Essay - Is Britain now a Federal State? PDF

Preview

Summary

Formative essay on the subject 'Is Britain now a Federal State?'. Graded at a 69 mark...

Description

Is Britain now a Federal State? There has been a heavy trend over the last decade and a half of devolution of powers from Westminster government towards the constituent nations of Britain. This recent trend was kickstarted by New Labour in the late 1990s, and the referendums that established regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales in 1999. Over time these elected parliaments, and their powers, have grown, often at the expense of Westminster power in the region. However, how much power the central Westminster government holds over these regions, and to what extent Britain has become a federal state is often debated. For the purposes of this essay I shall be using the Oxford Advanced learners’ definition of federalism, which is; ‘having a system of government in which individual states of a country have control over their own affairs, but are controlled by a central government for national decisions’ (Oxforddictoraries.com, 2015). Currently, parliaments in Scotland and Wales are relatively independent to Westminster, but not equally so. To understand how autonomous they have become, we need to look at what both parliaments are capable of. Scotland and Wales, given the result of the 2011 Welsh referendum on the matter, both now have the power to create primary laws on devolved matters which include education, agriculture and health. This means that the respective parliaments can create and implement laws without the need for the Westminster government to pass the laws. On top of this, Scotland has weak tax-raising powers, allowing the Scottish Parliament to raise income tax by 3%. These fiscal powers are not present in the Welsh Assembly. This means that the centralised government can have relatively little say on devolved matters. As Jones and Scully argue, relatively few ministerial departments have been untouched by devolution. They use the example of the health minister, stating that they are effectively the minister for health for England, as they have no say over the provision of health in the Wales or Scotland. (Jones, Scully, 2011) This shows that regional assemblies are becoming more powerful and more autonomous from Westminster. Through looking at the times regional assemblies have gone against Westminster suggestions or changed its policies, we can assess how independent these institutions have become. For example in 2009 the Scottish justice minister decided to release the terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrah, the man responsible for the 1998 Lockaby bombings, directly against British, and international, wishes. In this case the central government was unable to intervene against regional assembly. There are parallel examples where the Scottish parliament decided to go against Westminster policy and abolish university tuition fees, and when the Welsh assembly abolished prescription medication fees. This presents the view that the centralised government has a federal-like relationship with these institutions, as the regional assemblies have relative autonomy over internal affairs, the central government finds it difficult to intervene in these affairs. Analysing how popular the regional assemblies are amongst their respective populations, would provide an interesting analysis of the legitimacy of these parliaments. A survey conducted in 2009 concluded that less than 10% of the population of Scotland and Wales supported a return to no devolved governance, and over half of the population in both nations supported more power for their respective assemblies. (Henderson. A, Jeffery. C, Wincott. D, 2013). This proves that the devolved parliaments are acting on the consent of the people. The fact that the regional assemblies are so well supported suggests that it would be too difficult for the central government to disband the regional assemblies. In this respect they could be considered to have reached to point of no return. Now that they have reached this stage, they surrender their ultimate control over the assemblies, in the sense that they cannot take back the powers that have been devolved, without a potentially dangerous backlash. These regional assemblies can now act even more independently in

