How a Cameron Government would cohabit with an SNP administration in Scotland

David Cameron has discussed in detail for the first time the approach that he would take in dealing with the SNP administration in Scotland if he becomes Prime Minister after the next election.

Writing in Scotland on Sunday, Mr Cameron pledges that whilst he will do "everything in my power to ensure that the SNP will not be able to split up the UK", he would want to be "a prime minister that would work constructively with any administration at Holyrood for the good of Scotland".   

The Tory leader sets out three ways in which he would go about this:

• Firstly, he would back the constitutional settlement of devolution and not seek to control Tory MSPs at Holyrood (with whose leader, Annabel Goldie, he is pictured above).
• Secondly, he would want there to be a good working relationship between him and First Minister, Alex Salmond - which has not been the case with Gordon Brown, who has not met Mr Salmond for nearly a year.
• Thirdly, he would want there to be co-operation "at all levels" between the administrations, with the Scotland Secretary and First Minister having official monthly meetings, Cabinet ministers talking to their opposite numbers in Scotland and civil servants in Whitehall having similar dealings with their counterparts in Edinburgh.  He reveals that members of the shadow cabinet have already been meeting with members of the SNP cabinet and adds: "I want to see more of that".

He concludes:

"This commitment to true partnership between our nations sets the Conservatives apart from the other parties in Scotland as much as our commitment to modern, centre-right ideas. We are the only party that can bring about the change Scotland needs."

Even if David Cameron is elected Prime Minister with a working Commons majority at the next election, the electoral arithmetic north of the border still means that there is likely to be little more than a handful of Conservative MPs sent to Westminster from Scotland, which is a potential weak point for David Cameron.

After all, the default position of the SNP administration would surely be to claim that the Conservatives therefore do not have a mandate to govern in Scotland.

As such, David Cameron's article today emphasising his desire to co-operate with Mr Salmond et al is clearly an attempt to foster goodwill at an early stage.

But there is something else he could do which would have the potential to shoot the SNP fox: what about promising an early referendum offering the option of independence for Scotland or the status quo of devolution within the UK?

As an electoral tactic this would enable the Tories to offer SNP voters the opportunity to vote for their party's principal stated policy for real (and three of the top Tory target seats are SNP-held).

But more importantly, since polls show that a majority of Scots would not back fully fledged independence, a referendum vote effectively endorsing the current constitutional settlement would allow David Cameron to rightly claim to be the legitimate Prime Minister across the United Kingdom.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Grant]

It is unfortunate that you mention support for independence on the morning when the Sunday Herald published its quarterly tracker showing support for independence at 38% and the Union at 40% - with the headline "Support for independence hardens".

[Paul D]

A Conservative leader promising a referendum on Scottish independence would leave us open to charges of wanting to cut Scotland loose. Could be dangerous

[Ken Stevens]

Paul D
"..Could be dangerous."

Could be great!

The boil needs to be lanced by holding a referendum.

If Scots want out, then that is their democratic choice. I'm sure that the sky would not fall in such eventuality, any more than it did when Ireland chose its own path.

If they want to stay in, them perhaps we can evolve a new style of Union that does not have politicians feeling a need to pander to Celtic nationism* whilst scorning the English equivalent.
Just have UKism!

*(-avoiding the adverse connotations of "nationalism")

[Andrew]

There is no 'true partnership between our nations' until England has a parliament of its own.

[Edward Huxley]

Presume if they become independent they will have their own Army, Navy and Air Force. Sorry - we will of course all be Europeans then, living in a division of Euroland so those forces will cease to exist anyway.

[Grant]

The idea of the Tories trying to shoot the nationalist fox by beating Alex Salmond to the holding a referendum is not just fanciful, but downright ignorant of the current political situation in Scotland and the UK.

I think we can all be agreed that barring a miracle, Mr Cameron is not likely to have his shot at the "Premiership" before May 2010? By which time a Bill for a referendum will already progressing through its advanced stages in the Scottish Parliament.

If they are "man" enough, the Scottish Tories will support this bill when it comes to the vote. But, that would represent a significant about-turn on their current stated policy (vigorous opposition to any plebiscite) and be a major embarrassment for Annabel Goldie and her meagre band of troops should they u-turn.

Perhaps, should the referendum fail to progress through the Scottish Parliament, Mr Cameron might step up to the plate and oblige Mr Salmond?

But wouldn't that embarrass the Scottish Tories just as much? And make a mockery of Mr Cameron's claim to respect their "independence" in such matters?

[A Candid Mover]

If I were a Scot I would feel a wee bit cringey reading Cameron's ode to nation. References to the great Scottish Enlightenment, of Hume and Smith, of Empire, 'nations' united in common purpose and the first common market. The first EU?

A slip of Clarksonesque proportions.

Being an Eng and having read Cameron's piece in the Mail on Sunday today I felt equally as uncomfortable. All this talk of those English thinky chappies Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Paine and England's unique contribution to Empire.

Empire: That's a BBC sackable offence, that is. Where's Ms Brand?

I do however agree that we should work with senior English politicians and also applaud Jonathan's suggestion of an English referendum to flush out the evils of the English identity once and for all.

[comstock]

Could be great!

The boil needs to be lanced by holding a referendum.

I agree.

I think Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories should all take a 'pro referendum, pro union' stance.

Lets sort this out.

The only condition should be that the referendum should be on the understanding that if it goes 'no', it should close the issue for at least twenty years.

