Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Come the devolution

21:53 / 23.01.02

What do you feel about devolution for the UK?
The only current examples we have are of Scotland and Wales. My opinion is that they add an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost without conferring any real benefits. They tread a fine line between entrenching petty differences and guarding local values and culture.
One of the reasons the government set about devolution was as a political safeguard. Scotland and Wales are traditional Labour strongholds. Creating powerful assemblies in these regions almost guarantees a seat of power no matter what happens elsewhere.

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]

10:24 / 24.01.02

Do you mean, what about regional devolution like that which might occur under a federal European government? Or do you mean devolution specifically *from the Westminster Parliament*?

Edited because I'm not entirely sure whether 'devolvement' is a word.

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]

10:33 / 24.01.02

Well I meant from Westminster (hence the examples), but if anyone wants to discuss the idea of Europe of the Regions I am up for that.

16:35 / 24.01.02

The only current examples we have are of Scotland and Wales

What about the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Originally posted by Buk:

My opinion is that they add an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost without conferring any real benefits.

Well, yes indeed. Speaking as someone who deals with the Welsh Assembly every day, I'd say it is basically just like a larger local council, but for the whole of Wales.

It is also - although I'm willing to hear the South Welsh on this board argue against me - extremely biased towards the South of the country (based there, more money goes there, it gets discussed more, etc).

And I voted 'yes' to the Assembly too. I gave them a chance - but now I feel cheated.

There are some good bits to the Assembly - the NHS in Wales receives more help than that in England, for example, and there is a far greater emphasis on open Government.

But to really be anything other than an expensive talking shop, the Assembly needs legislative powers.

Although the Scots may want to prove me wrong...

18:35 / 24.01.02

Two things:

Devolution.

and... y'know, this sort of thing was the rationale behind apartheid South Africa's Bantustans. So, caution is merited.

06:24 / 25.01.02

quote:But to really be anything other than an expensive talking shop, the Assembly needs legislative powers.

Yeah, but what powers? What should be devolved? Subsidiarity is great. Do things at the level they are most effective.
That doesn't seem to be happening with the Scottish parliament. One thing that bugs me is education. Not really anything to do with devolution but appropriate. Why is there a completely different education system in Scotland? I cannot think of a good reason. It just seems like a silly barrier. That is the kind of thing that devolution risks promoting.

07:26 / 25.01.02

But Scotland's always had a different education system and legal system - that's not just happened since devolution.

Sorry, just reread your post and realised you know that. But I don't think it should be a big issue - if anything, having some sort of quasi-separate political system has helped in making people aware that there are differences.

I'n really not sure what I think about devolution or a separate Scotland. An irrational, emotional patriotism makes me think 'great idea' but I'm not sure that the reality would be a good thing, for Scotland or the UK as a whole.

[ 25-01-2002: Message edited by: Ariadne ]

07:37 / 25.01.02

Well, just reread that and realised that I said precisely nothing. But that's as far as my thinking on devolution goes. "Uh .. I dunno."

And I suspect that much of Scotland is the same way, confused or disinterested. Just knee-jerk anti-England, if anything.

07:50 / 25.01.02

I think a better idea would be if London devolved from the rest of the UK. Then you could all go to your trendy wine bars, drink presse in Hyde Park, eat raw fish, and do whatever the hell you wanted without bothering us good, honest, working folk in the rest of the country.

You could have a big wall built round you and have your Queen riding through in her carriage every day and see Madonna jogging through the park, and the rest of us could watch Last of the Summer Wine, sleep with our siblings, and not wash.

Just don't expect us to send you any of our coal, steel or textiles, okay?

Oh, that's right, we don't have any, any more. Okay, don't expect our call centres to put you through to the right branch of your bank.

And we in the Greater UK would obviously insist that babes like Ganesh and Ariadne are forcibly repatriated to endure a life of hell back in their homelands, forever villified as "the ones that tried to get away".

And obviously, the Parliament of Greater UK would be in Wigan. And everyone would have to eat pies.

07:54 / 25.01.02

I think there's a very good case for Scotland's devolution because Scotland and England have never ever been fully united, ever - the law system is different, the education system (as has been said) is different... they are in effect two countries which have been united by the Act of Parliament since 1707 - initially because of a shared monarchy.

Wales is a bit different, as the administration has been united for much longer - but it is still a country in its own right.

Northern Ireland - aaargh. Too complicated to think about in terms of simple 'devolution from the Westminster Parliament'.

So - where else is there that could be devolved? We're left with the nation state of England, so it would have to be something within that state... (I'm discounting the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands here, because their status is rather anomalous). The regions I can think of which are most likely to think of devolution favourably are Cornwall and parts of the North. But, unless you go back to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, there's no geographical basis for devolution and so I think that it would be extremely difficult to create effective regional councils which are subject to but independent in some respects from the Westminster Parliament...

...and as you say an administrative nightmare. Moreover, how many people actually care enough to vote in any referendum? Not many. *London* is more likely to go for devolution.

07:55 / 25.01.02

Or in other words... Sax said it.

08:16 / 25.01.02

quote:I think there's a very good case for Scotland's devolution because Scotland and England have never ever been fully united, ever - the law system is different, the education system (as has been said) is different...

