One UK: The British Union from 30 First Principles
Tweet
The following speech was presented by Alistair McConnachie to the London Swinton Circle (Chairman, Allan Robertson) on Thursday 18 June 2015 at 7.00pm at the Counting House, 50 Cornhill, London.
Section headings are in UPPER CASE, you can click on any of the Principles to jump to the appropriate part of the text, and back again.
Alistair would like to thank his supporters who alone make it financially possible for him to devote his full time to researching, writing and delivering this material. If you appreciate this content and if you would like to assist this work, please donate via this page.
The photographs were taken by Alistair McConnachie, while in London between 18 June and 22 June 2015, and are copyright of Alistair McConnachie.
Posted on this site on 24 June 2015.
ONE UK: A UNITARY OR A UNION STATE?
THE PRINCIPLES on which ONE UK is STANDING
PRINCIPLES OF STATE
Principle 1: The United Kingdom is a Unitary State
Principle 2: The United Kingdom is One Country and One Nation
Principle 3: The United Kingdom is a Family
Principle 4: The United Kingdom is an End in itself, and not only a Means to an End
PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP
Principle 5: The Nature of a Union is Joint Commitment to a Greater Collective Good
Principle 6: It is Wrong to Demand More Powers and Expect to Remain in Union
Principle 7: A British Frame of Mind puts First the Interest of all Britain
Principle 8: Policy and Implications for all the UK is our Concern, not just for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales separately
PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY
Principle 9: Any Discrimination, including Economic Discrimination, towards a British Citizen based on the Grounds of his or her Place of Residence in the UK shall be Prohibited
Principle 10: All British citizens must have Access to the Same Top-Rate Welfare Payments and Benefits
PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMY
Principle 11: The UK is a Sharing and Redistributive Tax Union
Principle 12: Mineral and Energy Resources throughout the UK belong to all British Citizens
PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY
Principle 13: The British Identity requires Political Union
PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL UNITY
Principle 14: Any change to One Part of the United Kingdom has to have Regard to the Whole of the UK and the Whole of the UK has to be Involved
Principle 15: It Shall be Difficult to Break-Up the Country
Principle 16: All Constitutional Matters Regarding the Union of the United Kingdom must be Made by Primary Legislation
PRINCIPLES OF PARLIAMENTARY UNITY
Principle 17: Laws are Made by the British Parliament
Principle 18: The British Parliament has Complete Authority over all its Subsidiary Bodies
Principle 19: The British Parliament has a Responsibility to all the People of Britain to Retain its Complete Authority over all Actions of any Subsidiary Body
Principle 20: Every Law Passed in the British Parliament affects Everyone in the UK
Principle 21: All British Citizens Must have a Say over Governance in all Parts of the UK
Principle 22: Every British MP Represents, and Makes Decisions for, all of Britain
Principle 23: Every MP has a Right to Vote on Everything that comes before the British Parliament
Principle 24: The Constitutional Model must Allow for an MP from Anywhere in the UK to Become Prime Minister
PRINCIPLES OF DEVOLUTION
Principle 25: Devolution is British State Power Exercised by a Subsidiary Body
Principle 26: Devolution must be Consistent with the Maintenance of the UK as a Unitary State
Principle 27: Devolution is a Two-way Process
Principle 28: Devolution is Dangerous to a Unitary State in the presence of a Separatist Movement
Principle 29: Any Devolved Power can and will be Used by a Separatist Administration for a Divisive Purpose to Further its anti-UK Agenda
Principle 30: Scottish Separatism will Never be Appeased
Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen and thank you Mr Chairman for inviting me once again to address the London Swinton Circle, and especially so on this auspicious day, the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.
I am immensely grateful for the opportunity, not only to speak, but to have a reason to prepare for several weeks a considered piece of work, which I can present.
I'm going to speak for 1 hour. My title is, "One UK: The British Union from First Principles."
That phrase…"One UK"?
On Friday 8 May, the day after the General Election, David Cameron spoke outside 10 Downing Street and said:
"I want to bring our country together, our United Kingdom together, not least by implementing as fast as we can the devolution that we rightly promised and came together with other parties to agree both for Wales and for Scotland. In short, I want my party, and I hope a government I would like to lead, to reclaim a mantle that we should never have lost – the mantle of One Nation, one United Kingdom." 1
Mr Cameron is quite good at starting a paragraph with something that sounds good and ending it with something that sounds good.
Here, "I want to bring our country together, our United Kingdom together"…blah, blah, blah…and regain the mantle of "one UK."
Yes! Hooray!
But between the beginning and the end of the paragraph he is contradicting what he is saying.
He wants "one UK", but he wants to implement, "as fast as we can the devolution that we rightly promised and came together with other parties to agree both for Wales and for Scotland."
Well, that is not going to help "One UK" as I intend to show.
It is almost as if he thinks that…if he can surround bad things in the middle of his paragraph with enough good things on either side, then people won't notice the contradictions in the middle!
In this case, it's a bit like saying, "I want to take good care of this car, while I drive it over a cliff, so it can run better."
Or, "I want to win this football game, by shooting the ball into the back of my own net, so we can win the league."
Or, more pointedly, "I want to strengthen this marriage, by getting a divorce, so we can stay together."
It's "a contradiction in terms", and it won't work for Mr Cameron any more than George Robertson's belief that "Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead" has worked…for the Labour Party in Scotland!
So, I'm going to take this phrase "One United Kingdom", and I'm going to lay out…for Mr Cameron…and for everyone else, the Principles which underlie this very worthy idea.
I'm going to emphasise that if you believe in "One UK" then you must understand the Principles which uphold it, or you will go through life unwittingly destroying them; and our "One UK" will collapse.
I'm going to point out that you can't sustain something, or build something, if you are constantly undermining its foundations.
I'm going to lay out these Principles. All 30 of them, which I have identified – so far – in my 20 years of studying this area.
I would hope also that these Principles could make a contribution to any 'Constitutional Convention' that may be arranged.
ONE UK: A UNITARY OR A UNION STATE?
Now before I speak about the Principles of One UK, I want to spend a little time giving you some background on how, exactly, the present government and the main political parties, see the UK relationship at present.
They see it as a 'Union State', not as a 'Unitary State'.
Let me explain.
By Unitary State, is meant, "a state governed as one single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate." That's the definition on Wikipedia.
A Unitary state creates 'one nation'.
Britain is still a Unitary state, although the manner in which various powers have been distributed from the centre has compromised its integrity.
By Union State is meant, a state where various sovereign national states come together and agree to share governing power. The European Union could be said to be a Union state, rather than a Unitary state.
A Union state is a union of nations, plural. It is harder to develop the idea of one nation, if we see the relationship as a union of nations, rather than as a nation of unions.