[Scilla Cullen]

What is not reported here is that he also said that he would "introduce a new "maturity and respect" for Scotland". Actually he needs to introduce a new maturity and respect for England, the only country in the West without national governance. And what are we in England to make of David Mundel in Scottish questions this week saying that under a Conservative Government things would be very different, because Scotland’s interests would be put first. First before whom I ask? As to Clarke's fudge regarding who governs England that is just insulting. Cameron should look to his core constituents.
Who speaks for England?

[Afleitch]

While a referendum would 'lance the boil' at the same time if the offer on the table is for a low tax, pro business independent Scotland it would be very difficult for Scots Tories such as myself to say no.

[Iain]

Scilla Cullen, yes who speaks for English people, certainly Cameron has no respect for us.

[Edward Huxley]

Just a point. When "they" talk about a referendum in Scotland who will vote, the Scottish people, or the people of (i.e.living there) Scotland?

There are Scots in all parts of the English speaking world and I don`t know any down here who want the country to break away. Perhaps I mix with the wrong kind of Scots.

[will]

Unionism and national devolution are incompatable.Either we have full independence for all the nations or we go back to one parliament for the whole of the UK.There is plenty of scope for devolving powers locally[eg counties etc] without the west lothian question arising and without the need for more politicans.

[Grant]

will:

I quite agree. But interestingly, as the West Lothian Question declines in relevance with the election of a Tory Government at Westminster, a new version arises in its place.

How can a Conservative Government, deriving its majority purely in England and with a very deep minority of seats in Scotland have any mandate to govern Scotland in any area of public policy affecting it?

[Iain]

"have any mandate to govern Scotland in any area of public policy affecting it?"

That is typical, worry about Scots, but no one bloody worries about a Scot, Brown, ruling England, and that is essentially what he does, for most of the power he wields , he wields in England, and wields it to discriminate against English, yet no English person has voted for him! I think that makes him less the First Minister of England, more like the Governor General of England!!!!

[The Bishops English Wife]

" a referendum vote effectively endorsing the current constitutional settlement would allow David Cameron to rightly claim to be the legitimate Prime Minister across the United Kingdom"

"Could be great!

The boil needs to be lanced by holding a referendum."

Yes, it will do no good to insult the people of Scotland by refusing them a say. After the issue is settled either England gets its own regional assembly or we get rid of the "job for the boys" National assemblies.
The best solution might well be an English assembly, to put the others into some sort of perspective.

[Yet Another Anon]

How can a Conservative Government, deriving its majority purely in England and with a very deep minority of seats in Scotland have any mandate to govern Scotland in any area of public policy affecting it?
In the same way as a Labour government was able to decide policy in the South of England in the 1970s and since 1997 despite being a minority party in that area, follow the logic of that and once the Union broke up there would be the demand for the seperated states themselves to break into smaller states.

The answer is as quickly as possible to move to a Federal System for the UK, start by seperating English and Welsh Law, grant Cornwall devolved parliamentary status similar to that of Scotland, start looking at devolving power in Scotland and Wales and having a bottom up system rather than top down. The rest of the UK can get devolved powers similar to those in Scotland - recreate ancient areas such as Mercia, Wessex, Anglia with devolved parliaments based on historic boundaries.

Reduce the number of MPs to a third of what it is now and scrap the House of Lords or have a chamber made up of representatives of the devolved parliament. English and Welsh Law can be decided by a High Council of England and a High Council of Wales comprising representatives of the Devolved parliaments in those respective areas.

[Iain]

"The rest of the UK can get devolved powers similar to those in Scotland - recreate ancient areas such as Mercia, Wessex, Anglia with devolved parliaments based on historic boundaries."

Yet another Anon, why? why do you discriminate against England, we are a nation, we deserved to be recognised as such. You don't recommend Scotland being carved up between the Highlands and lowlands, nor Wales, so why do you reserve this for England?

The UN Convention of Human rights states in article 15, Everyone has a right to a nationality. NOT Everyone apart from the English people have a right to a nationality!

[The Bishops "Wessex needs its own assembly" Wife.]

Great post by Another Anon. Of course the best thing about such a solution would be lots of lovely gravy train jobs for the professional politicians.

[Grumpy]

DC's problem in Scotland is the total lack of political brains amongst his MSPs. Goldie is a sad excuse for a leader and has no leadership skills except the ability to do nothing and therefore offend no one. Mundell is a busted flush whom DC thinks is a waste of space. The MSP group has no one who understands political strategy (most have no understanding of politics they are just functionaries who confuse being in the Parliament with politics.)DC's best advice comes from Westminster based Scots who have talent but not the day to day grasp of Scotland. DC must find someone in Scotland to give him sound political advice.

[i albion]

It's no good asking Mr. Cameron for a English Parliament then....thought not!
his obsession with Scotland is becoming embarrassing,spare a thought for the only people in the UK who are going to vote you in Mr. Cameron,although, you are not home and dry yet.

[Scilla Cullen]

The gravy train started in 1997. Since then the UK taxpayer, 85% of whom live in England, has been paying for 297 (yes 297) extra politicians. No-one bothered to consult the taxpayers in England about that! Moreover an English Parliament would mean greatly reduced work for a UK Parliament, which could therefore be substantially reduced in size, since their responsibilities would be reduced to reserved matters only. Indeed Scots are already asking what the value of UK MPs of Scottish seats is, since they have no remit on domestic matters in Scotland but get paid more than MSPs.

