Lord Forsyth: England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009

Lord Forsyth was interviewed last night by Andrew Neil for BBC News' Straight Talk.  In a wide-ranging interview in which he attributed his political conversion to the Adam Smith Institute and urged the party to cut taxes for low income workers, the last Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland urged David Cameron to join with Wendy Alexander and other Unionists and hold a vote on independence next May, 2009.

Alex Salmond's agenda is quite clear, Michael Forsyth told Andrew Neil.  The SNP leader expects - "rightly" - that the Tories will win the next General Election but won't have many MPs from Scotland.  He calculates that that situation will maximise the chances of Scotland voting 'Yes' to independence in 2010.  Following Alex Salmond's timetable, Lord Forsyth argues, won't be in the interests of the Union.  Delay and uncertainty on this issue is "debilitating", bad for business, he says, and the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all.  A referendum should ideally be held next May and both the English and Scottish should be able to say whether they want the Union to continue.  [Presumably the Welsh and Northern Irish, too?].

Lord Forsyth said that he was confident that the Union would be affirmed in any such vote.  The SNP, he said, didn't come to power because of their opposition to the Union but simply because it was the party best placed to end Labour rule in Scotland.

Lord Forsyth implicitly criticised the Scottish Tories for joining Labour and the LibDems in the Calman commission that will almost certainly recommend more powers for the Scottish Parliament.  This will involve tax-raising powers for Holyrood and Scotland would then be "pretty close to independence".  Conservatives should "stop appeasing the nationalists" and let the Scottish people decide.

Lord Forsyth also said that he favours an end to the Barnett formula and its replacement with an "objective, needs-based assessment".  Something similar to the formula that decides support for local government should determine the amount of money that each part of the UK receives from Whitehall.

He also proposed a money-saving solution to the West Lothian Question.  All MSPs should be scrapped and existing Scottish MPs should run the Scottish Parliament and, on those same days (which, he says would amount to no more than one-and-a-half days per week on average) MPs from English seats would sit in Westminster, debating business that only affects England.  Tory MSPs "aren't very keen" on this idea, he joked, but it would mean that MPs for Scotland didn't become second class in their status.

ConservativeHome comment: "We are not convinced that a May 2009 vote would serve the interests of the Union.  With Brown so unpopular - see PoliticsHome.com's new survey of 5,000 voters - there might be a real danger that, given the opportunity, Scots would vote for independence as a protest vote against Gordon Brown.  Something similar happened in 1992 when France almost rejected Maastricht because of the unpopularity of Mitterrand, then French President.  It is true, as Lord Forsyth implied, that 'an English Conservative government' in 2010 might be just as disliked as Brown but an early vote would also be a massive gamble."

PS John Redwood blogs on these issues this morning.  On the day that Gordon Brown proclaims his commitment to the Union, Mr Redwood calls for the Prime Minister to address the "injustices" facing England: (1) By scrapping the balkanisation of England into Euro regions; (2) By introducing the solution to the WLQ advanced by Lord Forsyth above; (3) More fairness in the distribution of UK taxpayers' money; and (4) Acting against EU-rooted threats to the Union.

Related link: Unless we address the West Lothian Question the United Kingdom is in great danger warns Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Comments

[Iain]

I watched the interview of Lord Forsyth and thought he had some interesting ideas, on both constitutional issues and tax. Unfortunately the Conservative party is currently led by the Cameroons, who as we see have nothing to say on tax, other than dutifully follow Gordon Brown's high spending high tax regime, for one gets the feeling that George Osborne isn’t up top the task of leading any sort of debate to change Labour’s taxation policy, and they have nothing positive to say on the Constitutional issue, for in the time Cameron has been leader of the Conservative party he hasn't bother to raise the issue at PMQ's.

[Janet]

If only England had someone to stand up for it the way Alex Salmond speaks for Scotland. For too long all the parties have been spiking English tea with Bromide. Where is OUR parliament where English voices can be heard?

[Helen]

The only tragedy is that we in England will be left with Scots negotiating with Scots, over English spoils. And Cameron falls into that category, as those who heard his speech in Glasgow will know only too well.

[Iain]

Yes Janet, if only, for right now our supposed representatives are nothing short of a waste of space, for they have sat there and watched the young, sick and pensioners of England get discriminated against, and all English people made constitutionally second class citizens, yet we have hardly heard a whimper of protest from them.

