Who looked for "the 75%"?

Today is the 20th anniversary of the Welsh devolution referendum. Today Welsh devolution seems fully entrenched, with calls for abolition limited to the margins - Ukip were the last significant party to oppose devolution and they ditched that several years back. Last year a group called Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party/Plaid Diddymu Cynulliad Cymru took less than 5% of the vote. Whatever the debate over the detail of powers, devolution looks set to stay.

But devolution wasn't always so popular.

Back in 1997 the referendum passed by just 6721 votes. On a turnout of 50.22%, 50.3% of voters voted for the assembly. This is, I think, the narrowest margin of victory in a referendum ever in the history of the UK.

There are many parallels to the more recent Brexit referendum. A narrow margin of victory. Disagreement about the franchise used for the referendum (it used the local government franchise rather than the Westminster). Dissatisfaction about the timing of the vote (particularly holding it a week after the Scottish vote in the seeming hope of harnessing momentum to encourage a yes vote). A belief the campaigning was one sided with the government of the day promoting their view. Fear that the outcome would inadvertently lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. And so on.

But at the time very little of this meaningfully manifested after the vote. Some of the controversies had arisen during the passage of the legislation to hold the referendums, but the government of the day was highly dismissive and frequently just pointed to its recent election victory as meaning critics should just shut up. The main controversy about the resource imbalance of the campaigns came over a year later when Lord Neill of Bladen's report into political funding said that "a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome". (12.32 - a PDF of the full report: The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom.)

Notably there was no great attempt after the vote to set it aside. Nobody talked of "the 50%" or "the 75%" or even "the 81%" who hadn't voted for it. The media did not search for regretful voters to hold up as "proof" the mandate had lapsed. There were no noticeable cries of "advisory" or appeals for Parliament to disregard the outcome. When the Neill report came out a year later there was only a minor flurry about its findings and no overturning of the Government of Wales Act, which was already on the statute book.

The odd voice was raised in objection but was invariably dismissed with reference to the democratic outcome. Demands to rethink or review were dismissed. In this regard, it should be unsurprising that more recent referendums have seen much the same attitude after the event.

What is the Westminster Parliament?

I'm sure some of you have rather blunt answers.

But the question of just what Westminster is lies at the heart of much of the debate about devolution and non-devolution. And the answer affects proposals for tackling the problems caused by devolution.

This applies as much to the House of Lords as much as the House of Commons. The Lords rarely gets a look-in when it comes to the West Lothian Question but if anything it presents even more challenges than the Commons. (And simply waiting for Lords reform is an unrealistic solution; besides some of the proposed alternatives present the same problems.)

Fundamentally the question boils down to whether the Westminster Parliament and Government are there to serve:

• The United Kingdom as a whole albeit with various different packages of law making and services sub-contracted out for certain parts of the country?

Or

• The United Kingdom as a "federal" entity plus England as a "state" entity all mixed in together with various other bits that are devolved to some but not all nations?

The answer is probably, in that typical British fashion, somewhere between the two without much thought as to precisely which. But we now have a greater focus upon the anomalies. And without consensus on what we have at the moment it's hard to obtain consensus on whether change is needed and if so what to.

At present Westminster largely operates as a UK entity. It is much harder to surgically extract "English-only matters" than many cries suggest. Taxation is a UK-wide matter. Most government departments combine UK and English elements - for instance the Department of Health runs the English NHS but also does UK-wide work such as negotiations on international reciprocal use agreements. And the Barnett Formula that determines the funding for the devolved nations is based on spending in England. It would take a major overhaul of how Westminster is structured before one could start restricting the voting rights of some MPs.

There's also the basis that MPs are supposed to serve the whole country, not just their own constituency. This makes every single one of the 650 MPs "our MP", not just the one elected in the local constituency. This is even starker in the House of Lords where peers do not have constituencies and it's impossible to filter out any except perhaps the Bishops.

(And although you could assign the Bishops as "English" it would get messier to divide them up by regions. Only five sees have permanent places in the Lords and the other twenty-one are the most senior representing the Church of England as a whole rather than their individual dioceses. Plus many dioceses cross regional and local government boundaries.)

I'll just add that this part of the problem doesn't necessarily go away with Lords reform. A number of proposals for both appointed and elected upper houses include UK-wide members, whether appointed by Westminster or elected by some of the PR systems.