[Dave J]

"The boil needs to be lanced by holding a referendum."

When it comes to secessionist movements, that only ever cuts one way. There is a reason why Anglophone Quebeckers (the few now left of them) call these things a "never-end-um." If Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque Country, etc., break away, that will be the end of it, but if the voters say no (again), they will be asked to get it "right" again in no more than a generation.

"There is no 'true partnership between our nations' until England has a parliament of its own."

Agreed. As a American I continue to be baffled by why this is such a no-go, why UK politicians think an English Parliament is something unimaginable while devolution for the Celtic periphery is to be commended and praised at every opportunity. The present settlement is fundamentally unstable, unfair and delegitimizing. Whether anyone likes it or not, there is no going back to before devolution, so relatively soon you will need to have a federal UK or there will be no more UK.

[Iain]

"you will need to have a federal UK or there will be no more UK."

Unfortunately that's what our idiot politicians are unable to comprehend, they think they will keep a Britain by denying English people any sort of representation over their own affairs, where as the future of Britain depends on them establishing a fair and equitable constitutional settlement under a federal arrangement.

[A Candid Mover]

'Posted by: The Bishops "Wessex needs its own assembly" Wife. | February 08, 2009 at 12:50'

Only if the capital is Wilton, again. Down 'ere Salisbury way is where it's to.

Oddly, our local barmpot, the Lord Bath, has been campaigning for an independent Wessex for yonks. Naturally, with him as His Maj.

In fact, as the unified Kingdom of the West Saxons pre-dates all those Macbeths and Thanes of Tartonia we should be awarded a parliament immediately. Apart from Swindon.

[The Bishops moon-raking Wife.]

"Apart from Swindon."

What do we do with the place, bulldozers?

I live on the edge of the place, indeed was born here. That's not to say I like the place its ghastly. I recall when it was a pleasant little country town, with a decent town center. Swindon is a pretty good example of what happens when social engineers are let loose.I am not allowed to moan about the 60's housing estates that are so dam ugly. Much less should I mention that its centre is now a mini Baghdad. So I won't !

[Alan T]

Jonathan, your proposal somewhat glosses over the emerging consensus in Scotland of a definitive move towards enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament. None of the Scottish parties favour the status quo [i.e. devolution as is] hence why most of them are signed up to the Calman review of devolution [ten years on] to consider how it should develop.

You're not completely wrong in the sense that the current devolution settlement allows for the Scottish Parliament to assume more powers without a referendum. Indeed that has happened [an example escapes me], while the Scottish Parliament has also handed power back up to Westminster [think Civil Partnerships]. It will be interesting to see what Calman proposes & especially whether they propose a referendum to endorse the package.

If they do, I think it is conceivable the 2010 referendum will be a straight fight between devolution 2.0 [which the Conservatives can whole heartedly nail their colours to as the Union saving option] & independence.

[The Bishop Swine (himself)]

Place,place and place again, not location or even Town. Just a horrid place. The only good new building is the fine library which Labour put off for decades but the Conservatives finally delivered.

[The Bishop Swine.]

" they do, I think it is conceivable the 2010 referendum will be a straight fight between devolution 2.0 [which the Conservatives can whole heartedly nail their colours to as the Union saving option] & independence."

It might be that there will be other minor issues but that will be the heart of it. Only if David is convinced we cannot win, on a unionist ticket, should we drag our feet.
It's one of those battles we really dare not loose.

GSTQ

One thing that is strongly against the SNP traitors, is that the Queen is indisputable their Sovereign lady.

[The Bishop Swine.]

Maybe Traitors is harsh, but we are already being tolerant, allowing them to voice an opinion that undermines both Nations, and which is aimed at annexing a part of same. They may draw away but we know that they cannot go far, its more than just a threat to England its a threat to the Stability of Scotland and of all the Union Nations. Of course the real villain of the plot is the E.U. Which cannot tolerate a continued Union if it hopes to divide and conquer. In the meantime D.C. should be fostering close links with the people of Brittany. We should actively seek Conservative friends there.

[David T Breaker]

The last thing we need is to break up the UK. Besides the great pity that would be to destroy such a historic, important and culturally significant entity as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - under who's flag we have lived peacefully, prosperously and hugely successfully since James I/VI - the sheer practicality of such a situation renders it nigh impossible.

Firstly on a referendum, would this be a simple question of Yes or No to independence? What about those wanting more devolved powers but not independence, would we risk them splitting in favour of independence or have a multiple choice referendum with or without transferable votes? What majority would be needed for change? What turnout would be needed? Do non-Scots in Scotland get to vote? What about Scots in the rest of the UK? What about overseas Scots who may never return? What about people with a Scottish parent who would be eligible for an independent Scotland's passport? What if border areas vote NO, but remoter areas swing it to YES?

And if we did break up Britain, what currency would be used? Would the loss of oil exports cause the English Pound to devalue sharply and thus cause inflation, and the Scottish currency soar and cripple industry? Would Scotland adopt the Euro? Wouldn't this put pressure on England to follow suit, not least through the public opinion of the million upwards who cross the border regularly? Would we have border checks, or adopt the EU Schengen Agreement? How would we decide Citizenship when we are so intermixed, or would we have an agreement allowing either? What if one country had a more open immigration policy, would we guard the Borders?

What about the Army, we depend on Scottish troops? How much would it cost to move our bases South of the border? What about our UN Security Council seat, and our EU vetoes? What if one left the EU?

