STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL
According to the media report the British Prime Minister has taken the view that the referendum result on this question would be binding provided that it is held within the next 18 months. This might be a fatal mistake which could result in the dismemberment of the United Kingdom affecting the well-being of the nation (including its economic prosperity). The First Minister of Scotland is prepared to opt for any other solution falling short of independence for Scotland in the referendum questions. Presumably that could include the federal option. Now the country faces the prospect of a referendum on the question of the break up of the United Kingdom. In this context I am advocating a federal option. The proposal is based on my book entitled “A Federal Constitution for the United Kingdom-An Alternative to Devolution” (Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1997). The book proposes the establishment of the United Kingdom Federation consisting of three units plus federally administered territories,viz.
1. England including Wales (Wales could be an administrative unit within England. Wales could not be a separate federating unit because all the federating units have to be economically viable. Wales on its own would not constitute a viable federating unit economically.)
2. Scotland, and
3. a re-united Ireland.
The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will retain, under the status of federally administered territories, their existing autonomy. The capitals of England, Scotland and re-united Ireland as the federating units would be Warwick, Edinburgh and Dublin respectively, London being the federal capital. The book seeks to construct a federal model that will confer the maximum autonomy on the federating units including a role in foreign affairs, membership of The United Nations, where appropriate, the European Union and the Council of Europe. THIS IS LIKELY TO SATISFY THE NATIONALIST SENTIMENT AND THE DEMANDS OF THE FEDERATING UNITS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING THE UNITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
The book is available in the library of the House of Lords. Should further copies be required, the publisher could be persuaded to produce extra copies with adequate financial incentives.
THE IRISH DIMENSION
The process of bringing about devolution in Northern Ireland encountered an impasse over decommissioning terrorist arms in the recent history of Northern Ireland. That was due to an underlying issue. The issue was this. The Unionists wanted peace on the basis of status quo. i.e. no change in the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand the Nationalists were prepared to end the violence only on the basis of a change in the status quo.i.e. the re-unification of Ireland. Although devolution has come about in Northern Ireland, there has been no change in the position adopted by the Unionists and the Nationalists on the question of future settlement of the conflict in Ireland involving both the North and South. It appears that there is no room for compromise between the Nationalists and the Unionists on this issue. Therefore political impasse over the final solution to the conflict remains. This calls for an alternative approach which could be the federal option as proposed in my book entitled “A Federal Constitution for the United Kingdom-An alternative to Devolution” (Ashgate/Dartmouth 1997)”.
A re-united Ireland as part of a federal United Kingdom, retaining its membership of the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe and a role in foreign affairs is likely to meet the Nationalists’ demands. The federal option would permit Northern Ireland to stay within the United Kingdom and could provide effective guarantees of the Protestants’ rights in a re-united Ireland and make provisions for their meaningful role in the mainstream of life both in the Irish and in the federal British context. This is likely to be acceptable to the Unionists. Consequently the federal option as proposed in the above book of mine has the potential of meeting the fundamental demands of both sides to provide a basis for the settlement of the Irish problem.
REGIONAL DISPARITIES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM FEDERATION
In all the leading federations of the world and the questions of Regional disparities between the federating units present a serious challenge. I have stated in my book as afore-mentioned, at page 124.
“The problem that we seek to deal with in this chapter is that of Regional disparities in that some units of the federations are economically backward or underdeveloped in relation to others. This adversely affects employment prospects, standards of living, budgetary resource of the Regional government and opportunities for the people of the backward units generally. Such disparities give rise to nationality problems and pose threats to the unity of the country. This is the problem that caused civil war in the U.S.A., threat of secession in Australia and Canada and dismemberment of many new federations. Thus Pakistan was dismembered because of regional disparities in East Pakistan. This is the reason why the nationality problem is threatening the unity of the United Kingdom. It explains why the separatist movement is gathering strength in Scotland. This is also the root of the Irish problem. Exceptionally high rate of unemployment, appalling housing conditions, inadequate amenities in the urban centres, lack of prospects for the younger generation and economic backwardness generally provide fertile grounds for breeding of communal hatred, bigotry and political intransigence on the part of various groups in Northern Ireland that defy any solution.”
