Disunited Kingdom - Devolution and English Votes

Those of us who thought a ‘No’ vote in Scotland would bring the constituent parts of the United Kingdom closer together have been proven wrong, with the disunity now almost as bad as it would have been for a ‘Yes’ win.

In Scotland the ‘Yes’ campaign has organised itself into a group called The 45, demanding international moderators to recount the referendum votes, because apparently Scotland is similar to Afghanistan, and a boycott of the companies who said they would leave Scotland in the event of independence.

The more sensible groups have joined together to demand Westminster follows through on more devolved powers, but they have hit a strange road-block, the English, who are now demanding more powers for England and an answer to the so-called West Lothian question.

For starters, the Westminster parties have to follow through with the pledge of more powers, but simultaneously The 45 have to let this process take its course and accept another independence vote cannot happen for at least a decade or two.

Secondly, this idea of English votes for English laws needs to be thought about very carefully, because, although it is a good idea, there are some major issues surrounding it which often go overlooked.

What is the West Lothian Question?

The West Lothian question is a term coined in 1977 to describe the problem of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Westminster MPs voting with equal powers on English topics, while English MPs had less authority over issues in the other parts of the UK.

Since then there have been sustained calls for ideas like a separate English parliament or banning MPs from outside England voting on solely English issues.

So What’s the Problem?

Well unfortunately for the current party leaders there are lots of them, which is why this has never been truly sorted out.

There are three main options to solve the West Lothian question and the legislative and spending vacuum in England, but all have huge flaws.

Option One – English Parliament

The idea here is all four countries making up the UK would have their own separate parliament which would decide how to spend the money allocated by the central government, while Westminster would focus on federal issues like budgeting and national defence.

This would involve the formation of an English parliament, which would please people as it involves moving power away from Westminster and would mean English politicians would make decisions for the English.

However, this is where the good news stops.

For this to work all parliaments, including the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, would have to be equal in power, however, there are historical and political reasons why the Northern Irish Assembly is unlikely to get or ask for more powers, while the nationalist movement in Wales is far weaker than north or the border.

It also creates an executive in London, which means there will be two-tiered politicians leading to power struggles or circumvention of the voters if governments are struggling to pass measures.

The English parliament would also become the strongest, purely because of the numbers it represents, which undermines the point of the exercise, while it also leaves central government open to being ganged-up on by a collective of national representatives.

Another issue is what has already been seen in Scotland, where MSPs can promise whatever they like and if they fail to deliver or do not follow through at all, they can get away with blaming the evil Westminster establishment and this could easily happen in an English parliament as well.

Lastly, this creates more politicians, more bureaucracy, more salaries, more expenses, more in-fighting, all of the things the general public want politicians to move away from.

So while this idea fits the bill in terms of answering the West Lothian question and makes politics more local, it has some huge flaws which could make it less efficient, less democratic and less accountable.

Option 2 – English MPs for English Votes

This idea is less complicated and essentially would mean English MPs would meet one or two days a week to vote on issues affecting England without their colleagues from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Avoiding additional politicians, parliaments and in-fighting, while allowing varying devolved powers, this would seem like a good idea, but again it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, it creates disharmony at a time when Scotland has just voted to reject independence and unwittingly creates a two-tiered system of MPs where those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be second class.

This also means it would be unlikely a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish person would ever become Prime Minister or even a party leader.

Another issue all too rarely pointed out is there are actually very few issues put before Westminster which only effect the English, while this solution to the problem would make the process more inefficient by putting aside days for debates without the full house.

The fact is England has always been the centre of the union, with decisions made in Westminster emanating from England to the other member states, so in reality, while England does have its own government departments there are very few issues which only have an impact on the English.

There is also a huge political problem which makes this solution unlikely as it benefits the Conservatives and punishes Labour because Labour have MPs in Wales and Scotland, while the Tories have not.

This would mean it would be harder for a Labour party to pass laws relating to England, encouraging them to circumvent the Westminster executive, or allow the Conservatives to deliberately hold-up any Labour proposals and force through partisan measures when in power.

