Regional and National Devolution

matty · September 19, 2014

But what would they do...? Go back 35 years we essentially had Westminster running the show.
Now we have Westminster and Brussels both thinking they run the show but with the Scots, Welsh and to a lesser degree Norn Irish having the tools in place to run the show but not the actual power - well, some of it
Add in an English assembly and we get yet another layer of folk thinking that THEY run the show.

Isn't there only so much "power" and decision making requirements to go round or does each of these assemblies actively look for things to get involved in ? A federation would sure,y work only within the bounds of a written constitution . And I don't think any party really wants to open that can of worms

The idea of 'who runs the show' isn't that complicated. We've had multiple layers of government for a long, long time, and going back to pre WW1 when local councils had much more power you might have had the same argument. It does get clunky with a lot of layers, but if that's what makes sense, then so be it.

You need local councils for roads, waste, some environmental issues, education and social care (maybe). Regional ones for transport and economic development, more strategic issues, maybe welfare.

National governments for national issues - justice, economy, regulation, health? And supranational for trans-border issues and where we benefit from cooperation.

Everything fits somewhere. The question is where do we need strength of a state and where the flexibility to adapt to differing circumstances of region to region. If that takes a written constitution so be it, but I don't think it does. The drawbacks of an uncodified constitution are where we fall back on custom and precedent, not with division of powers for which we already have statute.

Cheers again, I'm just removing the stuff I agree with.

I suspect that the only way to avoid that kind of deadlock is, like you, to cede the same authorities and have a two tier government, my concern is that the amount of authority Scotland has seems not to lend itself to regional authorities. Or at least it may appear to not lend itself, being that I generally think issues are best addressed locally, at least tactical rather than strategic policy is best local. If there is the appetite to use this to actually empower regional bodies and devolve to the regions, Northern Ireland and Wales then this will have been a really good result for the UK.

It's going to be difficult and I wonder whether increased devolution for Scotland, just short of devo max for instance, could result in England not being too big to fulfill those functions.

I agree. I think there's probably a critical mass of population you need for a flexible but workable regional policy. In the late 90s it was going to be ten or eleven English regions, I think. Now, I'm more convinced we need fewer. Even with my four regions, you still ask whether Cornwall and Kent belong in the same region, or Cheshire and Newcastle. Still, you need a critical mass for the tax base etc.

Fifty-odd million is too many for such a devolution - it wouldn't even be devolution in that sense, so what makes sense? You can't lump all the 'poor' parts together without some external funding to balance it up.

Don't see how Labour can delay it after Gordon's promises this week?

I think the timetable on publication of a bill (draft or not) on Scottish devolution can be met, just. The passage of that legislation though is impossible anyway till after the general election. The question is delaying the resolution of West Lothian. Cameron seems to want to make the two run to identical timetables, which would, presumably, mean some kind of proposal before the next election, even if its implementation was at the same time as Royal Assent for the Scotland stuff.

Swan Red · September 19, 2014

This post is not viewable to guests.

You can sign in to your account at the login page here