the knowledge that it would be very difficult to have their powers taken away. They are now a fixture on the political landscape, and can only expect to see their political power grow. Bonney raises an interesting counter-point to the view that Britain is a now a federal state. This author argues that the state remains as strong as it has always been, and that regional assemblies are in fact agencies of the British government; working to supervise, and enforce central government legislation. Bonney also states that when a regional assembly looks to be creating a new law, it is in fact ‘a slightly tarnished version Westminster policy’ (Bonney, 2002, pg 136). This is a very radical view, and relatively unfounded in the respect that it disregards any of the legal autonomy devolved assemblies have, and would fail to explain the number of times that regional assemblies have diverted from Westminster policies. This author does have an argument however, in his view that the state is still a strong power throughout Britain. That regional assemblies have strong powers over devolved matters, does not retract from the fact that central government still has complete authority in a number of issues, such as defence policy and foreign affairs. In these issues, the government can still force policies upon the all the regions in Britain. The regional assemblies also remain dependent on central government for funding, receiving very little fiscal control in their respective regions. This argument proves that the central government still has the power to pull the whole of Britain in one direction, and still holds the power to control some of the policy areas that are most essential to the state structure, like foreign policy and economic policies. They retain the ability to force regional governments to follow the Westminster line, in order to create one united stance on that particular issue, a nationwide policy. However, this view does not necessarily go against the opinion that Britain is now a federal state, and some may interpret it as supporting this opinion. The fact that central government is still strong enough to intervene in national policy decisions, but allows localised parliaments to take control over local issues, like education and transport, actually falls perfectly in line with the Oxford definition of a federalised state. It allows the regional assemblies autonomy over their own affairs, whilst retaining enough control to guarantee unity on national policy. The nature of English governance at the moment is the main argument against a federal British state. Deacon points out that over the last few decades there has been a slight trend of growing English devolution, with the conception of regional development agencies and urban-developmentcorporations, and more recently London mayoral elections (Deacon, 2010). The devolution of England, however, is insignificant in comparison to Scottish or Welsh devolution. England remains under the full control of central government, as it lacks a regional assembly. As mentioned above, the UK ministers for devolved matters like health, are effectively ministers for England on those matters. Westminster controls all the levers on the policy making machine for the English population. This has led to some MPs asking the West Lothian question. That is, what right Welsh and Scottish MPs have to vote on matters that would otherwise have been devolved to an English parliament, when English MPs have no right to vote on similar Welsh and Scottish matters? This question originates from the uneven nature of devolution on Britain, and the lack of a parliament for England. It is also true that the west-Lothian question is not being asked very loudly, and that there lacks popular support amongst the population for an English parliament, or regional parliaments within England. This is evident in the rejection of a northern eastern assembly via a referendum in 2004, by an overwhelming 78% (Electoral Commission, 2005). This contradicts the definition of Britain as a federal state. Although there is a vast majority of English MPs in the House of Commons which means that an English majority is a certainty in the voting process, England is not in full control of its affairs, as Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote on the region’s matters. Therefore the central government must vote on all English policy decisions, including ones that would have been devolved in Scotland or Wales. For Britain to be a fully federal state, then England would need its own parliament, as it would need to have full control over its own affairs.

In conclusion this author believes that Britain is not a federal state. It is true that devolution has weakened central government’s powers over regions like Wales and Scotland, and it is also true that these regions now have relative autonomy over devolved matters. But this does not make Britain a federal state. The central government still has great power over the regions, especially in financial terms, and England remains under sole control of central government. The fact that England has very little autonomy over its matters is the ultimate contradiction of the federal definition. However, this is not to say that Britain will not become a federal state in the future. Since the referendum on Scottish independence there have been numerous moves for further devolution throughout Britain. The cities and local government devolution bill, which is currently going through the houses of parliament, plans to give extended powers to towns and cities in England, a move that will undoubtedly kick-start further devolution within England. In Scotland the SNP have gained the vast majority of parliamentary seats available, and it will be very difficult for Westminster to resist their calls for further devolution. Perhaps it won’t be long before Britain is a federal state.

Bibliography;

BBC News, (2013), What Powers Does Scotland Have?, BBC News, (available http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20314150 (accessed 14/11/15) Bonny.N, (2002), Scottish Devolution, What Lies Beneath?, The Political Quarterly, 73, 135-143 Deacon.R, (2010), Politics UK. 7th edition. Pg 226-244, Pearson Education Henderson. A, Jeffery. C, Wincott. D, (2013), Citizenship After the Nation State, Palgrave Macmillian, (data from survey accessed via; Jones. R.W, Scully.R, (2011), Developments in British Politics 9, pg 124 Palgrave Macmillan) Jones. R.W, Scully.R, (2011), Developments in British Politics 9, pg 113-129 Palgrave Macmillan Owen. P, (2007), What Powers does the Welsh Assembly Have?, The Guardian, (available http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jul/16/wales.devolution (accessed 14/11/15)) Oxforddictoraries.com, Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, available (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/federal (accessed 15/11/15)) Parliament.uk, (2015), What is the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill 2015?, Paliment.uk, (available; http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-andoffices/offices/commons/commonslibrary/commons-library-news/cities-local-govt-devolution-bill/ (accessed 21/11/15)) The Electoral Commission, (2005), The 2004 North East regional assembly and local government referendums, The electoral Commission, (available http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/76994/NEreffullreport.pdf (accessed 15/11/15))

Joe Speller Josephine Butler College ID- 0005943384...