Jack Straw Interview - England would lose from end of Union

Joe Middleton · Jack Straw Interview - England would lose from end of Union

This is from an interview on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

Question from Stephen, London: As Leader of the Commons, how can having two Scottish MPs as the front runners for PM be democratic? Powers for most agencies including health, education etc have been devolved in Scotland, yet Mr Reid or Mr Brown would set the agenda for solely English matters when they represent Scottish constituencies.

Jack Straw: English MPs control all the money which Scotland receives - is that 'fair'? England constitutes 85% of the UK's population and 87% of its wealth. It was English MPs who agreed to devolve some powers to Scotland in a Westminster Act of Parliament; but year by year controls over public spending levels for all of the UK continue to be exercised by Westminster. And power devolved is power retained, not ceded.

While the current Tory cry of "English votes on English laws" has a simplistic appeal, it is in reality unworkable, undesirable and dangerous. It would create a two-tier system of "ins and outs" that would be so complex and confusing as to be unworkable.

How is it possible, for example, to distinguish between English "bits" of legislation and UK "bits"? It isn't. The territorial extent of the clause in a bill - or part of a clause - cannot be conclusive, as so many "England only" decisions have plain implications for Scotland as well.

Hence, Vernon Bogdanor, perhaps the foremost constitutional expert in Britain, has claimed that the Tory proposals would "destroy the principle of collective responsibility, according to which government must stand or fall as a whole, commanding a majority on all the issues that come before Parliament, not just a selection. It is difficult to see how Britain could be effectively governed in such circumstances."

Moreover, it is difficult to see how the UK could remain united. The outcome of a break-up of the union would be calamitous.

The United Kingdom - Great Britain and Northern Ireland - is a union which works to the equal benefit of all four nations of the union. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide.

And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

Our [England's] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN. [security council]

---------------------

[Straws remarks reveal the truth. Firstly the British union then and now is a device for amplifying English power and without that union England's position will be substantially undermined internationally. Secondly Scotland and Wales voices in the UN and EU must remain silent to allow England to have a larger international role than it actually deserves. JOE]

garye

As you say Joe that reply reveals alot.

Avatar

Well we knew it all along - but its nice to have it confirmed - of course I doubt this will get the huge amount of publicity that cardinal O'brien got.

Economist

I'm not quite sure what to make of it, to be honest. Certainly, by far and away the principal reason for the union, in the first place was to secure and guarantee English Security and hegemony (no amount of historical revisionism will ever alter this fundamental fact).

If the UK were to completely break up (and by that I mean all the 4 constituent parts going their own way- not just Scotland leaving and the other 3 forming a new union) his comments may be true. It is perfectly possible that countries round the world may object to England taking the place of the UK for a permanent seat on the Security Council. France, Germany, Japan and Brazil would probably be the main agitators of this. The last 3 nations would like a permanent seat on the UNSC and may clearly use any basis for change

As for the EU, of course many in the EU would like to see the iron grip the UK has over it lessened. England would no doubt lose in this. It would slip from being nominally the 2nd largest member - in terms of economic size (as part of the UK) to fourth under Italy - a pretty big drop for a powerful nation - but then would an independent England be in the EU given public opinion on it there?

Economically very little will change for England. The economic benefits to them will be outweighed by the costs of separation, and precious little will change on that score. I'm pretty sure England would remain in the G8, I mean Canada is and it is smaller than England in terms of influence, power and economic size.

It really is up to the rest of the world how they take the nations of the UK after independence.

Although the cynic in me is beginning to wonder if the call for a "New Union" whereby foreign and defence affairs are controlled by London - but everything else is devolved to Scotland is part of this recognition of a diminished "power" after independence (whether that be a new UK or an independent England). As I've said before, I think that the biggest discernable impact to the rest of the UK upon Scottish independence will be in defence and diplomatic (rather than economic) terms.

Avatar

Surely after the act of union is repealed the UK will no longer exist - and we would have a Kingdom of Scotland (initially anyway) along with the kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland? The part that intrigues me is where he says "We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables" - to me that seems a bit of a bizarre thing to say for a unionist - hes basically admitting that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK right?

Maol.Chaluim

Avatar

"That's about the only Unoinist, em, "argument" that doesn't involve ridiculous scaremongering."

