Politics

The devolution debate: Will Westminster keep its vow?

How will the three main parties keep the promises they made to Scotland in the final days of the referendum?

October 17, 2014
Gordon Brown says there could be "a constitutional crisis in the making"
Gordon Brown says there could be "a constitutional crisis in the making"
This week, it was back to school in Westminster, with the conference season's parties, memory lapses and embarrassing singalongs (thankfully no video footage appears to exist of Labour MPs singing Things Can Only Get Better at The Mirror party) a thing of the past.

Perhaps the most pressing issue facing the three main British political parties—other than how they're going to quell Nigel Farage and his ever-growing People’s Army—is keeping their promises to Scotland. In the run-up to the vote on independence on 18th September, fearful that the 300-year-old Union might actually collapse, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg appeared on the front page of a Scottish tabloid, promising “extensive new powers” would be delivered to Scotland in the event of a No vote. A white paper setting out the detail must be delivered by the end of November. Work is underway—the “command paper” summarising the different parties' positions on Scotland was published on Monday even thought it wasn't due until the end of this month. But after a week back in Westminster, what, if anything, has been done, and what obstacles are likely to surface over the coming weeks?

Deliver us from EVEL

The big shock of the post-referendum discussion was David Cameron's announcement that, as well as providing detail on further devolution to Scotland, he would set up a separate commission to ensure English MPs had sufficient influence over English issues. Led by William Hague, this second project will keep to the same timetable as that set for the Scottish devolution commission, which is led by Lord Smith of Kelvin. Labour has opposed any suggestion that Scottish MPs should be excluded from voting on issues which only affect England. The issue came to dominate much of Tuesday's debate on “devolution following the Scottish referendum.” Speaking in the Commons last night, Gordon Brown urged Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael not to allow this issue to slow down the devolution process, and described the debate over English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) as “a constitutional crisis in the making.” All three of the main parties' Scottish branches insist they are confident that the two issues are being kept separate, and that one will not affect the timing of the other. But the two aren't entirely distinct; a major change in one could create problems for the other. For example, as Brown pointed out, if Scotland were to receive extensive new powers over tax and Scottish MPs were banned on voting on English issues, it could lead to Scottish MPs being unable to vote through a budget, a situation which would be politically unsustainable.

Better together?

Cross-party initiatives are always tricky affairs, and this time is no different. The Command Paper published on Tuesday highlighted the key differences in the parties' thinking on devolution—disagreements range from the setting of income tax rates to human resources issues in the Civil Service. Gordon Brown said yesterday in Parliament that he believes there are 16 new powers which all the parties can agree to hand to the Scottish parliament, including areas in which all three of the parties would have to concede defeat. But, he still couldn't resist making a dig at the Conservatives, saying that David Cameron's views on EVEL contradicted his party's statements in the pre-referendum Strathclyde Commission report. Conservative backbenchers are also doing all they can to disrupt the process, with dissidents like Christoper Chope using Tuesday's debate to complain that the three parties' “vow” wasn't approved by parliament. The three main parties have now met with Lord Smith, and say they are confident the process is on track. But on Tuesday, constitutional experts from within Scotland suggested that the timetable was unrealistic.

What about us?

No sooner was the referendum result announced than the clamour went up for Wales and Northern Ireland not to be left out. As the Welsh Labour MP Peter Hain told me: “you can’t keep giving all the goodies to Scotland simply because they shout the loudest.” Notably, Welsh politicians could further complicate the devolution process by insisting on changes to the Barnett Formula, which dictates public spending in the UK. At present, the main parties have pledged to preserve this. But this week the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones said the formula was inadequate, calling it "the constitutional equivalent of fixing a hole in the roof with Blu Tack and cardboard." Little serious progress has yet been made on the issue of constitutional settlements for Wales and Northern Ireland, but it is interesting to note that at least one government minister seems happy to imagine a radical rethink of the way the country is structured once the Scottish question is resolved. Speaking in the Commons last night, Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael said: “Ultimately the logical conclusion of this journey is a federal structure within the United Kingdom.”