Federalism still UK Unionism’s only option…

Dilettante produces, as ever, a thoughtful response to my previous post on federalism, as well as some other posts.

Underlying this is a point he makes elsewhere. He argues that if separatists can argue for ever greater devolution, Unionists can argue for reversing even the level of devolution we can (he will correct me if I’ve inferred wrongly there). Democratically, I would say he is right to say that; practically, however, I don’t think it is defeatist to say he is not being realistic. Whatever level of devolution has already been established is indisputably here to stay, and certainly a Conservative government seeking to unravel it without a serious mandate for doing so in Scotland would soon see the Union unravelling before devolution did. My view, in fact, is the crux of the Conservatives’ problems in both Scotland and Northern Ireland is their ongoing unwillingness to work more effectively with devolution (this is distinct from Wales, where the party has been more successful).

Taking the point, however, and offering a practical option: is it not now the time for the Prime Minister to say there is no such thing as “devo-max”? The option for Scotland has to be clear – it can be in a Union and have the same level of devolution as Wales and Northern Ireland (and ultimately England and perhaps even London), or it can leave the Union. It should be one or other. That still leaves open what the “level of devolution” is, but that is to be agreed across the UK.

The “Greater England” tension within David Cameron’s own party still exists, of course. I don’t accept that this doesn’t exist, as Dilettante suggests, because the notion of “Englishness” didn’t exist pre-devolution; on the contrary, that is proof that “Britishness” equated in most people’s minds to a Greater Englishness – the very fact they hadn’t stopped to consider the very real differences between the different parts of the Union, particularly as the post-industrial era drove them apart economically, is the point.

Dilettante further proves this in his suggestion that if a majority of British people vote for something, then it stands. Yet it is already accepted that if a majority of NI people alone vote for a United Ireland, that brings about a change to the UK constitution (i.e. the removal of NI from the Union); it is already practically accepted that Scotland alone or Wales alone may vote for independence too. The simple fact is that the UK is not a single unit, but a Union. Although I would call on the Prime Minister to emphasise the “Union” point requires agreement by all parts of the constitutional set-up, that in itself allows each part an individual say.

Nor is Scandinavia an “absurd” parallel. It is indeed where Scottish (and Welsh) separatists would like to end up. It is quite a compelling argument for increasing numbers of people. Even at a Young Unionist debate earlier this month, the notion of “Northern Irishness” in fact being an increasingly prevalent “first identity” went unchallenged. This has parallels right across Europe.

The fundamental point remains – “Britishness” cannot be sold as a requirement to go along with everything England decides (the practical outworking of Dilettante’s position). Yet at the same time, for the English, being apparently hamstrung by 15% of the population may become increasingly unacceptable. That is why a compromise vision for maintenance of the Union is required, accompanied by all means by a re-emphasis on what binds the different parts of the Union; I remain unconvinced that anything much short of sizeable fiscal devolution (essentially something which is, to all intents and purposes, federalism) will work as that vision in the longer term.