It's All Over - Except It's Not

  Well, there we go. That's that, as they say. Scotland, land of haggis and whisky (of which I'm fond) and of bagpipes and tartan (of which I'm not so fond) has voted in what was probably the defining moment in recent British political history. The result, a 10-point win for the No campaign, on the back of a turnout of 84.6%, is not the vast thrashing of the Independence campaign which was predicted when the referendum was called, but it is a significant enough margin to settle the question for some time.

  But, I'm afraid, that's not quite the end of it. In fact, not by a long shot. It has been clear for some years, and most especially for the last fortnight or so, that the status quo simply will not be acceptable to Scotland for any longer. The fallout from the referendum will send shockwaves through Scottish politics, and it will profoundly affect the rest of the Union too. The Scots may have gone for No, but this emphatically doesn't mean No Change.


Scottish Devolution

  With the current Devolution plans under the Scotland Act 2012 lay out some powers which will be transferred to Scotland over the next two years. These include a replacement of UK Stamp Duty by a Scottish version, the ability for the Scottish Government to borrow from the capital markets and issue government bonds and - crucially - the cutting of the UK Income Tax in Scotland to 10%, with the Scottish Government responsible for setting a separate rate to make up the shortfall, which would allow Scotland to vary overall Income Tax rates from the UK standard of 20%. 

  Let's be clear, these powers are to go to the Scots, regardless of what happens over the next few months. However, there are now proposals on the table for new Scottish powers from each of the three main Westminster parties. These new powers will be needed to assuage the demand for greater autonomy which 1.6 million votes for independence demonstrates. There are differences between the parties on what these powers should be, however.

  Labour Proposals   [SOURCE: Scottish Labour Devolution Commission - Executive Summary]

• The Scottish Parliament to be made a permanent feature of the UK constitution
• The Scottish Parliament to have administrative authority over Scottish Parliament elections
• The Scottish Government to raise approx. 40% of its own tax revenues
• UK Income Tax rate in Scotland to be reduced to 5% rather than 10%
• The Scottish Government to be able to vary different Income Tax bands by different amounts
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant
• Housing Benefit to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Greater powers for the Island Communities - Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar

  Conservative Proposals   [SOURCE: Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland]

• Income Tax entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Official Scottish Fiscal Commission to be established
• Possible devolution of Housing Benefit
• Possible ability for the Scottish Parliament to supplement UK social security payments
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant

  Liberal Democrat Proposals   [SOURCE: Federalism: the best future for Scotland]

• Power of Initiation, allowing the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments to request actions of one another
• Devolution of Income Tax to the Scottish Parliament
• Devolution of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax
• The proceeds of Scottish corporation tax to be assigned to the Scottish Government
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant until a new formula is agreed

  The rhetoric generally is that Labour's proposals are the least extensive, but this is mainly focusing on the slightly weaker offer on Income Tax. In fact, overall it is clear that it is the traditionally Unionist Tories who have made what I would consider the least attractive offer. For a new devolution settlement to work, though, all three parties will have to agree a package of powers, which will then have to be agreed with the SNP. The man in charge of this process is the Lord Robert Smith, Baron of Kelvin, who also ran the Glasgow Commonwealth Games earlier this year. A White Paper is planned for January. Watch this space...

Winners and Losers

  The big loser of this referendum has been Alex Salmond. Despite cutting No's lead from 22 points two months ago to just 10 in the referendum, Salmond has announced his decision to step down both as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland in November. This leaves the way open for his popular deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, long tipped as his sucessor to take the reins of power. With so long under Salmond, this could prove a real shake-up for the Scottish Nationals.

  The biggest sigh of relief was likely breathed by David Cameron, for whom a Yes vote could have meant a vote of no confidence in the commons and the loss of his premiership. Ed Miliband, too, was likely a little anxious in the run-up to this vote, as a failure for Better Together would likely have been seen as a failure of Labour to successfully challenge the SNP - and thus a damning indictment of his London-centric leadership. Both major party leaders were staring down the barrel of a gun pointed straight at their careers; the No vote has saved them. For now.

