After my mini-rant last month on what I see as a fundamentally broken approach to UK modus operandi it seems logical to follow up on how this wrong should be righted. In fact Cameron has quite admirably sought to bring this ‘limbo’ to a decisive end with his legally binding independence vote. It’s a tactic that has previously been mooted by unionists here in NI. And in Scotland with a large percentage of the public wishing just to get on with some semblance of governance, it should strike a cord past all the usual English/Tory/Overlord rubbish.
While tactically there is little doubt this is an astute move by the PM, and while hopefully it succeeds within it’s 18 month timespan, there is still no strategic debate much less consensus on how intra-UK relationships should be governed in the long term.
At present there is a communications gulf between the various democratic fiefdoms. What is the official formal method of working together? At the moment it appears that each leader/executive resides in their ivory tower with little in the form of strategic thought given to piecemeal enactments. Enactments that have obvious implications for what we could call the ‘balance’ of the Kingdom – especially in regions unfortunate enough to have to suffer the dual layers of administration.
This isolation encourages participants to engage in the most unproductive of communication styles – that of rhetoric – with the resulting ugly grandstanding tending to suit a certain type of populist personality best. Thus we have the common case of those in power still behaving as if they are on the opposition benches.
None of what is currently happening is in anyone’s best interests. The sooner the collection of political houses here begin to work together rather than as competing powermongers the better for a country not enamoured by politics for the sake of it. To that end it would be sensible for institutions to create a joint committee preferably made up of senior political figures from each to run the rule over what is being proposed during each new parliament and the potential fallout for the rest of us.
In my head this is the job the House of Lords should be doing, in reality it would probably have to be copper-fastened with the presence of elected representatives and should be given some form of secretariat or leveraging of existing government office. Such an office would be capable of reaching credible conclusions, and ultimately should be given the power to block dangerously lop-sided legislation that negatively interferes with the demographic balance of our society.
Much like the European-imposed inability to ‘discriminate’ against other Europeans, this body should be powerful enough to get similar safeguards enshrined in UK law.
Would Ruane have been allowed to drop the 11+ without first having in place a credible alternative? Would the Scots have given everyone in the EU bar England, NI & Wales cheaper tertiary education?
To counteract the nat-tinged guldering that passes for intra-UK political discussion at this time, cooler heads should be looking at how introducing bold new steps can create a new and revitalised domestic outlook.
This article is by “St Etienne” who can normally be found blogging here.