Splitting up the UK would be a disaster, and the vacuum would end up being filled by the EU! Google "Europe of Regions". Contrary to popular belief also, many countries cope with devolved and semi-autonomous parts. Germany has Bavaria I believe.

The argument of legitimacy is real but also unreal. We have a Labour government but I live in Kent, majority Conservative, but East Kent voted Labour. If you have a referendum in Scotland why not in Kent, then whhat about Medway, Thanet and Sheppey? It is best not to start down this road in my opinion as you could keep on splitting until you got to tiny areas no bigger than houses! This is why localism is so important - still the UK, but more powers locally and in the hands of individuals.

[will]

Grant,
That's the price Scotland must pay to be part of the Union.

[Super Blue]

"The rest of the UK can get devolved powers similar to those in Scotland - recreate ancient areas such as Mercia, Wessex, Anglia with devolved parliaments based on historic boundaries." - Yet Another Anon.

Labour have tried to introduce regional assemblies in the past 12 years and the idea was rejected.

[I Albion]

David T Beaker, doth protest to much,Scotland and Wales asked for and got their own Parliaments,this government was willing to carve England up in to small pieces,and no Unionist would be crying as you are about how impossible it would be,
England must first have its own Parliament,then we can go on from there

[will]

Grant,
That's the price Scotland must pay to be part of the union.

[Sandy Jamieson]

The matter of who qualifies to vote in a referendum is important. I find it abhorrent that were we to use the Local Government/European Parliament Register than some backwoodsman recently over from Poland will have a vote yet someone like myself born and educated in Scotland but living in England for some years now is denied a vote.
Remember in the initial 1998 referendum, Blair carefully gerrymandered the electorate by not allowing those Scots on the Register as overseas voters to vote (and I presume he included Scottish Servicemen at the same time)although I accept that this would not have made any difference to the result but it did set a precedent.

The Act that sets up any future referendum must allow non resident Scots elsewhere in the UK to register themselves for a vote.

With regard to an English Parliament, it is fairly clear that this is not being stopped by the Scots or Welsh - its the three big Westminster parties who are stopping that.

[Steve Foley]

I was born in Scotald but left there at age 18 and thus have spent the last 37 years in England and have assimilated.

As far as I am concerned it would be a good thing for England were the SNP to win a referendum and become Independent.

There is a slogan "Better off out!" regarding the EU. I would adapt that to "Better off without!" as regards Scotland

[Yet Another Anon]

Yet another Anon, why? why do you discriminate against England, we are a nation, we deserved to be recognised as such. You don't recommend Scotland being carved up between the Highlands and lowlands, nor Wales, so why do you reserve this for England?
There would under such a situation be an English body to deal with English Law, a Welsh body to deal with Welsh Law. There isn't an English Parliament at the moment and yet people see themselves as English, and in fact there is no Scottish nationality, nationality of those with UK Nationality is British.

I'd like to see the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish assemblies\parliaments broken up with more devolution, the last thing that should be done is introduce the same shambolic centralised system in England that has been introduced elsewhere - Wales is dominated by Cardiff and the Scottish Parliament is a lowlands dominated institution with the Highlands and West of Scotland having really no more power than if the Scottish Parliament had never been created. Unfortunately the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland assemblies\parliaments having been created are difficult to get rid of.

As for Gravy Trains, it wouldn't neccessarily mean more politicians - Cornwall for example already has elected councillors, just give them the powers of a Devolved Parliament - Get rid of the 700 odd Lords, getting rid of 2/3 of the current MPs would remove an extra 430 or so, leaving the EU would get rid of the 80 odd MEPs, the Local Government structure could be rationalised fully into a unitary structure, do there need to be as many people in the Devolved Parliaments as there are - the answer is no, if social spending is slashed then there don't need to be as many representatives.

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour have tried to introduce regional assemblies in the past 12 years and the idea was rejected.
Labour based it on EU regions, not historic English Kingdoms and Counties, they haven't devolved the same powers that have been devolved in Scotland, and not even the same powers that have been devolved in Wales or Northern Ireland. The Regional Assemblies exist so it would simply be replacing one form of devolution with an alternative one.

At the same time the Welsh, Northern Ireland and Scottish Offices should be scrapped completely - no Ministers for London, or Wales, or Scotland, only ministers for the UK.

[James Maskell]

As with Northern Ireland if Scotland wishes to be independent then so be it. It is not for us to deny the Scots on this one.

There is however a problem for Cameron in him matching his pro-Unionist views with devolutionary policies and trying to work with Salmond nicely. Inevitably the question will come when Salmond will have to announce the planned referendum in 2010 then what? Cameron and Salmond will break up their happy relationship. Cameron and Salmond are incompatible as constitutional bed buddies and I can only see trouble ahead.

[Yet Another Anon]

If an English Parliament were to be created then logically there would be no need for the GLA - Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield etc... wouldn't have such an authority and such functions would be administered by Local Authorities or by the English Parliament, logically speaking so should London's affairs. There would be a lot of resistance to such an abolition, but London isn't a country.

As for Alex Salmond, he's in a precarious position, the SNP administration might not survive the next set of Budget negociations when they come around, however it's certainly in the public interest for leaders of different tiers of Government to try to maintain some kind of communications.