Now one could undertake a major restructuring within Westminster. But whilst that would make it easier to determine what is and isn't an "English-only matter" it would not address the basic problem of having different majorities on different matters. Could Westminster actually function if conflicting majorities within a single chamber start voting in direct contradiction? Could a minister with a joint English and UK ministry find themselves appointed by one majority and then immediately no confidenced by the other? If a separate English executive was elected by the English-only MPs (let's just leave for now the question of matters devolved to Scotland but not Wales) then you could get the First Minister of England serving also as the Leader of the Opposition of the United Kingdom. Conflict could reign supreme and non-English MPs could get shut out of contention for leadership roles.

What sounds like a simple elegant solution brings a whole minefield of problems with no easy resolution. A more lasting solution must leave each body with a single function, even if some asymmetrical arrangements have to be put in place.

How to make changes last?

No country benefits from having its constitutional affairs in flux. Uncertainty breeds instability which can lead to economic difficulties and social unrest. The approach must always be "Get it right, not get it first". And the outcome should be something that will last well beyond the next change of power.

But how to get change agreed and enacted can be harder than it seems. It is never possible to get everyone to agree 100%. There will always be cries of "what about...?" There is a risk that parties or groups will boycott the process and then spend years trying to undermine the outcome. Opinions can change. And so forth.

It's also critical to get public support for the process and outcomes - and that's the public at large not just the chattering classes of the left or the right. And this needs to be done in synthesis with the political classes - the system is there to represent and serve the public at large but those who have to operate it have to be comfortable to enable it to work.

Scotland's Constitutional Convention was an example of how things can work well and badly. It brought together parties and civic society to openly discuss the details of outcomes. It operated in public. It sought consensus rather than simple majorities. But it lacked input from outside Scotland and opened up problems in the process, both with the West Lothian Question but also because elements of the proposed Scottish Parliament were then copied wholesale for other parts of the United Kingdom. And two significant parties boycotted the Convention - the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party - so had no buy-in to the outcome.

A constitutional convention for the whole United Kingdom could address the basic questions of how to devolve power, how to grant equity to each part of the country and how to manage relations between areas. That could come up with a broad scheme that could be offered to the country. But it would need buy in by multiple players to be effective.

But then how to make it popular and lasting? Referendums are now an established part of our political system. Whatever their merits as a means to legislate they are the right tool to redistribute political power. If the public are to trust politicians again, the politicians must first demonstrate trust in the public.

Inevitably there will be problems along the way. There will be those complaining that the European Union, the monarchy, the House of Commons voting system, direct democracy or any number of other matters aren't being discussed. But you can't overload a convention to the point where nothing gets decided. Then there are the past referendums. To some voters it may seem as though they're being asked to vote again on something already decided in this generation. There are mixed mandates on devolution in England and a settlement will have to navigate these.

But at a broader level there are some basic questions to be grappled with. Including deciding just what the Westminster Parliament is...

Time for a constitutional convention?

Traditionally we've not bothered with form and consistency in this country. Our governance has been riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies. Sometimes they've even come in a single package - for instance when the Greater London Council was created, rather than take sides on removing education from the control of the outer boroughs or expanding it to the inner ones, the compromise was created whereby it was a borough matter in Outer London but in Inner London it was a GLC matter albeit subcontracted to a committee consisting of only the Inner London members. (When the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority were set up there was the question of how to devolve scrutiny of the Metropolitan Police, as their Area wasn't coterminous with Greater London. Initially the solution was to be a joint committee of London Assembly Members and relevant Home Counties MPs but the MPA boundary was realigned.)

And we do things piecemeal rather than as a whole. Local government in England is a bewildering patchwork, with different configurations of powers and election cycles that confuse even hardcore political anoraks. We bemoan low turnouts but how can voters grasp what the elections mean and when they'll take place when even the political classes are confused?

A similar approach was taken with devolution. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have different arrangements. England has nothing meaningful (to most voters a Mayor is a piece of local government not regional and the London Assembly invisible). Anomalies abound everywhere. And it's no longer possible to close some of Pandora's Boxes.

It's not just devolution. In many areas discussion is not joined up. Look at the House of Lords where debate is all about how members are selected and not about what they will do or how the chamber should interact with the Commons.

It is time for a comprehensive look at the distribution of power in this country and to find a settlement acceptable to the whole United Kingdom. But that may not be as easy as it sounds.

