Submission to the Calman Commission

My submission (more of a long complaint really) to the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution.

As an Englishman who lived in Scotland during the formative years of the Scottish Parliament, but who now resides back in England, I appreciate the opportunity that you have given me to put forward my views on Scottish Devolution ten years on.

The Scottish Claim of Right acknowledged that the Scottish people have the 'sovereign right' to decide the form of government best suited to their needs. That 'form of government' must include independence as well as devolution, so I am disappointed to note that the independence option is off your stated agenda.

"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."

As an Englishman I must say that I find it hypocritical of Gordon Brown, and others who signed the Scottish Claim of Right, to now deny that same sovereign right to the people of England, especially as recognition of the Scottish sovereign right, in the form of the devolution that has followed, has moved power away from Westminster in a way that has damaged English voters. My concern, and that of many other Englishmen and women, is that enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament will simply increase the democratic deficit in England that has resulted from the asymmetric devolution 'settlement'.

"Settlement" implies an agreement between two parties, but unlike the Scottish people the English were never consulted. It's this oversight that must be rectified in any new round of devolution in order to achieve a stable union. Without consent on all sides it will resemble more a forced marriage than a union.

Jim Wallace, one of the Calman Commission's Group Chairs, was a signatory to the Scottish Claim of Right that attested to the sovereign right of the Scottish people. As an architect of Scottish devolution his constituents rewarded him by electing him as their MSP, a role that he took on whilst remaining an MP at Westminster, at which place he showed scant regard for the sovereign right of the English people by continuing to vote on English legislation. To this day Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dem MPs continue this proud tradition of interference in English affairs, in contrast to the self-denying ordinance observed by SNP and Conservative MPs.

The Barnett Formula, which determines the money due to Scotland as a proportion of what is spent in England, provides the rationale for this undemocratic intrusion into English affairs. Due to the fact that English legislation has a knock-on effect on the Scottish budget, the logic goes that Scottish MPs have a constitutional - but hardly ethical - justification for voting on matters that are of no direct consequence to their constituents (who, incidently, don't elect them to represent them on the concomitant Scottish legislation because that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament).

This justification for voting on English affairs can be removed if the Calman Commission could find a way to improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament . I would suggest that the simplest way to do this is for Scotland to raise its own taxes to pay for all areas of governance that are devolved. In this way Scotland can maintain its generous social provision without the English grievance that such profligacy generates. The advantage for England lies in the fact that an increase in financial accountability of MSPs is matched by an inversely proportional decrease in the financial accountability of those Scottish MPs down in England, who - at present - have a say in how English money is spent. This state of affairs will be unsustainable under fiscal federalism, when the rationale behind the undemocratic Scottish intrusion into English affairs is gone. "No taxation without representation" could well become the English battle cry when confronted with sticky beak Scottish politicians, and it will be a just cry because MPs elected in England quite rightly have no say on how the Scottish Parliament spends its budget.

Down here in England the Scots are becoming viewed as a pampered clique by virtue of their privileged constitutional status and an overly generous Barnett provision. To secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom the Calman Commission needs to find a way of reducing English grievance without compromising Scotland's privileged postion and inadvertently fanning the Scottish nationalist fire. It is an unenviable task, especially as you now have a nationalist government persuing a strategy of policy divergence between London and Leith.

The English do not begrudge the Scots taking their own decisions; in fact, if opinion polls are to be believed, we don't much care if you vote for independence. We do not begrudge the Scots their nationhood or their Scottish identity. We do, however, find it objectionable that the "Future of the Union" is being decided by Scotland. And we find it even more objectionable to have an Britishness thrust upon us by a self-serving Scottish prime minister as a sop to English nationalism and as an entreaty against Scottish nationalism. If the Scottish people are sovereign to say "yes" or "no" to political union with England, and sovereign to determine the nature and extent of that union, then the same must be true for the people of England in regard to our relationship with Scotland and the British state. The Acts of Union were a bilateral process and it would be unfair for the Scottish people to renegotiate terms (again) without the English being consulted (again). Unilateralism and Britishness are not the answer, they merely inflame the situation.

To my mind the best way of preventing English grievance is to allow the English to be masters of their own destiny; for the English to have the same sovereign right to not only choose their government, but also to determine what form that government should take, and; to be free to make their own mistakes, and able to accept responsibility for them rather than lay blame at the door of the Union. My guess is that given this the English will choose political union with Scotland. Whether the Scots will reciprocate is another matter, but then what is the point of a union of nations that is not one based on mutual consent?

My advice to you, if you want to save the Union and secure Scotland's place in it, is to not change anything until the English have shown their hand. "Britishness" is not the currency it once was down here in England, so it would be foolish of you to count on English magnanimity and goodwill to forge ahead with Scottish devolution round two.

Jim Wallace will have plenty of time to consider these questions as he sits in the House of Lords scrutinising English legislation. Perhaps he can also find time to muse upon the questions of whether his seat might be put to better purpose by the bum of a democratically elected English MP representing the people of England, and whether the chamber itself would be better used as an English national parliament. Then again perhaps not, which is why Paxman cooked up the phrase "Scottish Raj".

Good luck,

UPDATE: My submission now online.