  The star of the show, though, has undoubtedly been Gordon Brown. Alistair Darling's leadership of Better Together has been criticised for his lack of charisma and failure to stand up to Salmond, but Brown's fiery eve-of-referendum speech appeared to more than make up for that. It is hard to say just how much his intervention contributed to the eventual success of the No campaign, but calls for the ex-Prime Minister to return to front-line politics after more than four years - perhaps as leader of Scottish Labour - demonstrate how much public opinion he has won by speaking out.

What About the English?

  Almost as soon as the No result was clear, prominent English politicians began their calls for English devolution to match the Scots. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband mentioned the so-called West Lothian Question in speeches today - Why should Scottish MPs, with significant and growing powers over Scotland now in the hands of the Scottish Parliament, continue to vote on English matters at Westminster? - with Nigel Farage among the many others taking up the cry.

  The Conservative backbenches are pushing for 'English votes on English laws' within the current Westminster Parliament, a solution which would settle the question in the short term. However, Labour - who would find it difficult to get approval for their English agenda under such a system, given their partial reliance on Scotland and Wales for their Parliamentary majorities - are going to take some convincing. Meanwhile, the more interesting - and controversial - question of an English executive, complete with ministerial departments and a possible First Minister of England, has also been floated. Whatever happens, one thing is clear - England will not be satisfied with the status quo either.

  It is clear, then, that a No vote in Scotland does not mean that the leaders of the Westminster parties can rest on their laurels. Independence may have been rejected, but change is coming to the UK - and not before time, either. 


[NOTE: A previous version of this article stated Alex Salmond was unlikely to step down as SNP leader. He announced his intention to do so while I was finishing writing this piece. That'll teach me to make predictions]

An Unstable Union

Scottish independence or no, something needs to be done to save the UK


  I've said before that decentralisation away from London is essential if we are to prevent the disintegration of the United Kingdom as we understand it. The forthcoming referendum over the future of Scotland is testament to the damage to a country's cohesion that extreme and extraordinary concentration of wealth and political power in one place can do.


The Questions of Independence

  We stand at a crossroads, in terms of the UK's future. Whether Scotland chooses independence or not, the next five years will have to see huge changes in the economic and political balance of our country. In the case of Scotland's departure, we will of course have to face the question of how to manage the divvying up of resources, currency and other assets, as well as the country's debt; but we shall also have to look at the question of what level of political union between the new Scottish Kingdom and the rest of the UK shall remain - for to sever all ties would be almost unthinkable.

  Questions would also be raised about the stability of 'rUK', as it has been stylised - if Scotland goes for independence, what of Wales, Northern Ireland, the Crown Dependencies? What about Cornwall, or Yorkshire, where support for greater autonomy within the UK is already significant? The thing is, though, that even if Scotland chooses to remain part of the UK - as the polls currently suggest it will - these questions still need answering. The temptation in Westminster and Whitehall, should Better Together claim victory in September, will be to palm the Scottish Nationalists off with a few extra tax-varying powers, breathe a collective sigh of relief and prepare the laurels for resting.

  This must not happen.


The Challenges of Union

  The reason this referendum is being held, the reason there is such significant support for it (39% in the most recent poll at the time of writing, when 'don't knows' are excluded), the reason Scottish Nationalism was ever able to grow beyond a minority of dewey-eyed nostalgia-merchants clinging to the memory of Bannockburn like a comfort blanket, is this: Scotland IS being marginalised, because the whole of the UK outside Greater London and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the South-East of England is being marginalised.

  It is clear that for the UK to continue to function, not only the Scottish Parliament but also the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies must be given not just token powers but a real ability to pursue their own policy programmes within the UK. It is a clear and well-documented fact that political preferences differ within the constituent countries - Scotland and Wales tend towards the centre-left, whilst England has since the 1980s been firmly right-wing and Northern Ireland is torn almost in two between the centre-left and the hard-right. It makes little sense, therefore, to force these nations to live under one rigid set of common rules. Far better to adopt the principle of subsidiarity - what can be done by individual constituent countries, and indeed by regional authorities, should be, with the central UK government acting only where it is more effective to do so.


