|
Equality
for the English Those members of the Parliament at Westminster who are committed to
preserving the United Kingdom have to face a ferociously difficult question.
Now that the Scots and Welsh have decided to have devolution, how do we
deliver a fair deal for England, and do the best job of preserving the
Union.
William Hague has, quite rightly, announced that an incoming Conser-vative
government would respect the outcome of the referenda. But Labour's compromise
proposals are a consti-tutional mess. They do not solve the so-called
West Lothian question, the problem of Scottish MPs voting on matters that
solely affect the English, whilst the English MPs cannot vote on similar
matters that solely affect the Scots. This treats the English (and to
some extent the Welsh) very unfairly.
Nobody should doubt that the English feel as passionately about their
country as do the Scots or Welsh. The willingness of the English to subordinate
their 'Englishness' to the greater interests of the Union is a measure
of the strength of their commitment to that Union, not of any weakness
in their love of their own country.
The best demonstration of this is the extent to which the English have
been willing to make sacrifices in the interests of the Union. For example,
on the basis of population, Scotland has fourteen more MPs than it would
have with English-sized constituencies. In terms of public expenditure
per head, Wales receives one sixth more money than England, Scotland a
fifth more, and Northern Ireland a third more. Neither should the clamouring
of the Scottish Nationalists to the contrary confuse us. Even if we, quite
wrongly, allocated all the North Sea revenues to Scotland, they would
still be receiving a net £6 billion from the English taxpayer. In addition
- unlike England - Scotland and Wales have their own Cabinet Minister
to represent their own unique interests, as well as all the other Scots
and Welsh members that have occupied positions in every Cabinet in modern
times.
There are, of course, reasons for these differences, and the English
have accepted them because the vast majority place enormous value on the
Union. They recognise the energy that the United Kingdom has gained from
the amalgamation of the talents of all parts of the Kingdom. They recognise
the huge advantage in all areas of endeavour - scientific, literary, military,
commercial or political - which arises out of their hybrid vigour. They
know that the United Kingdom is very much more than the sum of its parts.
Which is why Labour's proposals are potentially so disastrous. The Govern-ment
is meddling with a finely balanced structure, which has historically worked
to everybody's advantage. They are taking the risk of starting a process
that will unravel the tightly woven fabric of our country. If it goes
wrong, this process will be slow at first, but will accelerate under the
pressure of the discontent and disunity that devolution will stir up.
The compromises that Labour are putting together to achieve their ends,
whilst still maintaining their political advantage, will exacerbate this
dis-content. Those Welsh people that want an Assembly will resent the
stronger Scottish institution. As for the English, Labour's attempts to
provide supposed "fairness" with regional councils is, of course, nonsense.
It will not solve the West Lothian question. They will simply create soulless
regional bureaucracies; bleak outstations of Brussels.
Nobody could with any serious constitutional sense equate, say, a Yorkshire
and Humberside regional council with the Scottish parliament. The constant
constitutional mess that we are being offered in exchange for our heritage
and history is not going to satisfy anyone.
It is no accident that Labour's proposals fit well with the wishes of
the European Commission. In the federalist lexicon, the nation state is
seen as the source of many evils, from unemploy-ment to war. Whilst this
dogma is unsurprising given the history of some parts of Europe, it is
an ideology wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom, a country that has
enjoyed hundreds of years of democracy, peace and tolerance under one
national government.
The nation state is the strongest manifestation of the democratic will
of the people. It is a moral concept, indissolubly tied to the emotional
identity of the people, and is not an administrative convenience to suit
Labour's apparent urge to bypass Westminster by every means possible.
Accordingly, if this change is inevitable, then the people of England
deserve nothing less than equal treatment. And, the people of Britain
deserve a constitutional settlement that is at least logical. Otherwise,
it will unravel under the pressure of its own inconsistencies.
If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its
own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly
believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and
Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment
in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding
equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation
- although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in
fifteen years time as Labour propose.
The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples
of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want
a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the
people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on
the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English
people are likely to be satisfied with.
Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that
the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land.
If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom,
that disaffection would be the way to do it.
|
David Davis, Member of Parliament for Haltemprice and Howden and former Foreign Office Minister of State, argues the case for a referendum on an English parliament |