When Scotland and England came together in 1707 we created something of a hybrid state which was nevertheless overwhelmingly Unitary – and largely one nation – but which was also partly a Union state with both states retaining a level of their previous state identity, and with that, their own sense of themselves as separate nations.
Why is this important?
Because right now, all the major political parties, the government Ministers, and their academic advisors, understand Britain to be a Union state, and this governs their entire approach to devolution.
It seems they have given up on the idea that Britain is a Unitary state which represents one nation.
We see it in the language used by the politicians and the Ministers of State: When we hear Ministers speaking about the UK being 'a family of nations', they are referring to it as a Union state.
People such as myself, who believe in a Unitary state, would speak instead about the UK being 'a nation of families'.
When we hear them speak about the UK being 'a union of nations', they are referring to it as a Union state.
People such as myself, refer to it instead from a Unitary perspective as 'a nation of unions'. 2
And this is no mere pedantry.
Whether we understand Britain as a Unitary or a Union state determines absolutely our approach to devolution.
How so?
If we look on the UK as a 'Union state' then we will approach the question of devolution with the presumption that everything should be devolved to the constituent nations, except those things which are best done at the centre.
We will not regard the overall unity of the UK as the over-riding matter.
Instead, the over-riding matter will be the distribution of power to each constituent nation; and as far as the unity of the overall state is concerned, the attitude will just be "let the cards fall where they may".
This was the attitude of those who first promoted devolution in the Labour Party and it remains the position of the Conservative government, and its advisors, today. 3
However, if we look on the UK as a Unitary state – or even largely a Unitary state, albeit with some elements of a Union state – then we will approach the question of devolution with the presumption that everything should remain at the centre, except those things which may be best done at a devolved level.
Importantly, one's over-riding concern will be the unity of the overall state. Consequently, one will be much more cautious in devolving anything at all, unless it can demonstrate a clear integrating and strengthening value to the overall unity of the state.
One will certainly not devolve anything in the presence of, let alone directly into the hands of, a separatist movement which will use such powers against the centre, itself.
And this is what the Scotland Bill, which is going through Parliament is doing right now. It is "devolving", or rather surrendering (and I'll explain the difference shortly) huge political power directly into the hands of a nationalist, separatist movement, which will use such power against the centre.
It is political madness as far as trying to keep together "One UK" is concerned!
So whether you consider the UK to be a 'Union state' or a 'Unitary state' will cause you to have fundamentally different ways of understanding the United Kingdom, which will lead to fundamentally different attitudes towards devolution, which will lead to fundamentally different policies, which will lead to fundamentally different consequences of your actions.
If we believe that we are only a union of nations, then it is easier to argue that the various nations should 'go their own way' and it is much easier to break us up.
If we understand that we are one nation – with a Unitary state – then it is much easier to accept that we should stay together, and it is much harder to break us up.
The Unitary State belief helps maintain One UK because it provides a degree of solidity to the nature of the UK.
Whereas, the Union State belief is one vulnerable to federalist and separatist ideas.
Now, some people may say that the UK was largely a Unitary state prior to devolution in 1999, and that now we are clearly a Union state, whether we like it or not.
There is some truth to that.
For example, the constitutional academic Vernon Bogdanor wrote an article recently where he was very clear that in his opinion the constitutional changes since the Blair era mean that the UK has "fundamentally transformed" and that "What had been a unitary state has now become a quasi-federal state. What had been seen as one nation representing different kinds of people was now a union of nations". 4
Now while Bogdanor has a point, he is not entirely correct. Indeed, he is quite wrong to go on to state that "Britain is no longer a unitary state".
It most certainly still is a unitary state, and it can continue to be one.
We are not just a union of nations. We are still very much a nation of unions.
Yet, this fundamental mistake – thinking we are only a Union state rather than a Unitary one – is made by pro-UK politicians all the time – which says they either have not thought about this at all; or they are being badly advised by people who have a deliberate federalising agenda; or they have just thoughtlessly adopted the view of the nationalists.
If we get the basic conceptualisation wrong from the start, then this becomes devastating to our long-term cause of keeping the UK together. We destabilise our own position!
So I say to Mr Cameron, if you believe in 'One UK' – and I believe that you do – then you are going to have to put much more emphasis on the Unitary elements of the UK, otherwise you will lose it entirely.
So it is the Principles which uphold the Unitary British state which I am going to speak about here.
Principles which, when understood, and respected and valued and acted upon, will strengthen the UK; that is, will bring us all closer together in common bonds of social and cultural and political and economic solidarity, and make it harder to divide us against each other.
So to get to…
THE PRINCIPLES on which ONE UK is STANDING
A Principle is something you believe in. A Policy is something you do as a consequence of that belief.
We look at a Policy and we judge, "Does this Policy accord with our Principle or does it not accord with our Principle?"
Some things we are not speaking about: We are not speaking about things like "the Rule of Law" or "Free Speech" or other things which might be described as principles which underpin democratic society in general.
We are not talking about what might be referred to as "the values" of the United Kingdom – such as solidarity; nor "the characteristics" of its people such as bravery and stoicism. 5
The Edith Cavell Memorial, St Martin's Place.
We are not talking about "the objectives" of the UK – such as what it "is for" in a practical sense.
Rather we are seeking to identify the Principles which help to maintain and promote One UK; which help to maintain and promote its social, cultural, economic, political and territorial cohesion; which help to maintain and promote the goal of ever closer union between all parts of the United Kingdom.
Principles which act to integrate, not separate, One UK.
Do they exist? I say they do.
Of course, opponents will accuse me of being deliberately subjective and selective here. But I say that if we believe in "One UK", then these Principles do have an objective existence in the Universe, outside of Alistair McConnachie's subjective political preferences.
I say they represent the foundational bases of the UK, even though they have often gone unspoken, or unidentified, or uncategorised.
I say they underlie, and uphold, the existence of the United Kingdom as a Unitary state and consequently as one Nation.
They are the Principles upon which we depend if the UK is to exist in the first place; principles which bind the 4 corners into One UK.
Principles which, if compromised, risk the collapse of the entire structure.
Right now, we have the Scotland Bill going through Parliament to give "more powers" to Holyrood.
Much of it compromises the Principles I will speak about. It compromises the Principles because few have understood them or spoken about them, until now.
So, before we throw more powers, effectively straight into the hands of the Scottish nationalists, without rationale – and in a vain attempt to appease them – we should take a step back.
Let's examine the Principles which are holding up the UK structure in the first place; Principles we should be careful not to corrupt if we want our One UK to continue!
Now, this is not a definitive list. There will be other Principles out there, which remain to be discovered.
