the Union is consent. It is a voluntary union, and the UK government should recognise (as it has in the case of Northern Ireland) that the nations comprising the UK are free to leave the union if they wish. That imposes on the UK government important obligations as the main custodian of the union. It needs to uphold the principles of constitutionality in the path to independence for Scotland. And to uphold the principle of consistency, the UK government should engage fairly and equally with all the devolved governments, and ensure fair and equal representation in the UK parliament, fair distribution of territorial finance according to need, etc.
How can England consent without a voice? And if we're talking about consistency, surely the UK Government should engage fairly and equally with all nations, not just with "all devolved governments". But it can't do that because England doesn't exist as a political entity; England has no government, and no politicians elected on an English mandate. So the only way England can consent is through Government engagement with the people over The English Question. Somehow I doubt Prof Hazell will be calling for a popular constitutional sovereignty in England anytime soon.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login to post comments
It is not primarily an Englsh
It is not primarily an Englsh question but a question of democracy. If people in England are dissatisfied with the Government's policies or performance on matters such as education, health, housing, etc. they can vote accordingly at the next election. MPs elected in devolved areas do not represent their constituents regarding these matters so cannot be held to account when seeking re-election. This cannot be called democracy.
I understand the point you
I understand the point you make, but I'd disagree. It is an English Question because England is the constituency affected.
The MPs that supposedly represent English interests are elected on a UK policy platform. There is no English manifesto, no English mandate, and therefore no one who can be said to speak for England.
MPs represent the interests of themselves, their constitutents, their party, their country - which in this case is the UK. In Scotland the public expects MSPs to act in Scottish interests.
As a point of interest England did vote accordingly and still ended up with a Labour Government headed by a Scot with no mandate on English matters.