[Veronica]

David T Breaker "The last thing we need is to break up the UK" agreed but it needs to be a partnership of equals which means England having a parliament of its own.
Why should those of us in England bear the brunt of keeping the Union in place without proper representation?
Our MPs have to do 2 jobs, looking after their constituents and the UK. Welsh and Scottish constituents have an MP in their own assembly/parliament to look after their national interests and an MP in the UK government to represent their interest there.
Mention has been made in these posts about the Army, Navy etc. but is Scotland prepared to take on its share of the national debt?
It is time not to pander to the people of Scotland David but to ask the people of England what they want. What a novelty!

[Dave McEwan Hill]

Whether England has a government of its own (and Scots and others see the Westminster Parliament with 90% English component as exactly that)is a matter for the English and the Scots have no interest one way or the other.
Gordon Brown may well be a Scot but he is chosen as PM by mainly English MPs and Scots take no more blame in this than the rest of the UK.
He has denied his Scottishness every time he has had the opportunity to do so and most of us despise him as well.

[Scott Carlton]

On the subject of devolution I must agree with Will, we should have one government for all. Devolution to the people in all countries, can be achieved through the council system, with people deciding on local matters such as schools, bin collection and council tax etc etc, whilst leaving the bigger issues are left up to a national government. I believe and I have said this on other posts relating to this subject, that if the government is doing a good enough job, then the ideas of independance falls down. Tony Blair pandered to public pressure instead of standing his ground and defending the Union, but I will also (dare I say it) say Wales and Scotland becoming very distant under Thatcher and Major. The topic of NI is slightly different with the past troubles, and possibly would have to be left as it is for a number of years. It is time to rid the UK of uncurrently an unfair democracy that is devolution. On this topic I currently can't agree with David Camerons approach to Scotland.

[Yet Another Anon]

Big problems have been caused by having seperate English Law and Scottish Law since before the Act of Union; Northern Ireland did once have it's own parliament that decided Northern Irish Law, but that was scrapped in the 1970s since which and still in fact Northern Ireland Law is decided by the UK Parliament, this mean't that even with smaller numbers of voters per seat Scottish and Northern Irish MPs could be over-ruled on law covering those areas by MPs voting on legal changes that wouldn't apply in the part of the Union they were in, and in some cases MPs from outside the area covered by English Law sometimes blocked or forced changes in a law that didn't cover their area.

With the changes there have been - Scottish MPs are left able to vote on English and Northern Irish Law that will not affect them, and to a lesser extent MPs in Wales, Ulster and London are able to vote on issues in England outside London that doesn't affect their constituents.

The alternative to a Federal UK is to abolish the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and GLA and merge English, Scottish and Northern Irish Law and have UK Law - one single set of Laws for the whole of the UK, and then have a unitary system of Local Government and no other geographical devolution. No Scottish Office, No Welsh Office, No Northern Irish Office.

[Jake]

There will be no lancing of this boil until England is treated with the same maturity and respect by the British political class
-including the Conservatives- as they do Scotland.

That includes allowing England all the features of national recognition that Scotland already has ie

a national parliament
a national government
a first minister
a national budget
a national civil service
a number of national institutions

all of the above specifically dedicated to England and the people of England and not to be in any way confused with British varieties of the same which have bedevilled, occupied and distracted us for so long.

Lancing of the boil must involve full realisation - by the Tory party-
of the way in which England too,in fact above all England, has been occupied and exploited by the British state for 302 years and still is (eg Barnett Rules and skewed parliamentary representation)

It is perfectly possible for the British Union to continue after the inception of English self rule. Such a Union,where both countries remained internally self ruled by their own parliaments and governments,ould be far happier than the dysfunctional and acerbic thing that Mr Cameron even now wants to hold together in dogged denial of its true nature.

The original concept of British Union, driven very largely by Scots, was of just this sort.
ie an economic and customs Union,
a foreign policy Union
a military and naval Union
a political Union but with separate
national parliaments
an overarching British parliament

The British Union has ALWAYS been a part federal union. There is no reason why the Union should, even at this late stage, be reorganised on the basis of the original idea ie a full federal British Union.

[Dave McEwan Hill]

There is no issue that shows up the contributors to Conservative Home in a more badly informed light than this issue and I suggest that David Cameron (and Annabelle Goldie) have a much better grasp of the intricacies and delicacies of it than most. In particular they both recognise (as did John Major very publicly) that the form of the future government of Scotland is entirely a matter for the Scots and that English opinion on the matter, though perhaps interesting, has no constitutional relevance and any notion than the Scots can be subsumed into some other constitutional framework against their will is absurd.
If the Union is to be retained (and I believe inexorable process of history means this is not possible) it cannot be done as a result of heavy handed coercion.
The political spoils will go to the first UK administration which recognises the inevitabilty of Scottish independence, moves to make the parting an amicable one and spares us all on either side of the border the horrors of a decent family of nations falling out for a generation on this matter.
Beleive me there is no desire on the part of the vast majority of Scots, including the growing number of those who seek independence, to be anything other than good neighbours to the English.
We have alwys recognised that most English people have a generous attitude towards Scotland and its ambitions and would seek to put no impediment to them.
As R B Cunningham-Graham pointed out over sixty years ago "The enemy of Scotland is not England. It is the Scot born without imagination". We have quite enough of them to be dealing with without unscrupulous elements in England whipping up anti-Scottish sentiment, as they are doing at the moment, to disadvantage Gordon Brown.
Another founder of the national movement, E Rowland Muirhead, believed that Scotland would not be independent until the landed laird (ie the Scottish Tory class)came to its side. This might be closer than many imagine.

