Scottish Referendum: Scotland has voted, what about the rest of the UK?

Nobody could doubt David Cameron’s relief as he addressed the news media outside Number 10 on the morning that the Scottish people voted by a margin of 10 points to remain in the Union. Losing the Union would surely have forced his resignation as Prime Minister, and brought in a period of huge uncertainty for the still-recovering UK economy.

Despite a complacent and London-centric campaign from the Prime Minister and Labour leader Ed Miliband (Miliband in particular was shockingly poor), the Scots looked over the precipice and decided they didn’t want what the nationalists were offering. The margin was greater than most of the polls predicted. It is unlikely that independence will be back on the table for another generation.

While all three major parties have committed to bringing forward proposals to devolve significantly more powers to Holyrood, via legislation to be published in the New Year, the debate has swiftly moved on to the implications for the rest of the UK, especially England.

It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister’s enemies on the Tory right have been out in force, making clear their displeasure at the decision to go for ‘devo-max’ without consulting Parliament. The usual suspects [David Davis, Bernard Jenkin, John Redwood, Nick de Bois] have been joined by the recently sacked Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, who, in a pitch for unofficial leadership of the Tory right, has followed up his criticism of the devo-max stitch up with a call for English MPs to be able to determine English laws without interference from Scottish or Welsh MPs.

Right wingers are also furious that the PM has committed to continuing the so-called Barnett formula for Scotland, which gives each Scottish citizen an extra £1600 in public cash than their English counterparts.

The PM met a number of senior backbenchers at Chequers on 21 September, the first day of the Labour Party Conference, perhaps to re-assure them that he shares their desire for a solution to the West Lothian question and to test backbench opinion. A number of possible formulae have been put forward, from the creation of an English Parliament, to a procedure whereby only English MPs can represent Parliament on Committees that scrutinise English legislation.

William Hague has been given the task of sifting through the various options as Chair of a specially-formed cabinet committee, due to report in November.

Labour has found itself in a quandary. It has deep concerns with the Hague Committee and the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, has instead proposed a constitutional convention to discuss English devolution that won’t meet until next year. He also opposes voting restrictions on Labour’s Scottish MPs, fearing that he could be left without a working majority if he wins power at the next Election. 

Labour risks getting boxed into a corner. The line being given out by Labour spokespeople is to recognise that English votes is an issue, but “we shouldn’t respond in a knee-jerk, back of a fag packet way.” Tories believe that accusing Labour of ignoring the demands of English voters to ensure their Scottish contingent survives in Westminster will be a vote winner and, coincidentally shoot the UKIP fox too.

The soon-to-resign Alex Salmond has already warned that Westminster politicians are preparing to renege on their promises to the Scottish people, and there is certainly a view among several commentators that the established Westminster-based parties are far more interested in political maneouvering than they are about the bigger issues at stake. The two major parties are certainly guilty, in previous years, of talking a good game about devolution, but failing to deliver. Even Tony Blair, who sanctioned the creation of a Scottish Parliament, later regretted it in his autobiography.

In comparison to most of our European partners, which have federated constitutional and political structures, the UK is the most centralised major democracy in Europe. Over the years, local government in the UK has been emasculated by Whitehall. Local authorities are only allowed to raise 10% of their own revenues. Centralisation has powered the Yes campaign by enabling Alex Salmond to claim, with some justification, that Westminster/Whitehall had no interest in Scotland, but in truth Whitehall has very little interest in and understanding of the rest of the UK either.  This sense of disconnectedness has also reduced significantly public trust in politicians, to the extent that many Scottish voters could not distinguish between the Tories or Labour: “They all sound the same,” was a common cry.

And the political fallout from the Referendum vote will be grist to the mill of these same critics, giving further fuel to their accusations that Westminster is internally focused and cares little for the world outside the ‘bubble.’

What then, is the best way forward? The experiment with a regional assembly for the North-East promulgated by the last Labour administration ended in failure, as it become clear that voters did not want to pay for another load of paid politicians and extra layer of bureaucracy to service the assembly.

Instead, the UK should look to its European neighbours, or to Australia, where powers are divided between a central government and individual states, or in Australia’s case, where power is divided between the Australian Government and the six state governments.

A federal Government – with a remit to debate issues with UK-wide implications – such as defence, foreign policy, immigration and justice – comprising far fewer MPs than the current 652-odd, can sit alongside powerful regional structures where elected representatives have responsibility for the delivery of social services, welfare health and education. 

This is essentially the argument promulgated by David Davis MP in the Sunday Times (21 Sept). An arch Euro-sceptic, he nevertheless cites the German example and proposes changes to the constitutional model of the House of Lords and Commons. Davis suggests that the Commons becomes the representative body of the individual regions, while the Lords becomes the Parliament of the UK.

At a stroke, constitutional reform has become politically interesting again, and alongside the economy is likely to become a significant issue for the General Election, due in May 2015. What is clear, however, is that decades of false starts and fudges on changes to the way we are governed cannot be allowed to continue.

The time has truly arrived for the State of Whitehall (and the political apparatus that nominally manages that State) – to be systematically reformed and our system of Government made fit for the 21^st Century.