I've categorised these 30 Principles into 8 Sections and I've tried to ensure, where possible, that they follow each other logically: They cover Principles of State, Relationship, Equality, Economy, Identity, Constitutional Unity, Parliamentary Unity, and Devolution.
PRINCIPLES OF STATE
Principle 1: The United Kingdom is a Unitary State
We can accept that it has elements of a Union State, but it is primarily a Unitary State – with a common Parliament, Head of State, Border, Citizenship, Passport, Central Bank (albeit misnamed, as we mentioned here in 2013!), Currency, Armed Forces, International Identity in world institutions.
Legally, in its relations with the world, the UK is most certainly a Unitary State rather than a Union State. We know this because if Scotland were to break away, it would not inherit any of the UK's international treaties. It would need to establish them again on its own.
Principle 2: The United Kingdom is One Country and One Nation
The 'Union state' view of looking at things calls us a 'Family of Nations' and there is truth in that, but it is not the primary truth. The primary truth is that we are a Nation of Families – one country – and for that reason alone we should not break up.
Some people will say that we are "4 Equal Nations", but that is not really so.
However, as a United Kingdom, we are one nation…where we should all be equal (at least, that is the ideal we should be aiming for – and which is being compromised – which I'll get to…).
So long as we have One UK, then for someone in England, they know that Scotland is not a different country. For someone in Scotland, England is not a different country. We are the same country.
An 'independent' Scotland would have the psychological effect of making people look on England, Wales and Northern Ireland as 'different countries' rather than part of the same one.
I don't want to wake up one morning and find that I've lost a huge part of my own country, in the name of some kind of parochial 'independence'!
Principle 3: The United Kingdom is a Family
We are not neighbours. We are a family, and "when things go wrong, as they sometimes will, and the road that we travel stays all uphill", then we can work it out…by working together – as the song says.
For the separatists, and some of the federalists, Britain is not a family. Rather it is a collection of different people who live beside each other as long-suffering, or even feuding, neighbours.
There is a big difference between the way that we look at it, and the way they look at it.
Principle 4: The United Kingdom is an End in itself, and not only a Means to an End
The Labour Party tends to see the United Kingdom as a means to an end – the end being 'social justice' – even though that is a goal which is constantly shifting, and the ultimate form of which is intangible.
If it could think of a better way to reach such a nebulous 'just social state' then presumably it would drop the idea of Britain, and advocate independence.
Federalists also see the United Kingdom as a means to an end. Prof Adam Tomkins writes about 'what the Union is for'. He comes up with some good ideas – which have their place – but it is all 'means to an end' stuff.
But the UK is more than a means to an end. It is an end in itself!
Why is it important to think of the UK also in this way?
It is important because that is also the way which many Scottish nationalists see Scotland. While some of them may see independence only as a means to the end of social justice, it is clear that many others see an independent Scotland as an end in itself.
It is basic political strategy that you must match your opponent with something as fundamental as 'an end in itself', or your opponent's particular 'end in itself' will triumph.
Also, the United Kingdom as an end in itself is how many of us in the past have seen it. Men didn't fight at the Battle of Waterloo, 200 years ago today, because they thought of their country merely as some kind of practical, 'means to an end' to be valued only for its immediate usefulness. No, the idea of Britain, the nation, was the end in itself. "For King and Country".
The Duke of Wellington Monument, by JE Boehm, located next to the Wellington Arch at Hyde Park Corner, is an all-inclusive British creation. At each corner, guarding the Duke on his horse, is a soldier from the 42nd Royal Highlanders, the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers (both pictured), the 6th Inniskilling Dragoons, and the 1st Guards.
PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP
Principle 5: The Nature of a Union is Joint Commitment to a Greater Collective Good
Once you join a union, you give up a part of yourself to the other, or others, in that union. You submit yourself to a wider concern, a bigger project, a greater good. Morally speaking, the union becomes our primary concern, not ourselves as individuals.
If we want to continue in a union relationship with anybody, or anything – marital, business, or political – then we have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone in that relationship is happy with what we are doing.
We must seek mutual agreement.
Morally speaking, demanding 'more powers' for oneself is inconsistent with membership of a union.
It follows…
Principle 6: It is Wrong to Demand More Powers and Expect to Remain in Union
Too many people are saying to the rest of the UK, "I don't want to divorce you but I want to continue to get what I want and you'd better lump it." That's immoral.
If we claim to be for the union then we really must stop pretending that, in a union, we can keep demanding more and more for ourselves.
That is guaranteed to end in acrimony.
Principle 7: A British Frame of Mind puts First the Interest of all Britain
In a union, as per Principle 5, the union must always be the main context, which is right up front; not us and our own personal interests.
We care about what is best for Scotland and the UK together (not Scotland alone).
We don't think in terms of "putting Scotland first" or "putting England first". We think in terms of putting us all first. Britain is our context. We put first the Greater Good.
We are concerned about the health of the whole body, not just a part of it.
It has only been since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament that people in Scotland have been encouraged to see everything from the nationalists' "Scottish-only" perspective.
Following on from having a British Frame of Mind...
Principle 8: Policy and Implications for all the UK is our Concern, not just for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales separately
We understand that if something is likely to introduce unfairness or division in the context of our UK relationship then it should not happen, or if it has happened, it must be reversed.
Student funding; whereby students resident in Scotland get university fees paid, but students primarily resident in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have to pay, is a prime example of the extent to which a particular power – which should never have been devolved in the first place – has led to inequality, unfairness and resentment within our social union.
So, let's consider how to address this…
PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY
I've phrased this next one as a legal clause.
Principle 9: Any Discrimination, including Economic Discrimination, towards a British Citizen based on the Grounds of his or her Place of Residence in the UK shall be Prohibited
This shall henceforth be known as the British Equality Principle, or the Non-Discrimination Clause.
This Principle means that every British citizen must be treated the same; and regardless of where they move to, or where their main residence is found to be located, should not be disadvantaged economically, or advantaged economically, under any form of state-related payment such as, but not limited to, welfare and benefit payments, student-related payments, or pension payments; and regardless of from whom, or where, the taxes for such payments are raised.
I have a degree in Scots Law, and I studied Legislative Drafting and EU Law. This is how the EU works – it won't allow discrimination against EU citizens.
Prior to devolution, this Principle used to exist in the UK – without it having to be said! Since devolution, it has become compromised.
This Principle ensures that no devolved policy shall prejudice British citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is what helps to maintain our shared sense of social solidarity.
It seems crazy that while Britain will abide by the EU rules, it compromises this important general principle in relation to its own citizens. 6
When these powers were devolved there was absolutely no thought whatsoever given to establishing the vital importance of an overall legal structure which would ensure equality, and non-discrimination, for all British citizens.