All in all, while this seems like a relatively good solution, politically it is unlikely to happen and, even if it did, just keeps power centrally which is not popular with the electorate, not to mention it discriminating against Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs with loftier ambitions.

Option 3 – Regional Devolution

A halfway house between options one and two is to devolve powers from Westminster to the regions of the UK, taking the form of county or regional assemblies or elected city mayors.

This idea certainly solves a few issues as it gives increased power over spending to local areas, without creating second class MPs, while allowing varying degrees of devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The question of what to do about Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster voting on English matters still remains, but is certainly reduced as they would have no power over how the money is used, just how it is distributed.

However, the problem is the voters do not seem interested in this idea.

Elected mayors were proposed in a number of cities recently, but the desire for them from the electorate was muted at best.

Similarly, when elected police commissioners were introduced it resulted in the lowest ever turnout for a UK election.

There is an argument the failure of city mayors and regional police commissioners was because they were given no real power and the measures were only promoted by third rate politicians, but then again the London Assembly is a bit of a red herring, but this has not stopped Boris Johnson being an effective ambassador for the capital.

However, the biggest issue here is England already has this to some extent with local, parish, district and county councils, which have the power to raise and spend money as well as petition central government and local people about issues.

It is all well and good claiming England needs more representation, in fact it probably does, but the systems are already in place, but are simply not used properly.

What is the point in creating a brand-new parliament for England, or fiddling with the constitution over what MPs can vote on what bills, when councils are already in place to supposedly represent local people?

David Cameron and, more precisely, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles promoted at the last election something called ‘The Big Society’ where local administrations would take on more responsibility.

This idea is the very epitome of what the people are supposedly asking for and yet when the people are asked they do not turn out to have their voice heard.

Conclusions

What has to be accepted is there are two very separate issues here. First, devolved powers to the Scottish parliament and secondly, increased powers for England.

These two issues must be dealt with separately and on different timetables.

Scotland deserves more power over how money and resources are allocated in Scotland and this must be announced within the announced timetable, if not then the calls for independence will only get louder and more problematic.

MPs of all parties must work together to finalise what powers will be controlled by Holyrood for the benefit of a united kingdom.

However, England must wait for its future to be decided and so must the West Lothian question.

It makes far more sense for English devolution to form part of next year’s General Election campaign, rather than being rushed through in the heat of the moment during the highly politically charged time in the run-up to next May.

Why should England wait? Because this is a difficult topic to deal with.

As shown above, all three of the primary ideas have massive problems which need to be addressed, but these need to be dealt with in the respect of history and tradition.

England has always been the centre of the United Kingdom. This is not bloviating, it is a result of history and with this in mind, coupled with the party political stumbling blocks, makes curbing voting powers for non-English Westminster MPs difficult.

The historical background has meant laws and financing has emanated from England to the other countries of the union, meaning there are very few English-only issues put before parliament.

Another question is what do the English people actually want, because in the past regional powers have been on the table, but have not been accepted by the voters.

Rather than this haphazard cobbling together of a plan the Conservatives are undertaking, why should the English not have their own referendum tagged to the General Election ballot about what kind of regional devolved government they would like along with a proper discussion of the issues.

This is an important issue, both north and south of the border, but it cannot be solved in two minutes.

Scotland’s pro-independence movement must settle down and allow the dialogue to come up with a sensible plan within the timetable and the English should think hard about what exactly it is they want and accept it is not going to happen tomorrow.

The Big Picture and the Bigger Questions

If the polls are to be believed there is a very real possibility Scotland might vote for independence on September 18^th, but is this just another example of people ignoring the big picture?

For starters, let’s make one thing clear, this poll is actually pretty meaningless and does not under any circumstances mean an independent Scotland is on the cards.

Yes, the gap is much narrower than it was a month ago, but the lack of polling (there were more polls in Clacton in the week following Carswell’s defection than in Scotland in the past three weeks) means the margin of error for a one off poll like this is colossal.

However, what is undeniable is the Yes campaign is picking up momentum and is bridging what was seemingly an unbridgeable gap.

So how has this happened?