[The Bishop's Wife.]

Dave McEwan Hill.

A double barrel name doesn't turn your post into "well informed journalism" your opinion is welcomed but that is all it amounts to. I started into your post hoping for some information that might add a piece to the jig saw puzzle, but sadly it was just another attempt at justifying the unjustifiable. "is entirely a matter for the Scots" is what the break up of the Union would produce. In the meantime we are still partner Nations, and we are entitled to express an opinion.

Jake on the other hand is offering a solution that might satisfy all of us.

"The British Union has ALWAYS been a part federal union. There is no reason why the Union should, even at this late stage, be reorganised on the basis of the original idea IE a full federal British Union."

[Dave McEwan Hill]

My name is not double barreled and there is no jigsaw puzzle.
Scotland's future is entirely a matter for the Scots.
You are indeed entitled to an opinion, as we all are on everything, but it has no constitutional validity.
The British Union has never been part federal.
The Union of 1707 was billed as a union of two equal nations (stop laughing there at the back)and the names of England and Scotland were supposed to be abandoned in favour of a new entity called Britain which was to be a unitary state.
Fortunately the Scots were allowed to retain several important national symbols - church, law, education system,currency notes and these have contributed to the retention of a national identity.
And here we are, moving apart - a political process that is irreversible. It need not be in the slightest painful given sensible behaviour all round.

[Dave McEwan Hill]

Is there any particular reason why my carefully considered posts, none of which are insulting or aggressive, are so often answered in such insulting manner?

[Omar Kader]

Independence for Scotland is best for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Bring on the referendum. The conservatives in Scotland are the 4th party and even they admit they will be lucky to win more than 4 seats.

Mind you i would prefer a conservative government to this boom and bust crap that we now have.

[Jake]

David, you are ignoring the blindingly obvious.
Of course the British Union is partly federal. You are correct in that, at the time, there was an attempt to abolish the two nations of England and Scotland and replace them with a new nation, Great Britain. Some of the emerging British class kidded themselves then and have done so ever since that this in fact took place.
In practice it never did and England and Scotland have remained quite distinct nations in the minds of their peoples.

The Act of Union , which you will recall was an identical act passed by both parliaments, sort of said this in a confused way but also implied that both nations should continue and that there should be separate and distinct codes of law, religion, education and local governement.
Thats a part federal arrangement.

However, the parliament was to be in common and both countries were to be encased in one free trade and taxation zone.
Armed forces in common - sort of , since army regiments mainly remained highly national products of England or Scotland.

Thats confusing as was the Act. I think the description part-federal still applies though.

By the way, your contention that Scotland should be in control of her own affairs is not one which the English dispute. What rankles is the complete lack of any recognition by you of any right of England to be treated specifically as a nation in her own right. You make the common mistake of confusing the British government at Westminster with an English government, a longstanding SNP line.
If you were able to understand that it is England which is occupied by the British state much more so than Scotland instead of confusing us with them, then clarity and understanding might reign.

[Scott Carlton]

I know I have already posted on this topic, but in short we need a clear policy that reverses devolution, but one that also strengths the council system to meet the everyday needs of the people. Local matters should be decided by local people. I believe this is a better and far more effective method of devolution of powers and I think will be far more beneficial to putting the great back into Britain, and making the UK a major international power again.

However the end of the Union will be bad for all country's involved. Whilst I am sceptical of a federal Europe, as British people, we are stronger together, we have much in common. No one country at the minute can stand alone financially or realistically. Yes, each country should retain its own identity, have its own national sports teams, own languages etc but politically we are stronger together. I would also add I don't think it is realistic to draw comparisons between the European Union and The Act of Union. The European Union is a far more complex structure for a start.

[Tarquin]

"Is there any particular reason why my carefully considered posts, none of which are insulting or aggressive, are so often answered in such insulting manner?"

Could it be because you put forward a well argued point, but it is not compatible with the thinking of many on this site. They are not able to argue with such clarity, so they stoop to insults.

It's the usual tactic on here and on other right wing sites.

[Adam in London]

It's a potentially awkward relationship but one that could also afford Cameron more room to maneuveur than Brown.

There's an obvious political hit in winning a Westminster majority but having hardly any Scottish MPs (we'd likely find it near impossible to make double figures - even Major mananged that in 1992). But that would have been true with or without devolution.

After the next election will also be when the SNP are planning to hold their referendum on independence. However, the respective positions on this for the SNP and the Conservatives are well known and no-one regards anyone as 'betraying' their principles (as they might with people like Brown who used to advocate Scottish socialism).

However, the Conservatives are not the main opposition to the SNP in Scotland - this has always been Brown's problem: the SNP need to attack him because he is both leading the Westminster government, and the leader of Labour (the Opposition in Scotland). By contrast the Conservatives have been co-operative with the SNP in government - eg voting for the budget. They may have vehement disagreements on certain issues, but they can see eye to eye on others when it counts.

More troublesome for Cameron are the things that will be difficult no matter who wins the next General election.

Needing to restrict spending (including in Scotland) will be deeply unpopular, and could serve as a nationalist rallying cry. Wider fiscal autonomy could be a way of dealing with this - although the timing of the Calman Commission could get in the way. It would have the additional benefit of encouraging greater fiscal responsibility in Scotland (at the moment they basically get an enormous cheque which they have to spend). Alongside that it may be worth exploring a symmetrical devolution settlement for the rest of the UK (Welsh, Northern Irish, English, and London Parliaments), aiming to restore London as the truly British capital, and Westminster as the seat of the British government - rather than an English capital and English government which happens to run other parts of the UK as well. But that's just me...