And that was just so wrong!
It should be unacceptable that students, who are British citizens, should be treated unequally, and to their disadvantage, anywhere in our One UK.
Some people will ask, what about things like free bus passes, and free elderly care and so on? The same principle applies.
If you live in England, and for some reason you want a free bus pass in Scotland, you should be able to apply for it. If you want to send your Granny to a Glasgow Care Home you should be able to do so and get it paid for, regardless of whether your family is based in England.
Now, some might complain that such a principle will make many of these programmes unworkable since they will not be able to fund such an influx of people wanting to take advantage? Maybe, maybe not? But all that would demonstrate is that we've been getting away with an unfair practice for too long.
After all, the money which is paying for these exclusively 'Scottish' things is British taxpayers' money. Therefore, all British taxpayers should enjoy the benefit, or not enjoy it, if it is not possible. The principle of non-discrimination is more important than an unfair practice.
Some will say that problem can be solved by raising the taxes to pay for these things, specifically in Scotland. Without commenting on the argument for separate tax raising powers, perhaps such a policy would remove the unfairness of British taxpayers paying for exclusively Scottish benefits.
However, the non-discrimination principle should still remain. That is, all benefits in Scotland should remain open to all British citizens. If we believe in One UK, then on that matter there can be no compromise.
So, if these substantial tax powers are going to be devolved throughout the UK – and I don't want them to be but if they are – then one way of mitigating the potential dangers of them, and redeeming, to an extent, their negative consequences upon our social union, would be for the British Government to state that this principle of Non-Discrimination must govern the spending behaviours of the devolved parliaments and assemblies on the matter.
Any related law would state the Principle of British Equality and that all British citizens must enjoy equality of opportunity anywhere in the United Kingdom.
And just as the EU has a European Court to ensure the equality of EU citizenship throughout the EU, the Principle of British Equality would be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
It would ensure that no British citizen, as a consequence of devolution, is prejudiced legally or financially, or has his or her opportunities compromised by participation in any public or private matter in comparison to another British citizen from another part of the UK.
The Supreme Court would strike down laws passed in Holyrood, Belfast or Cardiff which contradicted this essential Principle of One UK.
Without this Non-Discrimination Clause, this British Equality Principle, we start to develop envy – Tax Envy, Welfare Envy, Student Fees Envy – between British citizens in one part of the UK who are in the same situation, but who are getting less money or are financially disadvantaged.
Indeed, forgetting the idea of separate income tax rates, and instead establishing a Principle of British Equality might be a better alternative altogether, because it would constrain the extent to which British taxpayers money can be used in a discriminatory way; thus removing the major complaint which motivates the demand for separate tax rates in the first place.
Sorting this out legally, with a Principle of British Equality Law, would not be difficult and it would go a long way to getting rid of the unfairness which causes some people in the rest of the UK to be upset.
It would help to strengthen the social and cultural Union which has already been damaged by such devolved policies.
Principle 10: All British citizens must have Access to the Same Top-Rate Welfare Payments and Benefits
It follows from this Non-Discrimination Clause that it is not enough to have access to the same basic welfare payments; not if some parts of the United Kingdom can top-up the basic rate to a much higher level!
For the principle of non-discrimination to exist, every British citizen has to have access – not to the lowest level, but – to the highest level of any particular welfare payment, regardless of where in the UK they are resident.
Otherwise, this is a form of economic discrimination based on residence, which again is contrary to the British Equality Principle.
It would lead to 'Welfare-Envy' which compromises the social union.
Why should someone in Ipswich not have access to the additional top-up funds that someone in exactly the same circumstances in Inverness receives?
What is the difference between these two British citizens – both living in the same country (Principle 2) – that one is thought to be more deserving than the other?
The fact that they are living a few hundred miles apart is not a good enough reason!
The View from the Top of St Paul's Cathedral.
PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMY
Principle 11: The UK is a Sharing and Redistributive Tax Union
That is, the money raised throughout the UK in taxes is put into one British purse and it's then distributed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
It won't be distributed equally because some areas have greater need.
But – if we believe in One UK – that's OK. We're happy that it should work that way.
As a British taxpayer, we pay taxes to benefit everyone in Britain. That's the ideal – albeit one which is getting increasingly compromised.
I want to know that if I were to come down and work in England for a few years that my taxes would be distributed throughout the UK, including Scotland.
People in England want to know that if they go and work in Scotland for a few years, that their taxes would be distributed throughout the rest of the UK, including their home town back in England.
Having the same tax rates is an example of a shared political institution which leads to a shared sense of social, cultural and economic unity.
Regionalising major tax-raising powers to each area destroys – and that is not too strong a word – that sense of solidarity.
Now, there may be a case for some "Local Taxes" to be raised in particular parts of the UK, or lowered in some places in order to encourage enterprise, but we should always tread carefully here, least we destroy the fundamental Principle of the UK as a sharing and redistributive tax union.
Certainly, proposals for Full Fiscal Autonomy destroy it completely, and the proposals for different income tax rates in the Scotland Bill do corrupt the idea. 7
Principle 12: Mineral and Energy Resources throughout the UK belong to all British Citizens
The energy sources, the minerals, the metals, the oil, the products of the sea, found anywhere in the territory of the United Kingdom belong to all the people of the UK; and all the people of the UK have a right, and must enjoy, the revenue streams which flow from them.
There can be no question or compromise about this.
Oil in the North Sea belongs to someone in Cornwall just as much as metals in Cornwall belong to someone in Shetland.
To suggest anything less is to steal from the rightful inheritance of every British citizen.
However, new measures under the current Scotland Bill mean that Holyrood will take control of the Crown Estate; the property and land in Scotland previously owned by the British state. Holyrood – which is to say the SNP – will also gain control of Scotland’s coastline, including mineral and fishing rights.
Well, it is not entitled to them!
This is a resource which does not belong to Scotland on its own; it belongs to all of Britain, and to all of our citizens.
It belongs to One UK!
All of us should enjoy, by right of being a British citizen, the ownership of these resources and the revenue which flows from them.
That is why they should rightfully remain in the hands of the British state, not be given to the nationalists to exploit.
As I say, this Principle is being destroyed, and perhaps all we can do at this stage is to state this Principle, so we can see the wrongness of what is happening.
Energy is a reserved matter, but in the usual botched manner of devolution, planning was devolved. This means that the nationalists can prevent vital energy development, needed for all of Britain, by refusing planning permission.
Again, this is a form of stealing the rightful inheritance of energy resources which belong to all British citizens.
Moreover, even though it is a reserved manner, that didn't stop the nationalists from appointing a Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism as soon as they took power in 2007 – thereby deliberately confusing people as to what is, and is not, devolved.