Essentially it comes down to the same thing which has dogged politics for many years, an ignorance 

of the big picture.

Alex Salmond has the better sound-bites, the opportunity to invoke the memory of William Wallace and play on people’s natural patriotism, but fails to address and (more to the point) has not been forced to address the really big questions.

Can Scotland be an independent country? Of cause it can. It has the people and resources to survive outside of the UK, this is undeniable, but this is the wrong question to ask.

The Isle of Wight could be an independent nation, but that does not mean it is in its best interests.

The real question is whether or not Scotland would be better off outside the UK and how would it achieve this, but time and time again Alex Salmond, the SNP and the pro-independence campaign has failed to answer the serious questions and essentially these questions are all economic.

What currency will Scotland use? Mr Salmond still insists an independent Scotland will use the pound and refuses to come up with a plan b, despite being told multiple times this is not going to happen and yet nobody seems to care.

It might not seem important what currency is in your pocket as long as you can spend it, but in fact it matters a lot, not to the person on the street, but to the businesses that employ the person on the street, Scottish exporting companies and those potential investors in Scotland.

If you want an indication of how important the currency is then all you have to look at is the effect the tightening polls had on trading value of sterling.

Will Scotland join the European Union? Again, Mr Salmond claims an independent Scotland would aim to join the EU, but has not answered the question of how long it would take to complete this process.

The EU has already stated Scotland would have to join the back of the queue, meaning the process could take many, many years, but has Mr Salmond addressed this, no.

What about North Sea oil? Mr Salmond’s claims of fiscally security are entirely based on North Sea oil being owned by an independent Scotland, but quite frankly his calculations are at best questionable, at worst deluded.

On the NHS, Mr Salmond has made the even more elementary mistake of claiming to be able to provide well-funded public services while lowering tax, the greatest and most consistent lie ever told by politicians.

While it is not fair to place all of these failures at the door of Mr Salmond, what we have ended up with is an argument over Scotland being governed by Westminster, not a debate over how an independent Scotland would survive.

All those in the No camp, Better Together campaign, Westminster establishment and Conservative party, have, in retrospect, made a mess of the referendum by taking victory for granted and assuming the serious arguments would win over the day.

But herein lays the problem, not just with the Scottish independence referendum, but politics in general. The big picture does not matter.

The same thing has been seen with the other popular ardent nationalist, Nigel Farage.

While the long-standing MEP and his party have enjoyed strong support, rising poll numbers, an election victory and look set to win its first Westminster representative, all sides of the anti-EU argument are yet to answer the big-picture questions.

Yes, the UK could survive outside the EU, after all it did for practically all of its history, but this drowns-out the greater issue of is the UK stronger outside the EU.

Like Mr Salmond, Mr Farage has all the good sound-bites and poetic licence for Churchillian oratory, but scratch the surface and his plans are at best half-baked.

At no point have UKIP outlined how the UK would go about leaving the EU, how long it would take to renegotiate trade deals, addressed the opposition to leaving the EU from parts of the business community, assessed the impact on the estimated 4 million jobs linked to European trade, or discussed why companies like Hitachi, Siemens, Nissan and Honda all state the UKs membership of the EU as a significant factor for investing in this country.

Yet again, all the really big questions are not nationalistic, but economic. Ordinary people want jobs and, more importantly, secure jobs and it is unclear if any job in Scotland would be secure if there was a yes vote, in the same way jobs would be at risk if the UK left the EU.

However, the most frustrating thing here is this comes down to an ignorance and apathy, not among the career politicians, but the voters.

The reason politicians like Mr Salmond, Mr Farage and many others (including the leaders of the three main Westminster parties) can get away with dodging the issues is because we as voters let ourselves be conned into believing it is possible to have the best of both worlds, when in fact it almost never possible.

Voters often complain about the quality of politicians on offer, but perhaps we are to blame for this because we demand so little of those we elect.

If you want any evidence of this then look no further than Scotland, where they might be about to put Mr Salmond in charge, despite the fact he cannot tell Scots what currency they will be using.