This collective failure by our so called representatives makes the case for an English parliament, for having failed us so miserably, any Grand Committee or English votes for English laws won't the job of sorting out the Constitutional mess. For our MP's may pursue their constituents interests, and they will certainly follow their party orders, but the collective English peoples interests fails to get any representation at all in Westminster. That's why we need a Parliament, so that English people can vote for an Executive to represent their interests, and who they can hold to account.

[Helen]

Gordon Brown previously signed a pledge to always put Scotland's interests first and foremost and he has done exactly that ever since.

Cancer patients in England must either cross the border into Scotland for access to many life saving drugs denied to us in England, or remain in here and discover that the Labour Party they once supported is now headed by the Grim Reaper, who can't wait to snatch their death taxes to further bribe his own nation to keep him in charge.

There is a vile sickness at the heart of our democracy and the silence from the oppostion parties is deafening.

That Mother of Parliaments we were once so proud to boast of, is now just a sewer of rats. God help us all in England.

[IMarcher]

That both countries, not just Scotland (unlike last time!), should vote on the future of the UK, is obvious. But, in the event of a split, who is going to negotiate on behalf of England? The UK prime minister and de facto English First Minister Gordon Brown, and other Westminister MPs, who made a public pledge at the Scottish Constitutional Convention that "in all our actions and deliberations, the interests of the Scottish people will be paramount"?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Excellent piece by John Redwood (he was also the original source for removing IHT and not Osborne - with or without an 'e' - although Osnorne got the praise).
It is no surprise that it is beyond the wit or desire of the vote blue and go green wet Cameron to propound it. Redwood is one on the few Conservatives actually in the Conservative Party. That is why the EU sycophants (they try to tell us otherwise) in the Conservative Party Westminster Parish Council and the media try to ignore him.
Well put John. You just omitted to quote that we in England have to sell our houses to pay for the residential care of the elderly whilst in Scotland they can keep their houses. Nothing to do with the Scottish public - just the moral compassing, gerrymandering bribery by Scots politicians led by Brown and formerly by the one Cameron stood up and called for a standing ovation for (that will never be forgotten).

[Steve]

It should be remembered that £ngland needs Scotregion for absolutley nothing whatsoever and gains nothing from this now as of 1998 null and void "Union".

[Yet Another Anon]

May and both the English and Scottish should be able to say whether they want the Union to continue. [Presumably the Welsh and Northern Irish, too?]
A single country voting though presumably would be opting out of the union - none of the 4 nations voting on their own could reasonably end the union. If for example Scotland voted for Independence and the other 4 countries all voted for the Union then the UK would continue without Scotland.

[Dave B]

@Iain
The Spectator interview with Mr Cameron seems to promise tax cuts from a Conservative gov't:

"‘If you take the local elections, there was no doubt in my mind that it was easiest to campaign in those places where Conservative councils really did have a record of keeping the council tax down, or at least promising to limit the increase,’ he says. ‘I haven’t done the sums. But I’m pretty sure that the areas where we did best were those where we were able to say: look, we’re in government here, we are helping with the cost of living, we understand your problems and difficulties.’

The moral he has drawn is that low tax is a good strategy for re-election — but not when a party is in opposition and seeking power. ‘There is a world of difference between promising and delivering. These councils have actually delivered. Margaret Thatcher won elections not by talking about tax reductions, but by demonstrating that a Conservative government shared the proceeds of growth.’"

[John Leonard]

I support Lord Forsyth's proposals in that, all major constitutional issues should be decided by referendum and not by Parliament and that the Barnett Formula needs to be reformed along the lines he suggests.

However, I think providing tax raising powers and greater financial independence for the National Assemblies is inevitable, report or no report, and where he is summarised as saying:

He also proposed a money-saving solution to the West Lothian Question. All MSPs should be scrapped and existing Scottish MPs should run the Scottish Parliament and, on those same days (which, he says would amount to no more than one-and-a-half days per week on average) MPs from English seats would sit in Westminster, debating business that only affects England.

Whats seems quite an elegant solution initially is fraught with issues and trivialises the democratic ethos that is at the core of our political system.

