Forget the West Lothian question, let’s look at the Kensington conundrum
|
Version 0 of 1. Jonathan Freedland’s prescription for securing the UK’s imperilled union (To keep Scotland, Britain must embrace the separatists, 25 April) is sound as far as it goes. But he fails to draw the obvious conclusion: that we need a serious, open-minded debate about how best to convert a tight, London-dominated union into a looser, more federal one. The fact that the Tories present their resistance to the idea of an English parliament as proof of their commitment to the union illustrates how deaf they are to the prevailing mood away from the capital. And they are not alone: even those longstanding federalists, the Lib Dems, have said little on the subject in the current campaign. Isn’t it time for a royal commission on the constitution with proposals for a properly balanced federation as its aim? Constitutional matters may not be at the top of voters’ priorities. But if the country’s present leader chooses to make what is essentially a constitutional issue the key plank of his re-election pitch, surely it behoves him – and his opponents – to offer the UK the opportunity for a decent discussion about how best to respond to the “shifting of the tectonic plates” that Jonathan rightly detects. If, instead of his kneejerk call for “English votes for English laws”, David Cameron had presented the referendum as signalling the need, and its outcome as providing the breathing space, for such a fundamental review, he might have earned the reputation of a true statesman, rather than a small-minded political hack. He might even have won the grudging admiration of otherwise ideologically hostile Scots.John ThomsonCastle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway • The last time the unionist parties were obliged to work with nationalists seeking independence was when John Redmond’s Irish Nationalists held the balance of power after the January 1910 general election, and this ended in disaster. Ireland failed to secure Home Rule and became the victim of rebellion, brutal British countermeasures and a civil war that resulted in the permanent partition of the country. At the same time, Britain found itself embroiled in a military and political crisis triggered in March 1914 by the mutiny of British officers at the Curragh army base near Dublin, who, with the connivance of the Conservative leader of the opposition, Bonar Law, openly challenged the Liberal government and its plan for Irish Home Rule. This crisis left a permanent stain on the Conservatives – who also supported the pro-British Ulster Volunteer Force that illegally imported 20,000 German rifles as part of its preparation for potential civil war in the north of Ireland – and contributed to the “strange death” of the Liberal party. The outbreak of hostilities in 1914 defused this crisis and drew a convenient veil over a period of British history that many prefer to forget.John MooreGuildford, Surrey • We were pleased when Scotland voted no to independence and we guess that they were too when, soon after, the bottom dropped out of the oil market. In fact the fall in oil prices was a timely riposte to the independence-mongers of all hues, as to why a properly constituted political union is almost always a good idea: risk-pooling trumps nationalism every time. In any case it is arguable that Scottish independence was not really the aim of the SNP but rather one foisted upon it by the Tory refusal to allow devo max on to the ballot paper. In that sense the Tory party strategy of using the independence question as a way of furthering its own electoral ambitions long predates the referendum result. What the Scots want is a properly federated Britain, alongside properly thought-through electoral reform It seems to us that what the Scots, and much of the rest of the country, want is a properly federated Britain, alongside properly thought-through electoral reform – both measures that the Conservatives vehemently oppose. Far from representing a clear and present danger to the union, the SNP seem to give priority to precisely those policies – including adequate funding for public services – that would place the UK on a sounder economic and political footing. But like Netanyahu in Israel, when faced with electoral wipeout, Cameron plays the nationalist card. We can only hope that the British electorate see through this shameful attempt to cling to power better than the Israelis did. William Dixon and David WilsonLondon Metropolitan University • Either Scotland is a legitimate part of the UK or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then the SNP can have no part to play in any future government of the UK. If it is – as all the other UK parties insisted it should be in the recent referendum campaign – then its votes must have the same value as those of any other part of the UK, and lead to a contribution to the governance of the UK on the same terms as any other political party. Any agreement between the SNP and any other party in the formation of a future government will reflect the fact that the UK as a whole appears to have a broad consensus in recent polling of a left-of-centre political bias, and any attempt on the part of other parties to negate this is anti-democratic. Francis MaccabeeLoughborough • Not only does David Cameron risk alienating Scottish voters with his divisive appeal to middle(-class southern) England (PM’s gamble on English tax, 24 April) through repeated warnings about the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster. He also risks alienating northern English voters who have too long lived under the combined yoke of an increasingly southern-oriented Conservative party and neoliberal policies that have devastated economies equally on both sides of the border. These politics of disenfranchisement, also encouraged by Nicola Sturgeon, are increasingly being represented officially through the combined authorities of northern cities and unofficially through new regional parties such as the Northern party, the North East party and Yorkshire First as well as through more localised parties such as the Southport party, all of which are currently fighting parliamentary seats. We also don’t hear much from Mr Cameron about the “Kensington question” – the parliamentary conundrum whereby the Westminster MP representing Kensington in London can vote on – and veto – spending on transport and economic regeneration in Kensington, Liverpool, but the MP for Kensington, Liverpool, is not so privileged with regard to Kensington, London, where these matters have been devolved to the London assembly.Jim FordSouthport • As a Lib Dem member I’m appalled that Nick Clegg is refusing to work with any coalition which relied on SNP MPs. This is a clear abrogation of Lib Dem belief in proportional and fair representation which aims to give all citizens a clear stake in governance. Jonathan Friedland points to this discrepancy and writes ”those who believe in the union need to respect the choices [of] their fellow citizens … [and] prove the union is a hospitable inclusion place for Scots”. Again the inadequacy of the current devolution settlement is clear. Chuka Umunna (Saturday interview, 25 April) says “it’s time for all parts of the UK to have … a federal structure”. Isn’t it time for the Guardian to spearhead a campaign for a royal commission on the constitution in the next parliament, with proposals for a properly balanced federation as its aim?Iain MowbrayWatford |