This calls for measures to deal with the problem. At pp 130-135 of the above book I have stated as follows:
Fazal Proposal on Regional Disparity
“In our proposed United Kingdom Federation, Scotland and (re-united Ireland) would be the backward states in relation to England (including Wales). Our proposal ,for the removal of disparity between different units of the federation is as follows: Rapid economic development of Scotland and Ireland is to be undertaken on such a scale that by the end of 10 years from the commencement of the federation the proportion of the gross domestic product of England (including Wales), Scotland and (united) Ireland will roughly correspond with that of their geographical size. This means that by the end of the 10 year period the gross domestic product of Scotland will be about one third of the total ,that of re-united Ireland will be just over one third of the total; that of England (including Wales) will be just under one half of the total.”
“... The resources for the development of Scotland and Ireland will come from a fund of the ‘Distributable Pool’ which will consist of the following items: (i) 75% of the total oil revenue of the United Kingdom origin; (ii) a fixed percentage of taxes on natural gas and V.A.T.; (iii) borrowing on the security of shared taxes – borrowing to be repaid out of oil and gas revenue ; (iv) a fixed percentage of tax on land value in Scotland and Ireland (which will go up rapidly as a result of the development of those Regions).
“At present the main criticism of a United Kingdom federation is that England is too powerful to be just one of the units in a federal scheme. If our proposal of regional equalisation is implemented a balance would be established between England (including Wales), Scotland and Ireland to make it a viable federation.”
FEDERAL DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
The actual mechanic of distribution of powers and functions between the federal government and the federating units is discussed in Chapter 7 of this book. At pp 148-150 of the book, I have stated as follows:
“The distribution of powers and functions between the Commonwealth and the states of the United Kingdom Federation would be dictated by the choice of the federal model. Our chosen model is that of specified powers for the Centre and the residue for the Regions. Furthermore it will carry with it the division of economic power so that the Regions will have power to develop their own resources and industries and this will remove the regional backwardness and disparity. We will try to reconcile this principle of the division of economic power with another principle, viz. the ability of the Centre to manage the economy; this is similar to the Canadian model where the Dominion has the extensive regulatory power over economic activities through its jurisdiction over currency and coinage (B.N.A. Act 186.S.91 (14); banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money (S.91 (15)); savings banks (S.91 (16)) bills of exchange and promissory notes (S.91 (18)); interest (S.91 (19)); legal tender (S.91 (20)); weights and measures (S.91 (17)); bankruptcy and insolvency (S.91 (21)); patents of invention and discovery(S.91 (22)); copyrights (S.91 (23)); and criminal law (S.91 (27)) which has been used to regulate mergers, monopolies and restrictive practices. On the other hand the Provinces enjoy considerable economic power through the jurisdiction over proprietary rights and over natural resources (S91 (5)); property and civil rights within the Provinces (S.92 (13)); the incorporation of companies with provincial objects (S.92(11)); generally all matters of local or private nature within the Provinces (S.92 (16)); local works and undertakings with some exceptions (S.92 (10)); and the right to issue licences (S.92 (9)).”
