The most recent
debacle set me thinking again about the fragmentation or de-federalisation of the UK, as promoted largely
unsuccessfully by John Prescott. The two main events in this process were the devolution
referendums in Scotland and Wales in the first parliament of this New Labour administration. These were widely acclaimed, by the government and by supporters of the devolution process in those countries, as a triumph for democracy, but let's take a look at the figures.
In Scotland, the turnout was 60.4%, and of those voting 74.3% wanted a Scottish parliament, whilst only 63.5% wanted it to have tax-varying powers. A thumping majority for devolution and a ringing endorsement of the process? Yes, if Blair and co were to be believed. But, recalling my introduction to electoral politics back in the
Wadham JCR, I seem to recall that the requirements for constitutional change are usually rather more exacting than the simple majority vote that suffices to change a government. This makes perfect sense, when you consider that the constitution defines the terms and conditions by which we delegate power to the government. It is clearly important therefore that it be reasonably difficult to change it. For this reason, any respectable, civilised nation requires a bare minimum of a
popular majority for this purpose.
So how do the figures stack up now? The proportion for a Scottish parliament now becomes just under a sad minority of 45%, and for tax-raising powers, a wilting 38%. So now where's the resounding democratic success story? The fact is that fewer than half of the eligible voters wanted this parliament, and not many more than third wanted a parliament with tax-raising powers. For the government to have gone ahead with devolution in Scotland, far from being a triumph for democracy, was to fly in the face of the expressed wishes of the Scottish electorate.
In the Welsh case, the picture is even worse - only a quarter of the electorate wanted a parliament. No tax-raising powers were on offer here - probably just as well!
Eight years later, we have a talking shop in Wales, with no executive powers. The three-quarters of the Welsh electorate that didn't want it should be justifiably indignant about the waste of tax-payers' money, but at least the assembly doesn't presume to make or change law. The Scots, however, have every reason to take to the streets over the abuse that has been perpetrated on their democratic rights.
Firstly there's the scandal over the costs of the new parliament building, which rose exponentially from an initial estimate of
£40 million and now looks like having exceeded £500 million (I couldn't find a final cost anywhere, perhaps unsurprisingly, but in final quarter 2004 the cost was reported to stand at
£431 million), and all for a facility that the majority of the Scots didn't want. More importantly, however, there's the fact that this assembly, which can have no legitimate executive authority,
enacts legislation illegally.
So should we be surprised that this government moves in such undemocratic ways, its wonders to under-perform? This is the party that has paid lip-service to electoral reform when it suited them to cuddle up to the Liberals, but has since quietly and conveniently forgotten about it; that has just entered its third term with the smallest share of the popular vote since the 1867 Reform Act. Had it not been so stomach-turning, it would have been amusing on Question Time last night to hear the
assembled luminaries falling over themselves to espouse the electoral reform notion, although come to think of it, Harriet Harman
was rather quiet on the subject!
But there you go - we're stuck with it. To paraphrase
Clinton's 1992 electoral strategy, "It's the system, stupid", and it ain't gonna change. Plus ca change...