...but surely that isn't a good case. For me, the differences in the law and education system make me wonder why there is a need. Anyone want to explain to me the differences north and south of the border that require separate systems.
Devolution tends to entrench these kind of differences and they just become barriers. Which would be fair enough if there were real benefits.

[ 25-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]

08:23 / 25.01.02

One of the reasons I was pleased to see devolution was that for years and years, and years Scotland had wholeheartedly voted Labour and yet we still ended up with the Tories because we were part of the UK.

And so I hoped, naively, that at least 'we' could have a decent socialist government and live happily with our high taxes, Burn's suppers (tonight, folks! My head hurts in anticipation) and tartan tammies. Oh, and all that oil we were going to live the high life on.

Then of course, I left the country, lived in NZ for years and years and then moved back 'home' - to London. God, traitor or what?

But my point? I've forgotten where I started...

Oh yes, back to Buk. I think the separate systems are too entrenched to just up and change them - and just try persuading Scottish people that we should change to an English legal system. So devolution at least means that the differences are acknowledged and dealt with?

[ 25-01-2002: Message edited by: Ariadne ]

08:31 / 25.01.02

Well, yeah - there's no *need* for Scotland and England to have different systems, they just *do* - just as England and the Republic of Ireland have different systems, or Germany and the Netherlands. My point was really about practicalities. Reform would be a nightmare if done on a piece meal basis...

If we really want to change the fact that countries have different systems, we need to undertake a more far-reaching reconstruction - such as federalisation of regions (not nations) under a European administration.

08:38 / 25.01.02

I'm no economist, so I'd be interested in reasons for and against - but I imagine that an independent Scotland would benefit, ecnomically and politically, from joining Europe (if they'd have us).

As things stand at the moment that would let it keep its own legal system etc while having the benefits of belonging to a large trading block.

And Scottish money's frowned upon down here anyway, so we might as well have euros.

08:38 / 25.01.02

quote:If we really want to change the fact that countries have different systems, we need to undertake a more far-reaching reconstruction - such as federalisation of regions (not nations) under a European administration.

Yep, except I would replace European with supranational. What is so magic about Europe anyway? It is often necessary and beneficial that areas have different systems, but we should be very wary of promoting a system out of nationalism or regionalism, vague romantic sentiment. There will always be lots of grey areas, but we should legislate at the most appropriate level. Simple as that.

quote:I'm no economist, so I'd be interested in reasons for and against - but I imagine that an independent Scotland would benefit, economically and politically, from joining Europe (if they'd have us).

Well nationalism isn't really the best route to enlightened federalism is it? Whatever though, good or bad it depends on the idea of something being good for a nation rather than for everyone/people in general.

08:38 / 25.01.02

Well - Europe for geopolitical convenience, then, and becasue it is currently the most likely way for something like that to happen...

08:38 / 25.01.02

quote: I would replace European with supranational

Can you explain what you mean? Do you mean standardising economics, politics, education etc across Europe (or any other group of coutries?

10:27 / 25.01.02

Well KC mentioned a European federalisation of regions, supranationalism would mean an authority transcending national boundaries, authority, or interests.
Personally I would be in favour of a certain amount of standardisation at a supranational level where it would be beneficial and most effective. If it was better to apply a system at a regional level then would be cool as well. Of course, it would be hugely problematic to define beneficial in every case, but it is a workable general rule.

11:29 / 25.01.02

On the point that labour wiil be guaranteed a seat of power in both assemblies that may not continue to be true since the SNP are gaing as people get more and more annoyed with Labour. Plaid are gaining too though not to the same extent. Nevertheless I think labour may have some surprises.
I'm a south wales bod, who, though not old enough to actually vote for it went out and canvassed for the Assembly. I hoped that the campaign would continue to get it greater powers. Youthful innocence I say. Reckon the Assembly's a bit of a dissapointment, at least partly because of it for some reason containing the finalists of the "Stupidest in Wales" competition. If we could start attracting the energetic, intelligent people perhaps more would get done and they would stop arguing about daft things like the building.
BTW though I live in Swansea (yes we had a little campaign for it which was embarassing) I though it should have been in Mychyntleth (please correct me if that's wrong someone) it would have forced infrastucture im[provements if nothing else.

17:17 / 11.02.02

Cool. Sometimes, I like devolution...

17:39 / 11.02.02

I think that link highlights one of the biggest problems of devolution. A lack of standardisation leading to a hodgepodge of arbitrary rules based on belonging to a particular region. This pretty much describes the way that the world is governed in relation to individuals ( although not in relation to multinationals...great, eh). Which, IMHO, is a bad thing. A problem we should be trying to solve not entrench.
For instance, think of the implications of this one legislaton of abandoning fees in a particular region. A lot of effort is going to go into proving and deciding who gets entitlement, which will increase bureaucratic overhead, yeah. There would probably be a need to put in fairly arbitrary selection procedure, ie if you don't come from this region then ya don't get funding. Completely unfair. Otherwise if no fees at were levied then student could end up choosing instituions on financial rather than other more important criteria. Basically, the decision should not be taken at this level. It just isn't efficient.
If we decide that certain levels of education should be free then it should be implemented at the most efficient level ie a free worldwide education system funded out of general taxation. I could see that happening in our lifetime in a manner similar to the founding of the National health Service.
Incidentally I don't have a problem with student loans and tution fees in the uk. I'm paying back mine at the moment and it seems good value.