Firstly, this is one area that must not be trivialised as a 'money saving exercise'. It is a question of democracy, self-determination and freedom. To do so shows utter contempt for the electorate and only benefits centralists, anti-democrats and Ken Clarke's 'ruling political class' (sic).

If Parliament want to save money then cut MPs allowances and expenses and cut the employment of political cronies in Quangos and other unelected government organisations!

Additionally, this suffers from exactly the same problems that EVfEL does (in fact it is EVfEL x 4). How would the relationship between the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subset of MPs be managed with the Government and Parliament as a whole?

Furthermore, it also suffers from exactly the same problems that the current Devolution solution suffers from. It would probably work to an extent if the majority party of the Home Nation subsets is the same as the Government but as soon as the majority party in the Home Nation subset becomes an opposition party then they can act in exactly the same way as Alex Salmond is acting (and prior to devolution Labour acted in the 80's).

Imagine the situation where we have a Conservative Government and Labour led Welsh and Scottish subsets (as seems likely in the next Parliament). It would be like turning back the clock to the 80's and would cause just as much discord as then.

Remember it was pre-emptive action on the Poll Tax in Scotland that did much to scupper it and undermine Margaret Thatcher's Government.

Add to that, that it would also reverse the improvements that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have received in terms of democractic representation. That would likely result in a general fall in quality of service to the electorate's of those Home Nation back to the level the England currently receives.

Finally, whatever is proposed must apply to all the Home Nations (as the editor correctly points out). How long will it take to negotiate the resultant iteration of the Northern Ireland agreement given it would take back power from them?

No, whilst it might seem a good idea on the face of it, it's just turning back the clock with a few tweaks. It is a regressive proposal and would not work. It just provides further propaganda for the separatists.

The only way to move forward and defeat the separatists is to move toward a federal style solution.

It won't be easy considering how all the major parties are dragging their feet and separatists in certain parts of the country now have a solid base and are advancing but it is the only way to stop the infernal bickering over what in reality are relatively simple matters that is hindering progress on the major issues.

This, like the EU debate, is an unecessary distraction which should be resolved for once and for all at the earliest opportunity so that our elected representatives can get on with the job they are supposed to do. To remind them - they are supposed running the country not playing politics with the national make-up of the Union and the constitution!

The great shame of this is that if the Conservatives took up the federalist or similar banner they could possibly be seen as great democratic reformers. However, at the moment they seem to be content with putting forward regressive tweaks and tinkerings, aimed at protecting the Westminster powerbase, that will only extend and exacerbate this infernal debate. Inevitably such an approach will fail and the separatists will win.

Continuing to peddle such ineffective proposals does no good for any of the Home Nations or for the Union!

[Ken Stevens]

"All MSPs should be scrapped and existing Scottish MPs should run the Scottish Parliament and, on those same days MPs from English seats would sit in Westminster, debating business that only affects England."

If he means that there would be a Scottish Parliament run by Scottish MPs part of the week; on those same days there would be an English Parliament with similar powers run by English MPs; and on the other days it would be a UK Parliament run by both; then I say
BRING IT ON!!!

This is the nearest thing to resolving the problem that any major party luminary has yet produced.

Barnett Formula must be scrapped, simply on the basis that it allocates preferential money on basis of nation rather than targetted need. If, say, Caithness needs additional resources on account of rurality then it should be dealt with accordingly, against same criteria as for other rural areas of UK. At the moment the system is tantamount to the rural less well-off of, say, Norfolk, donating cash to the more affluent areas of Edinburgh.

It would bring back some relevance to Scottish-elected MPs. They lost part of their responsibility to MSPs and (as with all UK MPs) a great lump of it to Brussels and one wonders what they currently do to occupy their time.

[Dave J]

"the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all."

The idea of ever fulling laying nationalist secession movements to rest is a pipe-dream. There are some people in Quebec who will never stop talking about it, and in Catalonia, for example, just as in Scotland. A referendum that votes no will marginalize them for a time. It won't ever make the issue vanish.

"This, like the EU debate, is an unecessary distraction..."

The fundamental nature of self-government is not a distraction from whatever "the real issues" might be. Those issues are meaningless without deciding who decides them and how.

"If he means that there would be a Scottish Parliament run by Scottish MPs part of the week; on those same days there would be an English Parliament with similar powers run by English MPs; and on the other days it would be a UK Parliament run by both; then I say BRING IT ON!!!"