The general public are short-termists by nature. We are not prepared to wait for a decade to see improvements, we need to see them now, which in a democratic political world is never going to happen.

However, if a voter was going out to buy a new mobile phone they would not make up their mind based on incomplete facts, they would do their research and find the best deal and this is the way we should deal with politics.

Your decision of who to cast your ballot for should not be rushed, but considered and should take into consideration the facts available at the time, not opinions, but facts.

If we continue to fail to look at the bigger picture this cycle of second rate politicians filling their own pockets at the people’s expense will never end and as nations we will continue to fall behind because of it.

Perhaps we should turn to the worlds of fictional President Josiah Bartlett “we can do better, and we must do better, and we will do better, and we will start this moment today.”

Trading With China – As Good As It Seems?

We are constantly being told how important trade with China is and never has this issue more prevalent than this week with the visit of Chinese premier Li Kequiang, but can there really only be an upside to dealing with the world’s second largest economy?

Mr Li came to London with apparently £17 billion in his back pocket in the form of infrastructure deals and other investments in exchange for…we are not sure yet, but visa restrictions are being relaxed to encourage Chinese businessmen.

The way politicians speak you would naturally assume there are only massive plus points for the UK increasing its trading partnerships with China.

In fact UK trade with China has, according to the Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming, increased nearly 14% in the last year, faster than any other EU country.

Yes Mr Farage, that’s right. The UK has increased its trade with China, like that economic powerhouse of Iceland, whilst still part of the EU.

However, it should under no circumstances be assumed this is all good news and in fact closer Sino-UK trading ties should be treated very delicately.

Firstly China is a massive producer, but is not yet a nation of consumers.

Yes, UK companies exported more than £12bn of goods and services in 2013, but the UK imported well over £30bn and this is very dangerous.

With the World Cup currently in progress, Brazil has been a central to the news recently and is a great example of a country which has not benefitted from Chinese imports, despite the country investing in South America.

The Brazilian market has been flooded with cheap Chinese merchandise which has put many domestic producers out of businesses and this is a trend seen in many other countries, not least in America.

In exchange Brazil and many other developing nations in Africa and South America were supposed to benefit both socially and economically from infrastructure deals completed by the Chinese.

However, what ended up happening was a Sinification of public services where the only winners where the Chinese state owned companies who pillaged the land for natural resources in exchange for construction projects carried out by workers from China, not locals.

At a time when America is issuing arrest warrants for Chinese computer hacking of military and commercial computers is this really a nation you want to invite into your country to build a new generation of nuclear power plants and high speed railways?

Human rights also matter…a lot.

Contrary to the opinion of Tory minister Michael Fallon, who said human rights dialogue should not get in the way of trade deals, the way a country treats its people does matter.

How is China able to be competitive on the world stage? Quite simple really. The workers in China are basically treated as slave labour so there are no production costs.

This is how they are able to sell things around the world at knock down prices.

Yes, human rights violations and trade are two separate topics, but there has to be bilateral action to tackle both topics as they are both intrinsically linked.

Until China agrees to play by the same trading rules as everyone else it will always benefit disproportionally more than other countries.

Massive state owned monopolies dominate the industry, there are no health and safety costs, no minimum wage, at best rudimental free markets, pretty much non-existent environmental controls and massive violation of international copyrights.

Pollution levels are appalling and a blatant public health risk and yet there is no effort in China to curb the rapid increase in consumption of carbon based fuels.

Most importantly however, the Chinese currency is still not openly traded.

For years the value of the Yuan, or Renminbi, was pegged to the dollar and it is only in very recent years any effort at all has been made to open up this market.

This makes China unnaturally competitive, especially against the large economies of America and Europe.

The combination of all the aforementioned factors is especially dangerous for the UK and Europe, economies which produce high value products, in particular cars.

China desperately wants to export more vehicles to the US and EU, however Europe is also home to some of the world’s biggest and best car manufacturers.

In the past China has less than subtly ripped off European designs and the cars produced in the country would never pass EU safety standards and crash tests, not to mention they can be produced at remarkably low costs thanks to state funding and what is essentially slave labour.

