Unionists cannot put head in sand on West Lothian Question

It was not for the first time last month that, as spokespeople for their respective parties at Westminster, Nigel Dodds took a position which is more likely to lead to break-up of the Union than Naomi Long.

It seems incredible that an intelligent person – and Nigel is unquestionably very much one of those, be in no doubt about that – would continue to think that denying residents of England a fair say on the governance of the UK is a particularly clever way to defend the Union, given that 83% of that Union’s population fall into that category!

I am of course familiar with the argument that decisions which affect England in fact, most obviously through Barnett consequentials, have a knock-on effect for Northern Ireland (and Scotland and Wales). That is an argument for reforming Barnett (perhaps through Calman), not for sticking the head in the sand on West Lothian. Barnett, Calman, West Lothian…?

At heart, the Barnett Formula determines that if spending is raised or lowered in any particular area (health, education or whatever) in England, it should be raised or lowered in similar proportion in the other three constituent parts of the UK automatically. A billion is added to the Health Service budget in England, 34 million is added in Northern Ireland; a billion is taken off in England, 34 million is taken off in Northern Ireland. Thus indeed apparently England-only decisions affect Northern Ireland – but that is because the Barnett formula, by its inventor’s own admission, needs urgent reform (mainly because it makes budgeting with adequate foresight in devolved Executives a near impossibility).

In another outrageous simplification, but for the sake of a quick blog, the Calman Commission essentially suggested Scotland should take responsibility for raising half its own tax. Implemented straight, this would essentially remove half the Barnett consequentials. Do the same for Northern Ireland, and a billion added to or removed from the Health Service in England would equate to only 17 million in Northern Ireland (with the rest added/removed, or not, by the Executive from its own taxation). In practice, it is dubious the Barnett formula would survive application of Calman, with the whole Scottish budgeting process changed (and the NI process, should it then be applied to NI, perhaps as part of the corporation tax package).

Although there may be a precarious political balance between West Lothian and Barnett, the two are not in fact linked and in any case that balance will be greatly disturbed by Calman. Devolution remains an ever-evolving thing, and will only become more so over the next three years. So in fact the only sound argument for those who care about the Union is that the West Lothian question must be resolved to the satisfaction of the English, either through changing voting rights of MPs currently or through the creation of an English Parliament (those two resolutions may in practice look similar to each other). Yet that is what Naomi Long said, not Nigel Dodds!

The Alliance Party does not set out to be arch defender of the Union, yet Naomi Long consistently shows a more practical and rational approach to pan-UK politics than any DUP MP. The Nigel Dodds approach, essentially pretending none of this is happening elsewhere in the UK, is doomed to end in separation. What it is about political Unionism that makes it so self-defeating?!

Advertisement