“While we are not advocating the particular technique (…by specifying both provincial and federal list of subjects) adopted in the Canadian Constitution Act for dividing functions and powers, the Canadian model is of interest to us because it seeks to combine federal management to the Centre, with the division of economic power. In conformity with our chosen model we will assign to the Commonwealth matters that are normally appropriate to the Centre under a federal system plus the tools of economic management.. This would mean establishing federal jurisdiction over foreign affairs, defence, currency, banking, credit…If the Federal Government wants to deflate or reflate the economy or control prices or incomes this could be achieved not by direct legislation (aimed at the States’ undertakings) but by fiscal (taxation), monetary and credit policies. If the Federal Government wants to control consumption and public expenditure this would have to be done by way of co-operation with the States (private consumption could be controlled by the Centre by means of economic tools available to it)”
“Divisions of economic power would mean federal control over inter-state and international (or multinational) concerns and the States’ control over undertakings confined within the boundaries of state. If the existing nationalised industries (such as those dealing with gas, coal, electricity etc) are unwilling to provide their services to the states’ undertakings it would be within the competence of the states to set up those bodies for their own purposes. The states would have the power not only to set up statutory corporations but also to make laws in relation to the incorporation of companies with objects limited to the states, i.e. to incorporate state companies. Federal companies (i.e. those created under federal laws and operating on inter-state basis) would be subject to the laws of the states of general application (such as laws imposing taxes , licences relating to mortmain or as to forms of contact) but the states would not be permitted to impair the status or capacity of the federal companies nor to prevent them from exercising powers conferred on them by federal legislation. Any of the existing nationalised industries (other than those which relate to the specific federal subjects such as defence, currency etc.) which is confined in its operations within England, Scotland or Ireland would be transferred under the Constitution to the State concerned. This would enable the States to develop their industries and resources, free from federal interference. The States would have, under the Constitution, proprietary rights over the natural resources of the State and a fair amount of regulatory power over the economic activities within a state. Possible criticisms of our model would be (a) that it would cause friction between the Commonwealth and the states; (b) that it would induce overlapping of services between the governments; (c) that it would hinder effective governmental action in dealing with economic problems; (d) that there would be lack of uniformity of returns required from companies doing business in several States; (e) that government costs would be increased by duplication of work of examining and checking these returns; (f) that the cost of compliance by the companies with a number of differing statues would be large and that annoyance would be caused by investigation and audit by officials representing several jurisdictions. We accept the validity of some of these criticisms. However most of these difficulties could be overcome by means of federal-state co-operations. As for instance it would be possible to adopt a common return on which all information requested by any government could be tabulated…This is why we advocate adoption of the model of collaboration between Bund and Länder in Germany”.
HOW TO INTEGRATE THE QUESTION OF A FEDERAL OPTION INTO THE REFERENDUM DEBATE
The question is: How can this proposal for the federal option as contained in my book entitled 'A Federal Constitution for the United Kingdom - An Alternative to Devolution' (Ashgate/Dartmouth 1997, available in the library of the House of Lords) and in this article be integrated into the debate surrounding the 18 September 2014 referendum on Scottish independence?
The answer to this question could be pursued along the following lines: The rejection of independence for Scotland by the voters in the referendum need not result in the status quo if it is followed by the adoption of this proposal for the federal option. The status of Scotland as part of a UK federation would be considerably enhanced. I seek to construct a federal model in my book that would confer the maximum autonomy on the federating units, including a role in foreign affairs, membership of the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe. In other words, under my proposal, Scotland will get what it wants whilst remaining a part of the United Kingdom.
This would be coupled with effective measures to bring about rapid economic development of Scotland. Thus, at pp. 130-135 of the book, it is stated:
"Fazal proposal on Regional Disparity
In our proposed United Kingdom federation, Scotland and (re-united) Ireland would be the economically weaker federal states in relation to England (including Wales). Our proposal for removal of disparity between different units of the federation is as follows: Rapid economic development of Scotland and Ireland is to be undertaken on such a scale that by the end of ten years from the commencement of the federation the proportion of gross domestic product of England (including Wales), Scotland and (united) Ireland will roughly correspond to that of their geographical size. This means that by the end of the ten-year period the gross domestic product of Scotland will be about one third of the total; that of re-united Ireland will be just over one third of the total; that of England (including Wales) will be just under one half of the total."
If the federal option is accepted as part of the referendum debate, this prospect of Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom Federation ought to be presented to the voters.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
My proposal for a federal constitution will provide the answer to the question as to how to solve the problem of non-English MPs including the Scottish MPs voting on English issues in Parliament. Under my proposed federal constitution, England as a federal unit will have its own parliament in Warwick, where English MPs will be deciding on English issues, while the federal parliament in London will be deciding on matters that are within federal jurisdiction. There will be a clear dividing line between the federal and regional jurisdictions. Non-English MPs will be voting on matters that are within the federal jurisdiction, but will not be voting on English issues.
As the question of Scottish independence gathers momentum, might I urge the Government and the political parties to promote public discussion on the federal proposals of this book which has also its Irish dimension for establishing peace and security both in the mainland of Great Britain and in the north and south of Ireland. This adds to the importance of the proposals of this book.