Nor has the British Government stopped them from doing this – which it should! It is against the law to masquerade as something you are not.
The crime is called "impersonation" and the SNP are masters at getting away with it.
PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY
Principle 13: The British Identity requires Political Union
Separatists will say, "Oh, you can still be British in an independent Scotland if you want."
No, it doesn't work that way.
Certainly, those of us who are, will try!
However, the British identity – in all its social, cultural, and historical elements – is bound together by political union, in a way in which a particular Scottish or English identity is not.
As the political bonds start to break, so the social and cultural elements start to fray, and they get harder to maintain in the face of aggressive Scottish nationalism.
PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL UNITY
'Principles of Constitutional Unity' in the sense of pertaining to the principles in the Constitution which act to maintain the unity of One UK. In some cases we are discovering and describing these Principles for the first time.
As per our very first Principle of State, that the UK is a Unitary one, it follows that…
Principle 14: Any change to One Part of the United Kingdom has to have Regard to the Whole of the United Kingdom and the Whole of the United Kingdom has to be Involved
For example, if one part of the UK wants to leave, then it is the right of the rest of the UK to have a say. They are involved. They have every right.
However, if you believe that we are only a Union State – and not a Unitary State – then that would not follow.
The Smith Commission proposals presented in the Scotland Bill going through Parliament, are hugely relevant to One UK, and keeping it together. I do hope that all the MPs and Lords understand the importance and complete legitimacy of their voice on the matter.
They must speak up about the dangers to the overall stability of One UK.
From this it follows…
Principle 15: It Shall be Difficult to Break-Up the Country
There should be a presumption that it will be extremely difficult to engage in a process which might result in the break-up of the UK.
Rushing legislation is wrong: Approaching huge constitutional change to our One UK, "by implementing as fast as we can" – to quote the words of David Cameron with which I began this presentation – is damaging and irresponsible.
As for the Referendum: Never again must the United Kingdom risk being destroyed by a one-off referendum won by a majority of one person!
If we value the UK, then a break-up should require a much more deliberately complex process. Of course, the nationalists will scream blue murder, but we should be determined to stand for what we believe, and to hold onto what we value.
For example, the result should, at the very least, require a Threshold where a certain percentage of the overall electorate, or of the vote on the day, has to be passed.
There was no appetite among 'unionist' politicians to defend a Threshold at the referendum, but that is because the constitutional advantages of such a process were never introduced into the debate, and because the politicians on our side were too afraid to make the case, meekly being brow-beaten by the nationalist view.
Furthermore, the process could also require 2 or 3 referendums which return a vote for independence, before the general will of the population could be said to have been accurately established.
Whatever we do, it must be made difficult to break-up the UK.
Principle 16: All Constitutional Matters Regarding the Union of the United Kingdom must be Made by Primary Legislation
This follows from Principles 14 and 15.
Primary means a law which is made by all of Parliament – the entire legislature – after proper debate. All of the people of the UK are involved in the sense that all of our MPs get a say in making that legislation.
Secondary legislation is derived from primary legislation but does not require a new law to be debated by the entire legislature. Secondary legislation is put through Parliament without the full engagement of Parliament. It is a fast way of doing things. Consequently, it has less oversight and less of a democratic mandate.
As such, it should never be applied to any constitutional matter concerning the Union of the UK.
Yet the power to hold the 2014 referendum was conferred upon Holyrood by secondary legislation (an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998).
Essentially that meant that the UK was set on a path to potential break-up without anyone in the UK having a say…if only through their MPs.
That is just so unbelievably wrong that one wonders what, if anything, is actually holding the UK together?
It should be unacceptable that our country can be broken up as a consequence of secondary legislation – without so much as a proper debate in Parliament.
I'm all for our 'unwritten constitution', but that is ridiculous and it endangers the survival of the UK itself!
I want to mention here, also, the 'Salisbury Convention'. 8
It states that the House of Lords will not oppose legislation that appeared in the governing party's election manifesto once it has passed second reading in the Commons. Why?
Surely, on constitutional matters especially – for example, the new Scotland Bill – the House of Lords needs to be fully involved, and it needs to oppose if necessary, because the consequences concern the very survival of the UK itself!
My understanding is that this Convention is evolving. Well, let it evolve immediately so it is inapplicable to constitutional matters which concern the stability, integrity and survival of the UK itself!
PRINCIPLES OF PARLIAMENTARY UNITY
'Principles of Parliamentary Unity' in the sense of pertaining to the principles in the British Parliament which act to maintain it as the collective Parliament for all the people of the United Kingdom.
And here we really need to remind ourselves how things are meant to work.
Principle 17: Laws are Made by the British Parliament
Obvious? Not at all!
Laws are not made by Ministerial Dictate. They are not made by Party Leaders saying, "This will be the Law if I get elected". They are not made by the pronouncements of an ex-Prime Minister who is not even going to be standing at a forthcoming General Election.
They are not made by advisory bodies, such as the Smith Commission, pronouncing on policies which 'will' happen. 9
Now that may seem obvious to us, but it is already a Principle which has been highly compromised.
Arguably, the rot started with EU Regulations which became enforceable in British law without any Parliamentary debate on the matter. 10
However, the current Smith Commission proposals for more devolution in Scotland have really institutionalised and set a precedent for this new way of making law.
First, we had Gordon Brown – who was not even standing at the General Election – promising more devolution for Scotland if it voted No. He had no standing to do that. Then Messrs Cameron Clegg and Miliband joined him.
The Smith Commission was the result. It masqueraded as a law-making body; and the present Scotland Bill is a consequence of the Commission.
Such is the appalling lack of constitutional knowledge among people today that I have seen many nationalists on social media complaining that the Smith Commission proposals are not already law. They actually believe that all it takes for a new law to come into force is for the Prime Minister to say "make it happen now".
They have no idea about the role of Parliament in debating legislation, the role of the Lords in changing it and the role of the MPs in voting for the resulting product.
However, we can hardly blame the electorate for being so constitutionally illiterate, when our Party Leaders, and ex-Leaders, encourage them in such delusions.
The Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, Hyde Park.
Principle 18: The British Parliament has Complete Authority over all its Subsidiary Bodies
This includes all Parliaments and Assemblies at Holyrood, Cardiff, Stormont and London, and Local Councils.
It's worth stating this point – because we're in danger of forgetting such a fundamental fact!
This means that the British Government is the Government of Scotland.
It is easy to get confused so long as people like Ms Sturgeon and her ministers pose in the UK and abroad as leaders of 'the Scottish Government', as if it is a 'Government' on the same level and standing as the British Government.