[The Bishop Swine]

"Is there any particular reason why my carefully considered posts, none of which are insulting or aggressive, are so often answered in such insulting manner?"

Could be the subject matter but that doesn't excuse my wife I agree. She just enjoys putting others down...double barreled ? Read to many Cherry B's.

[The Bishop's Wife]

No Bishop, I simply will not tolerate those who want to break up the Union. We used to deal with such people in a "considered" way On Tower Green. These days we tolerate dissent, but that is not the same as liking it is it? We even had a lunatic suggesting getting rid of the Navy and the RAF last night. Traitors and Lunatics don't get a vote in my book.

[The Bishop's Wife]

"Presume if they become independent they will have their own Army, Navy and Air Force. Sorry - we will of course all be Europeans then, living in a division of Euroland so those forces will cease to exist anyway."

That would throw up interesting constitutional problems. Our armed forces swear allegiance to the queen and quite right to. Even the SNP for their sins have not suggested a break with their Crown. I can't see how this deunionize Britain. For Euro land read Germany and their french collaborators more treason and more traitors.

[Tim Montgomerie]

I've warned you before about multiple comments, Bishop.

[Grant]

Can someone explain just exactly how a federal UK would work? Does anyone know of any federal arrangement where one component part of the federation is 80% of the entire federation?

Or is a federal UK just a mechanism to perhaps prop England up on the international stage such that she can project her voice on the global stage much more than she could on her own?

I can certainly see that advantages to England in such an arrangement, what are the advantages for Scotland and Wales, exactly?

[Iain]

" what are the advantages for Scotland and Wales, exactly? "

Well they have got what they want, they wanted their own Assembly and Parliament and got that. If they had concern about what England did then they should have stuck around to have a comprehensive settlement for the whole of the UK, and would rightly have had their say in the matter. But they didn't, as I say they wanted their Assembly and Parliament and didn't care whether it would beggar the constitutional rights of English people, and we English people were told in no uncertain terms that is was none of our business what they went off to do. Well now it’s the time for English people to decide what we want, and as such the Scottish and Welsh deserve as much consideration for their point of view as they gave to us. In other words none!

[Iain]

"Or is a federal UK just a mechanism to perhaps prop England up on the international stage such that she can project her voice on the global stage much more than she could on her own?"

Three million Welsh or five million Scots don't exctly give England much of an enhanced global role, in truth they would hardly be missed, but the reverse would be true in that England gives Scottish people and Welsh a much bigger voice than they could ever possibly manage on their own, so the real question is what does Wales and Scotland bring to the party, other than a load of bills for England to pay?

[Jake]

Basically, if you want to preserve the United Kingdom at all, then a federal arrangement has to be the way forward.
Since Blair's ignorant devolution flounderings, the unitary parliament model for a unitary British state is now irretrieveably broken.
Speculation as to ending the Welsh assembly/Scottish parliament and returning power to the British Parliament at Westminster is completely unrealistic.

The only practical way forward is for the four nations of the UK
( we used to be one nation, I know , but thats in the past)
is for each to have a national parliament and national government.
If the sizes of the component countries are unequal then thats too bad. In fact, several federal states around the world harbour huge disparities in the sizes of the component countries/states. These include the USA, India and Mexico. Yes England would be ten times the size of Scotland but Scotland would be 3 times the size of Wales and 4 times the size of NI. In the end, so what?

In practice, a federal system seems to work well across the world for defusing the the problems and potential acrimonies of complex states. It can be made to work. Mr Cameron has been quite flexible in other areas but in the crucial constitutional area his only idea is to try and make an exhausted and severely dysfunctional remnant of the old unitary state continue to stagger on basically by discriminating against the English and sucking up to Scotland.

This is a recipe for disaster ie the end of the United Kingdom. There is way out and it is a good one but the British political class have yet to grasp it.

[Grant]

Iain,

Well 3 million or so Welsh, 5.2 million or so Scots, 1.7 million Northern Irish and so on, is nearly a fifth of the overall UK population, so that certainly allows England to project her voice on the international stage much more than she would otherwise.

Incidentally, this is something strongly emphasised by John Major in his autobiography. Geopolitics is a funny old game.

I think your anger is a bit misplaced. I'm more than happy - like the majority of ordinary Scottish people - for England to determine its own constitutional settlement, like we will with ours. It is just a pity most English MPs, elected in England do not share that view.

But again, what are the advantages to Scotland of remaining in the Union in a federal settlement?

I cannot see any.

[Grant]

Jake:

"In the end, so what?"

Quite a lot, actually.

Yes, plenty of federal systems work across the world with disparities in size - but there is no dominant partner in the federal relationship able to dictate to the rest of the federation. The UK would be unique in this regard (with perhaps the exception of Bosnia).

I can't really see the Scots going for it. How would they benefit in terms of the ability to influence the foreign and defence policy, which affects them?

This would make both the Scottish Question (aka the democratic deficit) of the 1980s and 90s, and the newer West Lothian Question, look like a cakewalk in discriminating against the Scots.

[Iain]

" But again, what are the advantages to Scotland of remaining in the Union in a federal settlement? "

That depends of the extent of the federal settlement, but for starters they wouldn't need passports and visas to cross the border.