A Programme for the Future

  Fixing the UK's constitutional crisis will not be easy, and there are many details which need to be addressed, but there a few things which need to happen before any real progress can be made:

• An English Parliament, with powers equivalent to the Scottish Parliament
• The Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies to be given equal powers to the English and Scottish Parliaments
• All four constituent countries to raise their own revenues through individual rates of corporation and income tax, with a separate UK-wide tax to fund the central government
• Strengthened County Councils, with powers over health and education within their borders
• Central government infrastructure projects to focus on bringing all transport links up to the standards of South-East England
• Provision made for County Councils to offer financial incentives to businesses to relocate away from London in order to boost regional economies

  By spreading political decision-making and economic wealth more widely and evenly, the foundations can be laid for a more equal UK which does not disadvantage geographic distance from the capital. The problem is, none of the established parties are willing to support such measures - they gain too much from the London-centric status quo. Without reform, however, Scotland - even if it chooses to stay this time - will be having another referendum within a few years, and other parts of the UK will follow. No matter if Scotland stays or goes, if nothing is done to rebalance the UK, there will be trouble.

The State of the Union

  Michael Fabricant yesterday put forward the latest in a small but growing number of calls for an English Parliament. Whilst his suggested location of Lichfield (his own constituency) may have been slightly tongue-in-cheek, the remainder of his proposals actually make a good deal of sense.

  The time of the UK as a unitary state has long passed. Since the devolution binge of the late 90s, when Tony Blair's administration established national assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there has remained something of an elephant in the room. That elephant's name is England. Blair's plan for English sub-national assemblies was stymied when the North-East region rejected theirs, and ever since no real action has been taken to reconcile the position of England within the Union. 

  Opposition to an English Parliament of any kind is founded on the principle that the UK is and should remain a united, homogenous nation-state, but this ideal is patently false. We must accept that there is a significant cultural difference between the UK's four constituent countries (as well as within them, particularly in different regions of England) and take this into consideration when planning for the future. Assuming that Scotland does not elect to leave the Union, a relatively safe bet, we have a perfect opportunity in these turbulent times to reshape the constitutional arrangement of the state. 

  The current situation is one of imbalance, with Scotland having more significant powers than Wales, whilst Wales has more than Northern Ireland, and in all of it England has no control over its own affairs at all. This gives rise to significant problems. The West Lothian Question, the issue that Scottish MPs sit in the Westminster Parliament and make decisions which affect only England, whilst Scottish MSPs have sole control over similar decisions made in Scotland, has been a sticking point for more than fifteen years. It led, amongst other things, to the introduction of tuition fees for English Universities only passing Parliament due to the votes of Scottish Labour MPs, whilst Scottish students receive their higher education for free. This is a serious problem, and in the face of high levels of Scottish nationalism is likely to remain so. The same issues could theoretically occur between England and Wales, or England and Northern Ireland, although these countries - having less MPs - will have a reduced impact.

  We have, in short, an odd, quasi-federal system which favours certain areas of the UK over others, often - but not always - to the detriment of England in particular. It would be better, therefore, to create a separate English Parliament with responsibility for specifically English affairs. The Westminster Parliament could then have the number of MPs reduced, saving on political bureaucracy, and would oversee the national assemblies, whilst at the same time retaining responsibility for Foreign Affairs, security and other UK-wide areas. Powers between the four national assemblies should also be equalised, giving each country the same opportunities to administrate their own affairs. This will settle the West Lothian Question, along with other problems that the status quo causes, and prevent resentment of English people towards their Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts. Let us not forget that, if the Scottish Independence referendum were to be held in England, polls show that the Yes campaign would almost certainly win.

  As for location, there is indeed a real issue with an over-focus on London, and I agree with Fabricant that a prospective English Parliament and government offices should not be located in the capital. Whilst this may seem a little odd, it is vital that greater support is given to the regions of the UK and that London does not race too far ahead. It will also be important to differentiate between the English and UK Parliaments, and having both located in the same city will muddy the waters and prevent a clear distinction being drawn in the minds of most people. Specific location matters less - historically, Winchester makes sense, as the capital of England before the Norman invasion, but economically somewhere in the midlands would perhaps be better, and would also be more central. 

  Wherever the new Parliament is located, though, it will stand as a concrete example of a UK which is not complacent; not afraid to make changes if the status quo is unfair or otherwise damaging. And that is the UK we need to build if we are to succeed in the future.