Some of us remember that when the SNP took power in 2007 they immediately changed all the official paperwork from Scottish Executive…(which indicated a devolved institution which was a subsidiary body of a higher authority) to 'Scottish Government'…(which implied a government on the same standing as the British Government).
They did this because they could! There was nothing written into the Scotland Act 1998 which prevented them doing it. And they were not challenged on it by the then British Labour Government.
Unfortunately, that 'Government' name has been officially endorsed by being written into the Scotland Act 2012 – an example of the British state deliberately and unnecessarily undermining itself by endorsing such nationalist behaviour.
Now, today, a lot of people are confused as to the relationship between the two.
Even in the newspapers in Scotland now, one has to work out which 'government' the journalists are referring to.
It also allows Sturgeon and her ministers to pose on the international stage as "the Government of Scotland" – as if it is equivalent to the British Government – and comment on things which are not even devolved.
It also works as a powerful propaganda device for nationalist media to hide the fact that the Holyrood administration is a subordinate body to our collective British Parliament.
Indeed, it puts 'the Scottish Government' on superior grounds to this faceless and apparent 'imposter', and 'thorn in the side', known as 'Westminster'!
For example, "The Scottish Government sent a warning to Westminster last night:" (Daily Record, front page, 8-6-15).
Impersonation again! It's a crime!
The Government of Scotland is the British Government, whose law is supreme over the law of all devolved subsidiary bodies.
It follows…
Principle 19: The British Parliament has a Responsibility to all the People of Britain to Retain its Complete Authority over all Actions of any Subsidiary Body
This follows from Principle 1, the fact of the UK being a Unitary State, and not a Union State.
The British Parliament must retain a Veto over the actions of any of its devolved subsidiary bodies, including but not limited to their legislation, and physical behaviour on the world stage.
It must do this in order to protect the wider interest of the entire UK and its people – which remains its responsibility.
If it forfeits a Veto then it is not involved in maintaining the centrality of a common Unitary British political structure – for the benefit of all the British people – but it is involved in deliberately creating new sovereign bodies and independent states.
If it forfeits a Veto then it is not involved in granting forms of 'devolution' in a Unitary State, but rather granting forms of 'slow independence' in a Union State.
This responsibility and authority also means that a devolved competence can be rescinded or over-ridden where it is proving damaging to One UK.
This responsibility and authority, furthermore, must include its ability to legislate on devolved matters without consent from the subsidiary bodies; and it must include its ability to abolish the subsidiary bodies without their consent.
Even though in reality it may be unlikely to do the latter, these abilities have to be accepted as possible, in principle, and made clear in legislation. 11
Otherwise we do not have a devolved structure in a Unitary State; rather we have a situation where the centre is abandoning – discarding, throwing off, jettisoning, casting off – its powers, and vesting these powers in new sovereign bodies, which are establishing new sovereign states, which are heading towards independence.
That is not 'devolution'!
Devolution is only possible in a Unitary State and to be 'devolution' it must conform with these Principles of Parliamentary Unity, and the Principles of Devolution, which I shall get to.
Principle 20: Every Law Passed in the British Parliament affects Everyone in the UK
There is no such thing as a law which "affects only one part of the UK".
Any law which applies, for example, in England will have some effect in the rest of the UK. This is especially the case when England has 84% of the UK's population and 533 or 82% of the 650 MPs.
This takes us back to Principle 6 about putting first the Greater Good of all the UK.
The idea that we should only care about what is happening in Scotland may be fine for the nationalists, but for the rest of us, we experience that mentality as a limiting, parochial and suffocating frame of mind.
It follows….
Principle 21: All British Citizens Must have a Say over Governance in all Parts of the UK
Prior to devolution, that was what happened through the British Parliament.
However, devolution cut out millions of people from having a political say over huge parts of their own country. Particularly, it cut out millions of people in England from having a say over the political policies in Scotland and Wales which were devolved (and also Northern Ireland, although that had already been devolved on and off).
It also cut off people in Scotland from having a say over devolved issues in Wales and Northern Ireland, and vice versa.
Devolution has totally compromised this Principle. But even though it is an ideal which has been destroyed, it is still one which we hold up as a guide.
Principle 22: Every British MP Represents, and Makes Decisions for, all of Britain
They do not only represent their consciences, their parties and their constituents. They also represent, and make decisions for the United Kingdom in everything that they do. This includes the SNP, whether they realise it, or would admit it, or like it, or not.
To support the regionalisation of voting – where only MPs from Scotland can vote on matters relating to Scotland, MPs from England on matters relating to England, and so on, is to say that an MP can no longer think of the British population as one.
It is to say that an MP must now only consider their regional interest, rather than the idea of a wider British interest.
It is to say that he or she can no longer think of, and represent, One UK.
It follows…
Principle 23: Every MP has a Right to Vote on Everything that comes before the British Parliament
And this is a controversial one, but it does get to the heart of what the British Parliament and its MPs is all about.
The controversy here is that a voter in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is able to vote on, say, educational matters for Scotland via his MSP, and also on educational matters for England, via his MP.
As for the voter in England, he is unable to express an opinion though his MP on education in Scotland.
Therefore, one can ask, "Why should voters in Scotland get a say, through their MPs, over those same matters in England, when the voter in England has no say over such matters in Scotland?"
The answer for some people is, therefore, to stop the MP from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, or even London, voting on a matter which is devolved, thereby preventing the voter from the devolved area…having a say on something in the rest of the UK…which happens to be devolved to their own part of the UK.
However, that compromises the Principle of One UK as a Unitary State, and all these Principles of Parliamentary Unity.
So it follows that, whatever constitutional model is established to get round this – short of abolishing devolution…the bottom line must be…
Principle 24: The Constitutional Model must Allow for an MP from Anywhere in the UK to Become Prime Minister
Tax devolution, and regionalising the votes in the House of Commons, imperils that possibility.
It means that MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales could become increasingly redundant in the chamber, and the House of Commons will become largely an English Parliament. 12
So any changes which break-up the MPs into voting blocs by geographical location need to consider the danger that it will turn many of them into irrelevant bystanders who will never progress to the top ranks.
And that's important for the future of One UK because for the United Kingdom to continue to be seen to be relevant to everyone in it, then people in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales need to be able to see people from their areas being in high office in the British Government.
Plans for 'English Votes for English Laws' could risk, quickly, excluding MPs from these parts of the UK, to the overall detriment of One UK.
At the very least, as per Principle 16, any change should only be brought in under Primary legislation, so that all of Parliament gets to debate the seriousness of this matter.
PRINCIPLES OF DEVOLUTION
What is devolution?
Principle 25: Devolution is British State Power Exercised by a Subsidiary Body
This should be obvious, but it is being forgotten in the rush to put through the Scotland Bill.
