In today's Telegraph, former Prime Minister John Major has
written an interesting opinion piece about the threat, as he sees it, to the continued union of Scotland and England.
Now, I must declare my vested interests. I am Scottish. I voted in favour of both devolution and the tax varying (not, as Mr Major calls it, raising) powers for the devolved Parliament. I live in England. I am married to an English woman. Many of my blood relatives are English. I am marginally in favour of an independent Scotland (purely for the selfish reason that a large number of diplomatic and international positions would very quickly open up!). I support the creation of an elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords, and I see no point in maintaining a monarchy. All told, I am a mixture of unionist, separatist, republican - all the elements that we are assured you cannot be at the same time in this debate.
Mr Major's article is an interesting one, but it all too easily slips into the type of arguments that he denies to his opponents. Like that hoary old chestnut, the Scottish oil v English tax burden under the Barnett Formula debate.
The North Sea oil and gas reserves are an asset of the United Kingdom as a whole. This is not in dispute. As an asset of the UK, revenue generated can be spent anywhere within the United Kingdom. Similarly, tax revenue generated within the United Kingdom is an asset of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore it can also be spent anywhere within the United Kingdom. Once the money from your specific income tax deduction is put into the central pot, you cannot demand that your specific contribution be put to, or not put to, a specific use.
Yes, Scots have long complained about "their" oil revenues being spent in England (incidentally, it is not disputed that if Scotland were independent then the majority of North Sea oil and gas would be within Scotland's continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone), but this is no different from the English complaining about "their" taxes under the Barnett Formula. You cannot tell one group of people to cease complaining about the unequal dispersion of one UK asset, and then in the same breath complain about how another UK asset is spent. Mr Major talks of equal dispersion of money based upon need, and quite simply Scotland has always been one of the historically poorer areas, with the need for higher per capita spending on, for example, health, than other parts of the UK.
Those who wish Scotland to remain in the UK, cannot complain when UK tax money is used to aid a region of the United Kingdom. Consider the constant whining of the South East about "their" tax money being sent north to Scotland. This has now been transformed into complaints about money being sent to an amorphous "north"; Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, indeed anywhere north of the M25 appears to be "unworthy". The population of London is larger than the population of Scotland. Shall the affluent West of the city start to complain about "their" council tax money (or at least the part paid to the Greater London Authority) being used to aid the poorer East of the city (especially now that the Olympics need billions more than originally claimed)? It appears that it is always the most strident unionists who make the most divisive arguments, and are always the first to complain about where "their" shared asset is being spent. If you wish to complain about the division of a shared asset, then take that shared asset away and opt for regionalisation and independence. But regionalisation and independence are anathema to those who complain about such dispersals (indeed, Mr Major rejects an English Parliament) - might I suggest it is time to put up or shut up?
This of course is a wholly separate issue from the disgraceful situation of Scottish MPs still being allowed to vote on English issues, and I am in agreement with Mr Major as regards his ideas for a Grand Committee (in the absence of an English Parliament), indeed he is the first commentator I have read who is aware of the fact that English MPs DO actually have the right to vote on purely Scottish issues - Westminster is the sovereign parliament, not Holyrood. It is by the sovereign will of the Queen in the Westminster Parliament that legislation from Holyrood has any legal effect. A little delegated power and constitutional trickery ensures that Holyrood passes the legislation and it receives Royal Assent, but Westminster can still overrule Holyrood on purely devolved issues - it merely chooses not to exercise this power. I would suggest that Scottish MPs do the same, and choose not to vote on devolved issues at Westminster.
I do wish so-called unionists would stop harping on about the "anomaly" of a Scottish MP from a Scottish constituency becoming Prime Minister. What is this alleged anomaly? So long as Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, then Scottish MPs from Scottish constituencies cannot, must not, be denied the chance of becoming Prime Minister. If they are denied this chance, why continue with the Union? If the English balk at the prospect of a Scotsman being Prime Minister, then perhaps they could consider using their overwhelming majority population, their supermajority within the political parties, and use their democratic votes to not vote for the Scottish candidate? No Scotsman can become Prime Minister without English backing. So as racist as it sounds, if you don't want someone Scottish, don't vote for someone Scottish! Again, why is it that it is the unionists who are so keen to deny the natural consequences of union, and are doing a far greater job or arguing against the union than the nationalists?
Mr Major complains of increasing anti-English sentiment coming from Scotland since devolution. He probably still has the echoes of anti-English sentiment from north of the border ringing in his ears from when he was Prime Minister. This was an ugly phenomenon which arose from the often legitimate grievances the Scottish had during the last Conservative government, when English MPs were used to push through unpopular Government legislation which would only apply in Scotland. When the boot was on the other foot, Mr Major did not have a problem with this. Indeed, to date the theoretical danger of Scottish MPs being used to push through unpopular legislation that only has effect in England has yet to transpire, for the simple reason that the Government majority is still so great that if every Scottish MP voted
against the Government (and not merely abstained), then the English MPs in the Government majority would still ensure that the legislation passed.
As a Scot who lived in Scotland post-devolution, who then moved to London and is (anti-English ingrate that I am) married to an English woman, I can honestly say that the anti-English sentiment has reduced to barely a murmur, whilst tide of anti-Scottish sentiment from south of the border has risen. Devolution forced Scots to accept that they were now largely in control of their own lives, and could not, should not, blame the English. It made us grow up. In fact, what has grown louder in Scotland is an increasing sense of bewilderment that the English are so unwilling to be English, or to show pride in their nationality. Thankfully, over the past few years the English have begun to rediscover a sense of national identity. We Scots like to think that devolution has forced England to actually rediscover their Englishness, but perhaps not.
Mr Major is right that we have come to a crisis point in the Union, but it is not the kind he feared. The Scots are not rabidly demanding independence, and the English are not trying to stop the UK being torn apart. The Scots are generally ambivalent. To be honest, I don't care, the majority of Scots don't care. Independence or part of the UK, it doesn't actually matter that much to us. South of the border, an increasingly vocal minority of England is rising up - it appears jealous of what Scotland has, it is often patronising and belittling toward Scotland (Paxman, Littlejohn, Daily Mail, Telegraph - j'accuse), and yet it mouths platitudes about preserving the Union.
What is the state of the Union after 300 years. For the Scottish the question is "should I stay or should I go"? We could go either way. For the English, the question has to be "why do you still want us if you resent us so much?" It is time for the UK to accept the consequences of the marriage made 300 years ago (sometimes the partner earning the money might have to spend it on the other one) or to get a divorce.
