(Title Image: The Guardian)
Independence is my preferred constitutional future for Wales – that’s obvious – but that support is half-reluctant. There’s part of me which doesn’t want to see the Union end – while largely self-inflicted, it would be a historical and constitutional disaster – and I consider myself to be culturally British to a certain extent.
As long as there’s an honest conversation about what the UK is, why it’s breaking/broken and serious discussions to figure out what it’s for and how it can be improved as a multi-national state with common citizenship, the UK can be saved as a single nation-state – and in such a way as to make secession less likely or less attractive.
Doing so would inevitably require difficult compromises. The Welsh Government’s Reforming the Union paper does, to be honest, come close to achieving it. Some of the content in the recent Plaid Cymru Commission could be deemed an attempt to rescue a Union (of some kind) as well.
The tragedy (or positive depending on your perspective) is the sense of denial and exceptionalism amongst many unionists means those discussions are never going to happen:
“Instead of presenting a positive vision of Britishness and the Union, unionists have now largely been reduced to sloganeering, denial, appeals to nostalgia….and threats – which is a sure a sign as any that it’s becoming a case as to when the UK will dissolve rather than if. There’s no reason for unionists to be so tetchy or near resignation….about it either because all of these problems are fixable. There just has to be compromise and that’s something unionists may have the mistaken impression they’ve already done too much of when they’ve barely gone a quarter of the way.”
– After the UK: Why is the UK dying?
As things stand, all the talk about federalism, confederalism and League of the Isles won’t make it off the blueprint table. Unionist politicians haven’t made any effort to convince people like myself that the UK is worth something and worth putting effort into saving which is….just sad.
Part I: Constitutional Reform of the UK
Starting things off: changing how decisions are made at the Union level, reworking the internal structure of the UK and overhauling the uncodified UK constitution. This would need to be done in a manner which protects the UK’s status as an internationally-recognised and functioning nation-state.
A new Act of Union as part of a new UK Constitution/Basic Law
The UK Constitution probably can’t be drafted into a single document – and I doubt traditionalists would want it to be either.
Instead of a single written constitution, the UK Constitution could be made up of several Basic Laws including – at the very least – a new Act of Union (for the functioning of the state itself), a Bill of Rights (or the existing Human Rights Act), a Parliament Act (for the new UK legislature, UK-wide elections and referendums) and Act of Succession (clearly setting out the constitutional role of the head of state).
Permanence and inviolability of the Constituent Nations
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall would be recognised as inviolable nationalities and permanent constituent nations coming together voluntarily to form a political union and common citizenship.
There can be no redrawing of borders, territorial waters, abolition or merging of institutions, political offices or resources across borders without the unanimity of all of the governments of the UK. However, the distribution of powers could change with the unanimous consent of all of the UK’s nations.
Personal Union
The Crown would remain head of state (barring a future Union-wide referendum on becoming a republic) and their prerogative and constitutional role would be written into the new Act of Union.
Each of the constituent nations could become separate kingdoms in personal union, meaning the state’s name could change from United Kingdom to United Kingdoms.
New Voting System and Reform of the UK Parliament
The UK Parliament would be responsible for far less and can be significantly reduced in size. The House of Commons could be cut to maybe no more than 300 MPs elected in multi-member constituencies and the House of Lords/Senate (perhaps no more than 100-125 members) would have equal(ised) representation from the nations – whether that’s through appointment by national parliaments or election via national or regional lists.
Yes, England would be massively under-represented in the second chamber (or the system can be constructed so no nation has more than 40% of members), but the second chamber should be responsible for reflecting the nations’ views based on the principle of the reformed UK being an equal partnership of nations.
Referendums at a UK level could also need to be passed by a majority across the UK as a whole and at least two-thirds of the constituent nations (similar to Australia).
End of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is one of the cornerstone principles of the present UK Constitution. For the UK to survive as an imbalanced but multi-national state it has to go and be replaced with a federal or federal-style system of exclusive and shared/pooled sovereignty.