Its not even always true. Take a pasta and ice cream sandwich for example.

Scott2006

Jack Straw quotes the line advanced by Enoch Powell, "and power devolved is power retained".

The English, if Straw is a good example, are more concerned with losing some GDP than anything else. A poor excuse for a reason to avoid independence.

Scotland's 8-9% of UK GDP is not going to nose dive if Scotland gets Independence. If instability was minimised successfully then a newer and better arrangement with England would most likely improve growth of the Scottish Economy.

England: 85% of UK population; 87% of UK GDP; this means that England, according to Straw, subsidises the rest of the United Kingdom. That still doesn't sound like a good enough statement to negate a call for complete independence.

Maol.Chaluim

He later contradicts that by claiming that Scottish independence would cause a drop in the rUK's GDP...

Scott2006

neil8r

in regards the whole GDP thing, surely the only figure truly looked at as any kind of real indication is the GDP per capita?

Also could he prove that 87% of the UK's wealth comes from England Rolling Eyes

FALSYDE

I don't mean to be rude but there are several 'tricks' being missed here in relation to Jack Straw's interview,

e.g. [a] Very little would change ------- oh yes it would. Just where does anyone think the economic resources will come from for England post Scots resumption of sovereignty? The current financing of England's over reach geopolitically and militarily is the major proportion of Oil/Gas tax revenues. That coupled with a higher per head of population of Scotlands military recruitment would leave them even more severely stretched for man power. Where do you think the money will come from for Mark 2 Trident?

e.g. [b] The drop in GDP will not be proportionate to the pro rata population but to revenue, sales and taxation. Here Oil and Gas rears England's achilles heel. We may well on a population basis be 8.5% of UK's but the revenue stream is NOT the same equation gentlemen.

e.g. [c] Assuming either we stay in the EU a la SNP policy, or we exit a la SEP policy, either of which will impact on the remaining 'balance' of the UK's influence. You may safely assume it will diminish on either option and be seriously worse under the SEP option because we would immediately resume Scottish fisheries and that asset was pledged as collateral by Ted Heath for the UK's entry negotiations, remove it and the rest of the EU is going to be seriously pissed and most disinclined to 'accomodate' the UK on a whole range of issues.

The SNP, with whom we would prefer not to be in conflcit with as fellow nationalists, however in policy terms their grasp of international negotiations is at best niave because their take is that they can enter the EU AND RESUME fisheries. The major problem with that is the others will not agree, they will be out voted and there is nothing else to offer instead. What will they do then....... offer our oil or gas? The simple fact is, Scotland in the EU will continue to forfit £950+ million annually from fisheries, if we want that back we have no alternative but to leave the EU. There are several other good additional reasons for quiting but that's not the subject here. England will be so humped by the loss of their remaining "nearabroad" colony they would vote with the other members out of picque.

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Verily indeed.

Avatar

"Assuming either we stay in the EU a la SNP policy, or we exit a la SEP policy, either of which will impact on the remaining 'balance' of the UK's influence. You may safely assume it will diminish on either option and be seriously worse under the SEP option because we would immediately resume Scottish fisheries and that asset was pledged as collateral by Ted Heath for the UK's entry negotiations, remove it and the rest of the EU is going to be seriously pissed and most disinclined to 'accomodate' the UK on a whole range of issues.

The SNP, with whom we would prefer not to be in conflcit with as fellow nationalists, however in policy terms their grasp of international negotiations is at best niave because their take is that they can enter the EU AND RESUME fisheries. The major problem with that is the others will not agree, they will be out voted and there is nothing else to offer instead. What will they do then....... offer our oil or gas? The simple fact is, Scotland in the EU will continue to forfit £950+ million annually from fisheries, if we want that back we have no alternative but to leave the EU. There are several other good additional reasons for quiting but that's not the subject here. England will be so humped by the loss of their remaining "nearabroad" colony they would vote with the other members out of picque. "

I agree, I dont particularaly find the SNP's idea that fisheries will be somehow better in an independant Scotland convincing. Especially considering this latest development that we're going to run out of fish in 40 years - I dont know how much scare mongering is involved in that estimate but it seems pretty extreme. How seriously is everone taking this "running out of fish" malarky anyway?

neil8r

Niall

neil8r

Niall

IF Convenor

And the Swiss fishery has disappeared! Wink

FALSYDE

Money aside, I ommitted a dire 'other' consequence to my shame, namely the destruction of communities, social fabric, bankruptcies, etc, etc.

