MUSCALAR FEDERALISM

Perhaps I am slightly more cynical than Henry Hill (“Putting Muscle Behind The Union”, November 2021) when I suggest that Labour’s real motivation behind devolution in Scotland was self-interest rather than anything pertaining to the wishes of the people of Scotland.

It was a “two-for-one”: 1) set up a new institution in which Labour would have a plurality — if not majority — of the seats, with all the patronage that this might bring; and 2) use this to assuage the anti-English voters in Scotland such that they would continue to return plenty of Labour MPs to Westminster, without which the party might struggle to form a majority.

How things have changed: in 2001, Scottish Labour could boast over 110 MPs or MSPs; today they have just 22 MSPs and a sole MP who clearly has a personal following in Edinburgh South. Arrogantly, they never considered to whom they might lose in Scotland, nor did they anticipate being reduced to third place in their former heartlands.

However, this hubristic failure in New Labour constitutional policy has major repercussions for all of us in these islands who identify as British. If devolution was advocated on grounds of strengthening the Union, then it has failed categorically: it is now surely time to revisit the settlements across the country.

My personal preference would be a federal model based on the principle that the UK Government holds consistent and identical powers throughout all of its domain. Anything that is devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff must therefore in England be devolved to the counties and cities, with these sitting on an equal basis with the devolved assemblies.

This is surely more equitable that the “four nations” approach that requires the Prime Minister to be both player and referee. There might even be a mechanism by which Scottish or Welsh councils could opt out of the remit of the devolved administrations to be treated in the same manner as top-level English councils.

Jonathan Galbraith

Rugby, Warwickshire