It follows from Principle 1 that the political power belongs entirely to the central British state, albeit exercised at a subsidiary level.
Devolution is not the casting-off – the abandonment – of British state power from the centre, and its establishment in a new sovereign body in a new state.
In a case where the central power – the British state – abandons its law-making power and its position as the supreme arbiter, and which no longer retains, even in theory, the power to take back those devolved powers, then we do not have devolution.
We have the granting of slow independence – a completely different policy.
Principle 26: Devolution must be Consistent with the Maintenance of the UK as a Unitary State
This follows from Principle 1 and 25. Any devolution must do nothing to compromise, undermine or weaken the position of the UK as a Unitary State.
It should have regard to the cohesion, stability, and maintenance of the Unitary state as a whole.
If it undermines the Unitary State then it is not devolution; it is what I am terming 'slow independence', which leads to the break-up of the Unitary State.
Devolution works hand in glove with the Unitary State and it only succeeds if it maintains the Unitary State. If it is not maintaining the Unitary State, then by definition, it is not devolution. It is simply a form of slow independence where the centre is ceding its power and establishing it in new sovereign bodies in new independent states.
Principle 27: Devolution is a Two-way Process
This flows from the above Principles: That the UK is a Unitary State (Principle 1), and that the British Parliament has authority over all subsidiary bodies (Principles 18 and 19), and that devolution is British State Power exercised by a subsidiary body and that devolution must be consistent with this understanding (Principles 25 and 26).
This is a point which we need to start hearing. It is absolutely crucial to a proper understanding and working of 'devolved' powers in any Unitary political state.
It is a two-way relationship between the centre and its subsidiary bodies, where powers can flow back and forth as necessary in order to maintain the Unitary state.
For example, if devolution is to 'strengthen the Union', as the Labour Party always told us, then there must be safeguards built in, which will prevent or reverse policies which would corrupt the relationship.
That requires, in practice, a two-way road, where it is natural for powers to be moderated, adjusted, rescinded or returned to the centre, where appropriate.
If devolution is 'a journey' then it is on a two-way street. It is not a one-way slide out the Union!
There is nothing controversial about this. It should be obvious, if we accept the above Principles.
The reason it is not obvious is because we have never really had good-hearted devolution among all of a common unified mind with a common national UK goal – such as they have in the USA.
Rather we have a form of slow independence which has been created deliberately to appease nationalists, or promote partisan short-term party-political advantage.
We've had the casting-off – relinquishing – of central powers – slow independence.
In order to get us understanding again that these powers are 'devolved', and are not intended to create new sovereign bodies and new independent states, and therefore can be taken back by the British Parliament where necessary – or to put it another way, can be taken back by all the British people acting collectively for our best interests through our common Parliament – then this fact should be clearly stated in statutory form in all Holyrood legislation, and in any relevant Acts of the UK Parliament pertaining to powers to Holyrood.
There should be an assumption that it is possible. There should be nothing controversial about that assumption.
It should be stated legally.
And finally, we should remember these 3 Principles.
Principle 28: Devolution is Dangerous to a Unitary State in the presence of a Separatist Movement
This is not the USA where powers can be devolved safely to the individual States because everyone is happy with maintaining the Unitary state and its national goals.
This is Scotland – which has a hardcore national separatist party – which will always exploit any powers in order to destroy the Unitary state itself.
Principle 29: Any Devolved Power can and will be Used by a Separatist Administration for a Divisive Purpose to Further its anti-UK Agenda
There is no devolved power too small that it cannot be exploited by Scottish nationalists for their agenda.
Devolving power to a subsidiary body which is politically on your side is one thing.
Devolving power to a subsidiary body dominated by your political opponents is betraying those who gave the British Parliament a mandate to defend One UK in September 2014!
Principle 30: Scottish Separatism will Never be Appeased
'More powers' will never appease the separatists. Independence itself will never appease them.
Blaming others is a large part of the separatist world view. That will never change if the world is to last for another million years.
The best that can be hoped is that the number of true believers decreases with time.
In the meantime, the only way to avoid being eaten by the tiger of Scottish separatism is to create the political circumstances which keep it wandering lost in the middle of the jungle, rather than throwing it juicy morsels which just make it stronger, and hungrier, and keep it prowling around in the middle of our village.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The Scotland Bill going through Parliament right now is going to destabilise the UK further because it compromises many of these Principles. 13
What can we do?
Well, the first thing is, don't make matters worse!
"Do No Harm to the UK" is an intelligent guideline. "Don't Do That" is always a legitimate option. "Don't Get Worse" is always good advice.
The second thing is, don't keep devolving stuff. If you keep devolving stuff you only add fuel to this fire. There would not be this demand for English Votes for English Laws if you were not always devolving stuff…unnecessarily so.
I say, 'unnecessarily'.
David Cameron could throw out the entire Scotland Bill today, and he would only stand to benefit. Most people in England will thank him. His ratings would rise!
As for Scotland, it's not as if he's going to lose any votes!
Indeed, most of the No Voters did not ask for this Bill! We don't want it! Those of us who are looking at this Bill with a sense of impending doom, will only thank him.
Nor would the SNP gain much. And what's the SNP going to do, anyway? Elect more MPs?
He is not going to do that, of course.
So all we can do is to continue to stand for the idea – and the ideal – of the Unitary state of the United Kingdom, and continue to explain the Principles which uphold…One UK…and to point out the dangers in the Scotland Bill!
Perhaps, if we do this, the very worst elements might get watered down a bit in the Lords. And it is to that end that our next Project will be directed – taking what I've said here, in pamphlet form, to every member of the House of Lords.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for listening.
The massive Albert Memorial in Kensington Gardens, across from the Royal Albert Hall, has to be seen to be believed. Recently refurbished in astonishing gold leaf, it is undoubtedly the biggest and most extravagant memorial to any one person in the whole of the UK. At each corner of the Memorial there are strikingly powerful marble statues of a stately woman (which we want to imagine is Queen Victoria) sitting on a camel, an elephant, a bullock, and here, a bison! It is all quite an eye-boggling spectacle of brilliance and beauty; and impossible in its comprehensive intricacy for the brain to comprehend in one go. It's a truly Great monument!
OUR TERMINOLOGY
Britain
Our shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some people say 'Britain' only refers to the island of Great Britain. However, we use it as shorthand for the entire UK – unless we explicitly say otherwise.
British Parliament, rather than 'Westminster'
We make a conscious effort to refer to the British Parliament rather than 'Westminster'. The former properly describes what the Houses of Parliament represent; and helps to emphasise our shared unity, and that we are still a family on these Islands. The latter phrase tends to help the nationalists' goal of framing it as an impersonal place, which we have nothing in common with, and which is notable only for being based in a district of London.