I quite agree. Dual-mandate MP's are an elegant solution that have the bonus of doing away with a whole unnecessary boatful of politicians.

[John Leonard]

Dave J:

You miss my point and perhaps I was unclear.

The fact that politicians continue to prevaricate over these matters (wasting their and our time) is what is unnecessary. They should hold referendums with appropriate sun-down arrangements and put these issues to bed.

Let the people decide!

[Ulster Tory]

"England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009"

One flaw.

Despite thinking the Union revolves around them both, they aren't the only countries in the UK...

[Boy Blue]

Forsyth is just a dinosaur stuck in the 1990s, completely out of touch with Scottish political reality. Self-indulgent ramblings of this sort just give succour to the SNP and undermine the sensible, pragmatic approach being taken by Annabel Goldie in the Scottish Parliament.

[Ewan Watt]

I think Forsyth hits the nail on the head to be honest. The future of the Union needs to be addressed - urgently. The SNP have public backing over a referendum. Forsyth appears to see that the longer the Unionist parties dither, the quicker the SNP can prepare for a 2010 referendum, with or without support from Westminster. Salmond will set out his options and wait for the massive backlash from there being a Conservative government south of the border. Why else would he want the referendum by 2010? The Conservatives need to support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, be it through a plebiscite or not. Not only would this be far more transparent, but it could curry favour with the nationalist-but not independent minded voters. They do exist. This could also nip a lot of questions surrounding the West Lothian Question in the bud too. The Scottish Tories have never found a political constituency ever since attendance at the Kirk dried up. This could be part of the solution.

One thing is clear - the status quo is not sustainable. The quicker the Scottish Tories come up with their own solution, the better.

[Andy]

No unionist party can represent England purely because they have a unionist view. The SNP and Plaid Cyru as nationalist parties will fight tooth and nail for their respective countries equal rights.
Yet we in England have a bunch of union motivated pro EU Anglophobes.
Where is our English parliament? our English national anthem? You unionists have had plenty of opportunity to fight for England and the people of England yet have chosen to play 'lets be sheep'.

We English need an independent group to ensure you dont leave England carrying all the British national debt and not having Scotland or Wales walking from the table with a clean tally.

NO unionist should or can fight for Englands fair deal

unionist.....BRITISH NOT ENGLISH

[Better Off Out!]

What would happen if the Scots voted to stay in the Union but the English voted them out?

Those in London & The South East would be much Better Off Out of the Union as well as the EU. It would be one of the richest countries in the world. Why don't we leave and let the rest of UK to support themselves?

[ChrisD]

I am in fact loathe to intrude on the "poor wee us" mentality of the usual suspects that only ever seem to appear on this site when there is a Scots thread. Looking at what is happening in Burma this week, it just defies belief that some will peddle this kind of drivel in one of the oldest democracies in the World. It also means that we never get an effective and constructive debate going on this subject which is a real shame.

"That both countries, not just Scotland (unlike last time!), should vote on the future of the UK, is obvious."

That one made me laugh! Remember the 1997 GE and the Labour manifesto? You and everyone in the UK had a vote on whether the Scots got their Devolution referendum! Don't start whinging because they then went to vote in favour of it.

"If, say, Caithness needs additional resources on account of rurality then it should be dealt with accordingly, against same criteria as for other rural areas of UK. At the moment the system is tantamount to the rural less well-off of, say, Norfolk, donating cash to the more affluent areas of Edinburgh."

There are two flaws in your point, the first is that Caithness and Norfolk are simple not comparable, and to suggest that they are is a bit disingenuous of you. Secondly, the SNP are in fact to be fair, doing just what you suggest with regards making sure that the less well of rural area's are not neglected at the expense of more affluent area's of the country. Its a difficult balancing act, despite the beauty and wealth of parts of Edinburgh there are area's of severe deprivation.
If you paid attention to the area's the SNP were strongest, and where they also wish to take on the Labour party in their heartlands, you would realise that your argument has already been politically won and is in fact being implemented quite effectively.

[Opinicus]

I want to specifically question Conservative Home's comment on this made above. It is very rare for the Editor to counsel against a piece so magisterially.