The easiest way to do this would be to enshrine the Sewel Convention in law and effectively grant the national parliaments the right to opt-out of UK-level laws in areas under their control. Decisions for the UK as a whole would need to be made based on collective decision-making, consensus and – where appropriate – unanimity.
There has to be mutual respect. The UK Government can’t be blamed for everything under the sun anymore, while the national governments deserve to be treated with a certain level of esteem.
Right to Self-Determination (with a handbrake)
All nations within the UK would have a right to secede (and in line with the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland would have a right to a Border Poll), subject to legislation in the respective legislature, an internationally-monitored referendum and a two-year notice/cooling-off period after a referendum.
A constitutional handbrake could be included limiting independence referendums to a frequency of 10 years from the first referendum and three parliamentary terms (12-15 years) for all subsequent referendums.
The seceding nation would also forfeit their right to be considered a successor state to the UK (other than rights due under international law). The negotiation process and principles for a division of assets could be set out in the new Act of Union.
Mutual Dissolution Clause
There could be a mechanism for the mutual dissolution of the Union – triggering a process which could end in all nations becoming independent at the same time, or the formation of a new union with fewer members (i.e. “Celtic Union“). It would be triggered if an equivalent to half or more of the Union (in population or economic output) votes to secede (effectively meaning England).
Part II: Making a Federal UK Work
This new Union would be a multi-national federation, meaning that while there would still be a single UK, UK Government, UK constitution and common British citizenship, the member nations would be self-governing in areas they’ve been granted constitutional control over.
Revised Federal Powers Settlement
Some of the key principles:
- No asymmetric devolution: all of the permanent nations should have the same powers and the same status within the UK as equals.
- The UK Parliament only retains exclusive powers essential to maintain the UK as a functioning nation-state, to maintain international relations (defence and foreign policy mainly) and a single internal market.
- Everything else would be the responsibility of the national parliaments. This would include everything already devolved and additional powers not otherwise assigned to the UK.
Formal separation of the UK and English governments
All nations would maintain a parliamentary system and it would be up to individual nations as to whether they want a unicameral or bicameral parliament. At the UK level that would mean the UK Prime Minister (and UK head of government) would continue to be the party group leader able to retain the confidence of the House of Commons. The difference is they should only be exclusively responsible for policy areas which the new Act of Union states the UK Government should control.
The UK Government would no longer be the English Government at the same time. Through a Council of Ministers, they would have to seek majority support for any decision they make which impacts areas under the control of the UK’s national parliaments.
Two-Tier English Self-Government?
The elephant in the room is England simply because of its size. If “The England Question” isn’t properly answered, then the Union can’t be saved.
The only workable solution, as I see it, would be a two-tier form of self-government for England – a single, law-making English Parliament and English Government (based outside London), with regional mayors, regional assemblies or reformed local government having administrative devolution in certain policy areas, perhaps equal to that of the current London Assembly.
Status of Cornwall
Cornwall would be recognised as one of the permanent nations. The questions here are:
- Should Cornwall be included as a fully self-governing nation on the same terms as Wales, Scotland, England etc. from the very start?
- Should there be a delay to self-government to allow the necessary infrastructure to be put in place beforehand?
- Should the new Act of Union specify that a referendum on Cornish self-government should take place within a set amount of time and, if rejected, held at regular intervals until Cornwall decides it should have self-government?
Part III: Economic Reform
The trickiest areas when it comes to reforming the UK are arguably the most important ones – funding and economic rebalancing.
This has to include a mix of flexibility for the national governments as well as greater responsibility for their own revenue-raising (and debt management). The hard part is figuring out how to do it without overlooking potential unintended consequences.
