|
 |
|
|
Report“Options Short of Independence: Pushing the boundaries in Scotland and Quebec” A report on a Constitution Unit public seminar on 25 June 2007 At a topical seminar at the Constitution Unit on 25 June, academic experts from either side of the Atlantic discussed recent political events and potential future constitutional developments in Scotland and 25 January, 2008 rs, including new minority governments; nationalist parties which – according to the main seminar speakers – are no longer dominated by fundamentalists; and serious problems of co-ordination between their respective governments and the central governments in London and Ottawa. Quebec: Professor Guy Laforest Prof Laforest said he was speaking at a time of great political uncertainty in Canada. In Ottawa, the federal government has been a minority administration since January 2006 under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And Quebec has its first minority government since 1878, following the Quebec general election of March 2007 at which the incumbent Liberal administration lost 26 of its 84 seats and its overall majority but managed to remain in office. The real winners in the election were Prof Laforest’s party Action Democratique du Québec (ADQ), while the separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) – which held and lost two referenda on seceding from Canada while in power in the 1980s and 90s – fell back to third place. Commentators hold that Quebecers have since been suffering from “secession fatigue,” which contributed to the PQ’s relatively poor performance in March. Prof Laforest argued that English-speaking Canada does not take federalism seriously enough, its intellectuals – honourable exceptions such as Ron Watts notwithstanding – having moved away from interest in federalism to issues such as multiculturalism and native rights. As PM however, Harper has demonstrated a real interest, developing a narrative of “open federalism” and pushing important boundaries, particularly at the symbolic level with the parliamentary resolution recognising Quebec as a nation within Canada. Prof Laforest described the constitutional artifice of Canada as a three-tier construction with the British colonial heritage representing the “sous-sol” or basement, the 1867 federal constitution representing the ground floor, and more recent developments such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 built on top of this on the first floor. The Charter was described as both an instrument for delivering justice and also an element of a “nation-building” agenda, to shore up the federation against separatist challenges. The later constitutional projects, however, built upon rather than superseded the old, with Canada developing in an incremental fashion “á la Britannique”. As a result, the system of co-ordination between federal and provincial governments owes much to informal mechanisms established in the colonial era. In Prof Laforest’s view, the co-ordination mechanisms are wholly unfit for purpose and offer a lesson for the UK only in terms of what to avoid. Other lessons from ‘outre-atlantique’ include the “PQ dilemma” that may now face the SNP. A nationalist party making a success of their time in government under present systems could prompt voters to ask “why change the system?” On the other hand, failure would see it thrown out of office. And as a Scot taking charge of the government of the UK, Gordon Brown will face a dual identity challenge familiar to former Quebecois prime ministers of Canada in having to demonstrate loyalty to two nations at the same time. Scotland: Professor James Mitchell On the current political situation in Scotland, Professor Mitchell’s presentation offered an alternative view to that given recently by Peter Jones, one of the Constitution Unit’s honorary senior research fellows. In Prof Mitchell’s view, since the formation of the minority SNP Executive in May, it has been London not the SNP that has been confrontational, as evidenced by the failure of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to speak to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond after the election. Differences of opinion over issues such as nuclear power and Trident are not a disaster but rather were predictable and predicted. The problem is that intergovernmental mechanisms for resolving these differences either do not exist or are not used. Hence the irony of Alex Salmond calling for the resumption of meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee, established in 1999 to strengthen the Union. Years ago, Prof Mitchell had himself coined the terms “fundamentalist” and “gradualist” to describe the essential tensions inside the SNP. But the “pragmatic” SNP of today is a very different beast, even if it not exactly committed to a programme of constitutional reform “á la Britannique”. The devolution debate is over, won by the gradualists, and those terms should now be buried, along with the absolutist concept of “sovereignty”, which dominates too much constitutional discourse. In the SNP there has been some talk of creating a “new Union”. In this context the SNPs pledge to hold an independence referendum can be interpreted as a way to avoid the difficult realities of complete secession from the UK since the party knows it cannot win any such poll. As for more feasible future constitutional developments – or “devolution and its evolution” – Prof Mitchell noted that there is no such thing as the “settled will” of the Scottish people. He painted a picture of a political nation in flux with Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Democrats engaging seriously with debates on the possible shape of a new constitutional settlement and only Labour refusing to address the issues. A second Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) would represent one possible path to reform though without a supportive majority at Westminster the reformist agenda could well run into the sand. Prof Mitchell described as anomalous the fact that even aspects of the Scottish Parliament’s internal arrangements such as the number of deputy presiding officers and the 28-day limit for forming an Executive can only be amended at Westminster. He also suggested that anomalies of the UK-wide territorial constitution such as the Barnett formula and the West Lothian question should be tackled. The latter may require a further reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. Pressure to deal with these anomalies failed in the past because devolution was not introduced consensually. It was steamrollered through Westminster, ignoring the Conservatives. Failure in future to pay attention to the Conservatives will lead to instability. Brian Walker & Akash Paun
This page last modified 25 January, 2008 by v.spence@ucl.ac.uk |
|
|