Can the Editor assure us that he was not given a line to take by anyone from the HoC or CCHQ but this is entirely his own comment?

If so, is the Editor's argument that if the Scots are for Independence in 2009 and in 2010 that the best thing to do is to deny them any say until they have changed their minds?

If so, doesn't that make it the teeniest bit hypocritical to oppose Brown not granting a referendum on the EU Treaty for essentially the same reasons.

I am confused by the Editor's comment. Is the Editor?

Has the Editor

[Scottish Conservative]

forsyth has regaled us with this idiotic drivel before. he was undoubtedly an able politician but he has failed to accept the patent reality that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished; nor should it be. at the very least its abolition would require to be approved in a referendum which anyone with even the faintest grasp of scottish affairs can see is not going to happen - ever. and if it was abolished without popular consent i think independence would be inevitable. indeed in those circumstances i think independence would be desirable.

as to this idea that the referendum on independence should be held north and south of the border, thats fine if your asking the scots if they want to be independent and asking the english if england should be independent. fair enough. but if he is saying that scotland could only become independent if the ppl of england vote for it in a referendum then i dont think the old boy should even be taken seriously. is he honestly suggesting that scotland could vote for independence and yet be kept in the union against its will?

to those who would say yes, i ask you this: if the UK voted to leave the EU, and all the other member states voted to keep the UK in, would their votes be able to overrule the UK? After all UK withdrawal would impact the other member states just as scottish independence would impact the rest of the UK. And if this did happen and the UK was kept in against its will would u feel that was fair and democratic?

[Opinicus]

I think this whole issue could be the first real success of the blogosphere.

ConservativeHome has conducted a vigorous debate on the Scottish Question since early last year. The bigwigs of our Party have not so much not accepted our answers, as denied the Question. Yet slowly but with gathering force the arguments advanced here 18 months ago are gradually sinking into the consciousness of our leaders. Its been like watching mountains filter mineral water - or pygmies passing it.

[Ulster Tory]

Re: My comment at 18:00.

I see the author has added NI and Wales to the entry. Is that official, or merely guesswork?

[Jake]

The British Union is and always been a political marriage of nations. There are two parties to it and Ld Forsythe must be given credit for recognising the right of England to have an equal say in its continuation or not: ie that if one partner is to have a referendum then equity and democracy demand that the other also has the same with the same question. He must be commended for being just about the first person of stature- he won't be the last- to accept England's right to equal consultation on the matter.

Commended also for recognising the unsustainability of the Barnett Rules. They are unfair, undemocratic and based on unvarnished national discrimination. They should be abolished forthwith. His proposal for an "objective needs based assessment" I am assuming will aply throughout the UK ie to England also, something we have never had. Its time. We will also need an English establishment to fight the British government on a continuing basis to make sure we ger our fair share.

In the case of the Scottish parliament he is not correct and is being unrealistic. For the Scots the modern parliament is the recrudescence of the national parliament which the so unexpectedly lost in 1707. The MP's in the British parliament for Scottish constituencies are just that and are not percieved to be in any way to be an alternative Scottish parliament.
As for that same British parliament at Westminster, there is confusion in Scotland just as there is in England as to its nature but there is widespread acceptanc
(eg by Mr Salmond) that a totally separate parliament for England comparable to that of Scotland is the logical way forward.

[Dave J]

"he has failed to accept the patent reality that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished; nor should it be."

I agree that that's the reality and I agree that that's as it should be. Where I disagree is in the idea that the Scottish Parliament needs to elect its members separately from the MP's that Scotland elects to Westminster. Giving the MP's of each home nation a dual mandate, and doing away with separately-elected MSP's, would not "abolish" the Scottish Parliament.

"...if the UK voted to leave the EU, and all the other member states voted to keep the UK in, would their votes be able to overrule the UK? After all UK withdrawal would impact the other member states just as scottish independence would impact the rest of the UK."

The situations are simply not comparable. The EU would continue to exist in largely the same form without the UK. But, as the Scots and the media alike repeatedly seem to misunderstand, there is no "rest of the UK" that would continue to exist as more than the sum of its parts. For one nation to withdraw would be to dissolve the entire Union unilaterally. England (including Wales as integral part) and Scotland were the parties to the Treaty of Union: without one of them, there IS no UK.