Having been a life long nationalist and until '04 an SNP supporter I am incensed by the SNP's lack of scientific and financial rigour in relation to some of their policies. It is all very well and good spouting glib sound bite phrases as they have the last 2 decades but the voters are way wiser and more educated now to be convinced by rhetoric, they need, expect and demand rational truth even with warts on. The lack of this political integrity is and has been the engine driving force for those half of the population who agree with independence but are not engaged sufficient to vote. We are NEVER going to get out of this pile of s**t of a Union unless and until they can be persueded to do so.

Speaking personally, I am run ragged as the Co-ordinator for the SEP in fielding and responding to questions and queries from Tory refugees, SNP refugees, LIBDEM refugees, and the apparent uncommitted as well as from oversees, e.g. a Canadian organisation as recently as this morning. The good will is there, the motivation is there but the leadership seems not yet connected which is why we do what we do, the way we do it and why, time and again, I raise with posters here the need to stop quarreling amongst ourselves, and I am willing to admit at times to being less than perfect, but we MUST work together. We all know, or damned well should be aware if nothing else that London, in various forms, is seriosly shitting themselves because they know full well were we ever to get our act together an co-operate then its a done deal.

Niall

IF Convenor

Ah, so it's only their deep sea fishery that's in trouble then! Very Happy

Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Blackleaf

macnumpty

No, that's simplistic logic: you're assuming identical economic indicators and productivity levels across the UK.

Blackleaf

According to Wikipedia -

Total GDP

England - $1.2 trillon (population - 50.5 million)

Scotland - $130 billion (5.09 million)

Wales - $48 billion (Wales - 2.95 million)

Northern Ireland - $33.2 billion (1.71 million)

That 1.2 trillion of England takes up a fairly large chunk of the approximate 2 trillion of the total UK GDP.

wikipedia.org

Blackleaf

macnumpty

Then the contribution still isn't 85%. Wink

FALSYDE

Oh dear oh dear,
A southern ariveste with limited knowledge on the subject and even less on economics.
Before allocating or stripping out numbers based on crude GDP, itself a self serving justification to maintain the Union, try stripping out the Scottish Oil and Gas revenues for the last thirty + years, then add in the £950-1,000 million annual loss [effectively subsidy by Scotland] for Fisheries sacrificed by Ted of the Heath to gain access to the EU hardly surprising from a man who came parlously close to being revealed as an agent for another power before conveniently having his terminal heart attack. Ted had a history going way, way back, with eastern Europe but heh one mustn't speak ill of the dead.

For the benefit of our new arrival, Scotland and the Scots have been shafted by "our neighbours" for quite some time, the Union for anyone who knows the slightest bit about early European Geopolitical history was England's insurance policy whilest facing down her continental adversaries as well as her stroppy American colonies. She did not want to have to piss in three pots at once therefor neutralising Scotland by way of a political union was one way to do so.

The bonus was the employing our inate Celtic military 'expertise' in order to scour the world for new colonial opportunities, let me reprise that old saw, "England colonised the world, we Scots civilised it" e.g. England invented the lavatory seat but owing to our cautious use of resources and early environmental awareness we cut a hole out of the middle of it and in one swift move invented the bread board.

You do have a bread board at home don't you?

Cado

I had a skim through the Question Time text. I read that as an attempt by Jack Straw to soften the way for a GB accession. ie - "kick out the Scots, and they go independent, then you become English and we all know that that means t**t all in the long term, we'll find it harder to invade on impulse alone".

ie saying, let GB in - or you become English. what irony!!....that a Scot may save a Britisher from their worst nightmare..becoming English.

Others no doubt happily relish this thought.

Joe Middleton

What they are really worried about is a decline in England's position after Scottish independence ie the loss of 'their' seat in the security council and 'their' place in the G8.

Scotland and Wales must stay silent internationally so glorious England can enjoy inflated international status that it doesn't deserve. Aye right!