[Grant]

That's hardly a clincher, is it?

[Iain]

" can't really see the Scots going for it. How would they benefit in terms of the ability to influence the foreign and defence policy, which affects them? "

Well that is something they are going to have to decide for themselves, the fact was they had a very good settlement in the UK when we were a unitary state, but that wasn't good enough for them , they wanted their cake but continue to take their fill of the English constitutional cake. Not surprisingly the English aren't too chuffed at the arrangement the Scots have written for themselves. So now the Scots are going to have to come to the realisation that they are a small country, they no longer have a right to the larger voice that England gave them, and as such they have to decide do they want to be country with a small voice in the world, a country with a small voice in Europe, of a country with a small voice in a UK federal settlement. It’s a case of what small do you want? Its over to you!

[The Bishop Swine]

"I've warned you about multiple comments,Bishop"

For the sake of Clarity the wife is going to post under her own name from here on in.

[sour little Englander]

On two occasions Cameron has been asked in public about the Barnett formula. In Scotland his reply was "I have a lot of scottish blood running through my veins",
in Newcastle upon Tyne recently he replied "I don't want to do anything that will lead to more tensions between England and Scotland"
I can only believe that he intends to carry on bribing the scots at the English taxpayers expense and that Cameron will carry on with New Labour's charade that there is no England.

[Colin Ray]

From every speech that Mr. Cameron has made with reference to the 'Union', I have noticed that he seems to be completely 'Scotocentric'. If David, "I've got a lot of Scottish blood in my veins", Cameron becomes PM, then I am confident that we English will continue to pay all the bills,continue to have Celtic politicians voting on solely English matters. England will continue to have no representation, except at a UK level.

In short, a Tory victory at the next election will maintain the post-devolution status quo which has placed England at democratic, social, constitutional and economic disadvantage.

A Tory PM will simply continue like his predecessor. The de-facto First Minister of England, having no control over health, education, transport, policing and other matters devolved to his own nation. And a Brown's case, unaccountable to the English electorate.

[Daggs]

As an English Nationalist, i feel the idea of a new Federal UK with all FOUR countries having their own Parliament, and a UK Parliament for UK affairs, is the best way forward.
However, if the Scots wish to have complete independance, then they shall have it. At least you the Scots have been given the opportunity. Unlike the English who are ignored by the Scottish Raj New Labour government. The 'Scottish blood in my veins' McCameron Conservatives, and the clueless Lib-Dems.

[Stephen Gash]

Thanks Dave, for another reason for the English to not vote Tory.

[Stephen Gash]

Posted by: Grant | February 09, 2009 at 09:30 "I can certainly see that advantages to England in such an arrangement, what are the advantages for Scotland and Wales, exactly?"

Let's take a brutal look at the facts. In 1707 England already had an empire and the East India Company. England's navy had 240 ships, Scotland's had six. England was already a world power and would certainly have maintained an empire at least as large as litte Netherlands, without Scotland. Without England, Scotland's history would be much the same as Norway's - without the Vikings.
Without the Union now, England would be just as influential as the UK is now. My guess is though the English would willingly give up its "influence" and return to growing England's prosperity via manufacturing etc. We are sick of people like Blair and Miliband strutting the world sticking their noses in.
I doubt Gazans know who the Japanese Prime Minister is, yet Japan has the second largest economy in the world. The English would revert to being prosperous Little Englanders. Alex Salmond can then waddle his way around reminding the world how Scotland ran the empire.

[Patrick Harris]

And, who will he work with, for the good of England - you know - the only country that votes for his party.

[Iain]

"We are sick of people like Blair and Miliband strutting the world sticking their noses in."

Yes it would be nice to have a Government that looks to the interests of our people, rather than finding problems around the world to get us involved in that involves unlimited obligations. Its worth noting that the English 'empire' was one primarily concerned with trade, the British empire on the other hand was one that was imperialist in nature, which has burdened us with unlimited obligations. In addition 'Little Englanders' was a name coined for English people concerned by the ravages the industrial revolution was doing to our country. As such I suppose it is only fair for people concerned about the wanton damage the British state is now doing to England to be given that label, little Englanders, again.

[Yet Another Anon]

Even the SNP for their sins have not suggested a break with their Crown.
Scotland might be in the Commonwealth under his plans, he says he wants to retain the monarchy - this would mean the kind of seperation that the Irish Republic had, they would move to a seperate currency which would either be a Scottish one or the Euro, there would be a seperate Armed Forces, seperate everything, the Queen would still be the Head of State, as she is in Australia. The Union would be broken.

[I Robert]

Is there any particular reason why my carefully considered posts, none of which are insulting or aggressive, are so often answered in such insulting manner?"

Dave-I for one, find your posts the most sensible of all!

I have ALWAYS maintained that the true enemies of progress to the Scots Nation are the Scots "without imagination.!"

[englandism in a vortex wormhole thingy]

We would appear to be in a Primeval Anomaly. This is actually May 10th.

Or is it just me?

[David Fraser]

Strange that people in England are worried about Scottish independence.
It's not going to happen, it's as simple as that.
The huge majority of Scots from the south vote Labour and always will.

The SNP voters are mostly from the more affluent North East. They dream about being an independent oil producing country, a little Norway. They'll soon back down from independence when they realise that an independent Scotland will become the new North Korea, it's going that way already.

I'm surpised no-one realises this is an opportunity to get up there and stir things.