With many car companies, particularly from Japan, setting up manufacturing bases in the UK and the likes of BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen, Audi and Ferrari based on the continent it is in our interests to protect the car industry.

While it is undeniably important to increase trade and diplomatic ties with the world’s second largest economy, it is equally important to remember dealing with China has the potential to be a very one sided affair, as many countries in Africa have discovered to their detriment.

Political Warfare - The Battle of Newark

Following UKIPs historic victory in the European elections all of the noise was surrounding the so called political earthquake, but before the results were even in those who understand how the British electoral system works had already turned our attention somewhere else.

Our focus instantly switched to a small town North East of Nottingham on the River Trent, to the constituency of Newark.

While the purples success in the race to Brussels was expected, getting seats in Westminster has proved problematic for them, not least because of the first-past-the-post system (don’t blame me I voted for AV).

However, with their current undeniable momentum Newark offers an interesting opportunity for them and the polls suggest they could do well, but with the circus now firmly focuses on the midlands this is going to be no ordinary by-election.

Under normal circumstance this would be a forgone conclusion with a massive Conservative majority, but following the resignation of Patrick Mercer in a lobbying scandal there is potential for an upset.

The first poll out of Newark by Survation suggests the Tory’s are winning with 36%, UKIP second on 28%, just ahead of Labour on 27%.

With a week to go, a lot of media attention and the election machines in full swing this is not set in stone and the outcome is far from guaranteed

But regardless of who wins the result is going to be interesting, so what will end up happening?

Con Hold – By far the most likely outcome, but by how much they win will be a telling factor.

It is unlikely they will extend or even get a similar majority, but this was to be expected following the nature of the former MPs resignation.

However, a strong performance with an eight point margin (as the current polls suggest) would be a great result even if a lot of ground would have been lost, while a four point win would be more than acceptable.

This would allow the Conservatives the chance to claim UKIP are not a national force and the government’s economic policies are benefiting the British people, but all this assumes it stays roughly the same.

Con Hold, but only just – With UKIP and Labour snapping at the Conservatives heals the result could be a lot tighter than currently predicted.

If the Tory’s win by just a couple of points then the pressure to address the UKIP issue and the fact they are hurting the blues more than the reds will only mount on David Cameron.

However, the person under the most pressure might be Nigel Farage as it could be argued his personality could possibly have tipped UKIP over the top and gained them their first Westminster representative.

UKIP Win – Given the conservative leanings of the constituency this is probably the second most likely outcome after a Tory win and would signal the earthquake promised by Mr Farage.

It is going to take a big swing and it is unlikely UKIP candidate Roger Helmer will be able to bridge the gap given his age and previously expressed opinions on certain issues, most recently the weekends newspaper story about his views on the disproved theory of gay conversion therapy.

Similarly, the Conservatives have more backing and greater experience in running these campaigns so it would be difficult for UKIP to overturn the lead.

This said the Tory’s are down 18% on 2010 and most of this seems to be going to UKIP so in fact all that is required is a four point swing to the purples and we could have a UKIP MP.

Labour Win – Very unlikely, but with UKIP splitting the Tory vote then it is possible. This would be a massive win for Ed Miliband and the red team, who last won Newark in the 1997 landslide.

Overall second place, or a close third would be a relatively successful day for the red corner. The problems only really start with a distant third or a significant Labour voter swing to UKIP.

However, a win is not impossible, just unlikely.

Everybody Wins – Sounds ridiculous, but arguably the most likely scenario would see everybody happy and claiming a victory, or at least a moral one.

Tory’s hold the seat by a few points with UKIP a Labour on similar scores allows everybody to save face as Conservatives can claim the actual win, while UKIP will point to a massive increase in vote share and Labour promoting the strong gains in a difficult seat.

Conclusion – This could be a very close election and will go a long way to assessing UKIPs long-term success on the national stage, but it is difficult to look past a relatively easy Tory win, or as easy as can be expected when the former MP was forced to resign in disgrace.

However, we will have to wait until Friday morning to have any idea just how much the political landscape has changed.