Needs-Based Funding
This is something that’s been argued for a while, particularly in the context of Wales and regions of England outside London. The Barnett Formula as it currently is would almost certainly need to be replaced by a new system of block grant finance which based on a mix of:
- the overall budget requirements for the UK/under the control of the UK government (i.e. defence spending, UK Parliament running costs, public borrowing)
- a per-capita funding floor (the same amount of funding-per-person in each nation)
- adjustments to take into account revenue from separate taxes levied at the UK and national level
- a top-up based on relative need (sparsity, long-term sickness/disability, demographics, relative poverty)
- a new system for capital expenditure to ensure a fair and proportionate share for all the nations, with a weighting to favour underperforming areas to boost the economy
Greater Fiscal Flexibility for National Legislatures
The obvious way to improve flexibility would be to grant more tax powers including complete control over income tax, vice taxes, local taxes, corporation tax, capital gains tax etc. as well as a general power for nations to unilaterally create new taxes and levies.
Some taxes would still need to be set and collected at a UK level, particularly VAT, national insurance and things like insurance levies and taxes on pensions. The UK could, like the USA, introduce a federal income tax.
The ability to move funding from capital to revenue and vice-versa has been mentioned as a further reform in light of the Covid-19 pandemic for additional short-term flexibility. The nations could have much looser restrictions on borrowing, but also greater responsibility for paying off debts they accrue by themselves.
Unanimity Requirement for Trade Deals
This is an issue that’s emerged with Brexit. Taking a cue from Belgium, the nations should collectively draft and present the terms by which the UK negotiates new trade deals, with a power for national parliaments to veto final trade deals. Trade would straddle a line between a federal-level policy area (foreign affairs, regulatory powers) and national level policy areas (economic development, business support, agriculture, food etc.).
If the terms are drafted collectively in the Council of Ministers then the threat of a veto should diminish. That said, it would also mean the nations would have a right to protect their interests if a trade deal is considered to be detrimental to them (i.e. Welsh agriculture, private involvement in the NHS).
Part IV: Symbolic, Social & Cultural Reform
Most of these would be cosmetic by design, but there could be a few practical measures to acknowledge the UK as a properly multi-national union.
Federalised BBC
Public broadcasting should be the responsibility of the national governments to ensure audiences are properly catered for in news, sport and current affairs and to de-metropolitanise editorial decisions. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean the BBC has to be broken up.
Editorial control could pass to the national stations and the licence fee would probably be set and collected on a national basis too (if it isn’t replaced before then), with funding pooled for central programming (i.e. international and UK news).
Distinct banknotes in each nation
Similarly to the Isle of Man, Scotland and Channel Island, the nations could issue their own banknotes with one side dedicated to the respective nation and the other to the UK – whether that should extend to coins is up for debate. This may end up being redundant as cash use falls anyway.
A “Social Union” statement of intent
If the UK is supposed to be there to pool resources, there has to be a “big bang” expression of social solidarity akin to the formation of the NHS to being all nations together. That could be – for the sake of argument – a universal basic income or negative income tax, a National Care Service, a far more generous state pension, major reforms to the housing market, free public transport or funding to enable university tuition fees to be scrapped across all nations.
Precedence-only justification for pan-UK sports teams
The nations’ sporting independence should be protected; that means no Team GB/UK unless there’s ongoing precedent (i.e. Olympics except football, Lions rugby). The UK can’t unilaterally decide to represent itself without the consent of the national sports associations.
“UK Games”?
A mini-Olympics similar to the Commonwealth Games in which the Celtic nations, crown dependencies and the regions of England compete against each other in a host city, with the right to host rotating between the nations. This could be used to invest in sports facilities all around the UK and not just in the usual subjects. It’s a bit “bread and circuses” but….
Flag & Anthem
The Union flag would likely stay – unless there was some sort of open competition to design a new flag that properly included all of the nations. Similarly, “God Save the Queen/King” could be replaced by a new UK anthem or (more likely) England adopts an official anthem of their own with GSTQ/GSTK kept as the UK anthem.
Next week: “What could remain the same if Wales became independent?“