Devolution
British state power exercised by a subsidiary body. It is political power which belongs entirely to the central British state, albeit exercised by a subsidiary body. It should have regard to the cohesion, stability, and maintenance of the unitary state as a whole. Devolution is not the casting off of British state power from the centre, and its establishment in new sovereign bodies, intended to create new independent states.
Slow Independence
The casting off of British state power from the centre, and its establishment in new sovereign bodies intended to create new independent states. It has no regard for the cohesion, stability, and maintenance of the unitary state as a whole, and it will often be hostile to such goals.
Devolution and Slow Independence are two entirely different political policies, yet our politicians confuse the two of them. The Scotland Bill is an example of Slow Independence policy in action, not Devolution policy in action.
Subsidiary Body
Any devolved Parliament and Assembly or Local Council in the UK. These are subordinate to the British Parliament – which is the collective parliament for all the people in Britain. The subsidiary bodies exercise British state power at their particular level, whether in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, London or Locally. These bodies do not replace British state power with a new sort of sovereign power.
The Government
The Government of the United Kingdom.
The Union
The Union of the UK. Although, as we mention, if we frame everything in terms of 'the Union' then we are tending to think mainly in a 'Union State' frame of mind. If we speak more about 'the United Kingdom' or 'Britain' we are thinking more in a 'Unitary State' frame of mind – which is how we think and speak.
Unionism
The belief in the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Unionist
A person who believes in the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
REFERENCES
1. See www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/david-cameron-uk-one-nation-scotland-election
2. For example, Scotland Office Minister Lord Dunlop, speaking in the House of Lords in his maiden speech on Monday 1 June 2015, said devolving income tax and welfare to Scotland along with plans for England, Wales and Northern Ireland was to provide the different nations of the UK with the "space to pursue different domestic policies should they choose, while protecting and preserving the benefits of being part of a bigger UK family of nations". (David Maddox, "Forsyth attacks hopes of 'one-nation' government", The Scotsman, 2-6-15, pp.4-5 at 5.)
3. The Conservative Party is presently being advised by people with a federalising agenda. For example, the Brigham Centre for the Rule of Law recently released a report entitled "A Constitution Crossroads. Ways Forward for the United Kingdom". On pages 20-21 it sets out what it sees as some 'Principles of union constitutionalism' beginning with the statement, "The United Kingdom is a voluntary union of four component nations." Clearly, this is a 'Union state' way of looking at things, which helps to facilitate a federal agenda.
4. Vernon Bogdanor, "Now rewrite the rules", Prospect, June 2015, pp.32-36 at 33 and again at 36.
Bogdanor, and his team at Kings College London are working from this fundamental premise. They have established a link with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, where they presumably feed in this view. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky highlights this link in his article, "Don't rig the system in favour of coalitions", Standpoint, April 2015, pp.34-37 at 37.
5. Daniel Jenkins considers 4 qualities which 'reflect the British Ideal', and he examines their interplay between all the British people – reserve, modesty, fair play and moderation. Daniel Jenkins, The British: Their Identity and Their Religion, (London: SCM Press, 1975), pp.136-158.
6. For example: "Poland would block David Cameron's plans to clamp down on European migrants claiming benefits unless he applies the measures to Britons as well, the country's deputy foreign minister has warned. Rafal Trzaskowski said it was an 'absolute red line' for his government that there is no discrimination in the welfare system on grounds of nationality." (Sam Lister, "Poland will block UK measures on benefits if inequitable", The Herald, 2-12-14, p.1.)
7. See Alistair McConnachie, Smith Commission: We Voted No. Not for More Powers, 26 November 2014, www.aforceforgood.org.uk/devo/unionvid1
8. More info on the Salisbury Convention: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04016/SN04016.pdf
9. From the beginning, the Smith Commission was promoted as a law-making body, rather than correctly as an advisory body. Furthermore, it shockingly and unconstitutionally represented itself and spoke as if it was one. For example, read the language in its final Report which refers to how its suggestions 'will' happen. Nor have any of the people on that Commission since attempted to clarify this matter, and to explain that they were not, in fact, law-makers! For more info on this travesty see, Alistair McConnachie, Smith Commission: Not a Law-Making Body and it cannot Bind the British Parliament, 14 March 2015, www.aforceforgood.org.uk/devo/smith2
10. A regulation is a legal act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously. Regulations can be distinguished from directives which, at least in principle, need to be transposed into national law.
11. There is a precedent. The British Government abolished the Greater London Council.
12. Consider Anatole Kaletsky's point: "The momentum of separation will be accelerated by the interaction of fiscal devolution and 'English votes for English laws.' If Scotland wins the right to set its own taxes, 'English laws' will have to include financial issues. At that point, the English parliamentary group will turn the UK parliament into an empty vessel, rather as the Russian parliament drained the Soviet Union of significance, once Boris Yeltsin gained fiscal powers." (Anatole Kaletsky, "Britain: Europe’s most unpredictable country", Prospect, June 2015, p.20. www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/anatole-kaletsky/britain-europes-most-unpredictable-country )
13. The Scotland Bill arose from the deliberations of the Smith Commission. There was very little 'unionising' or 'integrationist' about the Smith Commission. This is not surprising when we consider the make-up of the Commission. It consisted of 10 members, and a chairman Lord Smith.
Of the 10, there were 2 people from each of the political parties represented at Holyrood. This means there were 2 from the SNP and 2 from the Greens, both of which want independence. So 4 out of 10, wanted independence!
Of the other 6, there were 2 Lib Dems. The Lib Dems is a 'federalist' party and so it is not working from a position of strength as far as maintaining the British Unitary state is concerned!
There were 2 from Labour, which is nominally 'unionist', and there were 2 from the Conservative Party, one of whom has federalist leanings.
So out of the 10, we have 4 for independence, 3 for some kind of federalism and 3 unionists. We do not know the position of the 3 unionists on the matter of defending and promoting a Unitary state, or if the 2 Labour people would even describe themselves as 'unionists'.
Therefore, it is no wonder that the Scotland Bill is such a Dog's Breakfast of slow independence polices for Scotland; contains absolutely no UK integrationist policies; and has nothing of comfort for the majority of people in Scotland who voted to keep the UK together.
A View of St Paul's from The Queen's Walk, South Bank.
If you like what we say, please support us by signing-up to receive our free regular Update email - which will keep you informed of new articles and relevant pro-UK information - by entering your details in the 'Subscribe' box at the top right of this page. You can find out more about Alistair at the About Alistair McConnachie page. And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie's Google Profile.
Tweet