In future posts I'll look at some of the ways to do this and obstacles to navigate.

The final settlement for Wales?

An opinion poll has been published about opinions towards the constitutional set-up for Wales. (BBC News: Majority back law-making assembly) Whilst it seems doubtful that there will be a referendum just yet, the direction suggests opinion settling towards what could be the final settlement for Wales.

The figures are:

In favour of turning assembly into full law-making parliament: 52%
Against turning assembly into full law-making parliament: 39%
Don't know: 9%

And the breakdown:

Law-making Welsh parliament with tax powers in UK: 34%
Law-making Welsh parliament with no tax powers in UK: 10%
Independent Wales outside UK but in EU: 8%
Independent Wales outside UK and EU: 5%
Status quo: 21%
Abolish assembly 19%
Don't know: 4%

I don't know what is the bigger blow for Welsh separatists - only 13% supporting Wales leaving the UK or that figure being split between membership of the EU and Welsh independence. Another forlorn hope is anti-devolutionism. Just 19% want to abolish the Assembly. Those who still talk about "only 25% support" from the 1997 referendum have well and truly become Yesterday's Men.

The debate is now coming down to whether the Assembly should have legislative making powers or carry on as it is now. Anyone who wants to fight either the anti-devolutionist or separatist causes will be abdicating from the real debate.

At the moment I personally don't know where I stand on this one. So it's lucky I don't live in Wales! But if there is to be a referendum on legislative powers I think it is essential that the knock-on effects for Westminster are given due consideration beforehand, especially as options like cutting the number of MPs may be forthcoming and could prove decisive in a close referendum.

There must always be a voice in government singing Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

The latest piece of news about the reshuffle that I've heard is that the proposal to merge the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into a single "Secretary of State for the Nations" (so those three are and England isn't?!) has been put on hold for the time being. And here's hoping that it stays on hold forever.

Devolution may have reduced some of the workload for the posts, but there is one key role that each holds. They are the voice of the respective nations in government, lobbying for funds, projects and so forth. They are a voice for each at the Cabinet table, ensuring that no part of the United Kingdom is pushed aside to the margins. Under devolution the posts become more, not less, important than before.

A single "Secretary of State for the Nations" would diminish this. It would diminish the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in government and set them against each other. The individual appointed would inevitably face accusations of being biased towards their own patch. None would be well served by this arrangement.

The retention of the three separate posts (and, if necessary, their restoration) must be essential in future reshuffles and changes of government.

Devolved power - or half power?

The news of Sir Ian Blair's departure has provoked a political row over who can "hire and fire" the head of the Metropolitan Police. I don't want to rehash the arguments both ways about Blair himself but there are some wider problems.

The biggest problem is that a lot of political power has been devolved (and yes, the Greater London Authority is a form of devolved power even though it is a metropolitan wide authority and not a "regional assembly" of the type devised as a sop to the English question) in a bad manner, with the result that in many areas power is now wielded by a hydra of national and devolved politicians. It's also a poorly kept secret that when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Authority were set up the widespread expectation was that they would almost permanently be controlled by Labour politicians and that Westminster-devolved conflicts would be between non-Labour Westminster governments and Labour devolved ones, not the other way round. The result is that the executives have quite significant powers in their own right and are not so vulnerable to the problems of minorities in the assemblies or even an opposition majority as on the London Assembly.

But they are also probe to following a different path from Westminster. Now this is a natural consequence of devolving power and localism (although I wish the UK media would more accurately report the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rather than just focusing on the supposed benefits of spending, stoking English jealousy). However when there are both local and national concerns - and the Metropolitan Police is not exclusively a police force for London but has various national duties as well. So it's not terribly easy to carve up accountability between the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary. It can work if they're cut from the same political cloth, but when they're not (and this applied as much to Ken Livingstone as to Boris Johnson) then clashes and divided confidence are inevitable. It's not a terribly workable arrangement in the long run.

Is there an obvious solution? It's a lot harder to separate out overlap services than is often thought (a problem that also comes up with Welsh devolution because of large numbers in the borders) or to arrange things so that the same party always controls all the relevant posts (and, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated and Boris Johnson will soon do as well, just being from the same party as the Westminster government does not guarantee unity), especially when so many elections are contested as a chance to make a mid-term protest against the Westminster government. It is often forgotten that the 2004 Mayoral election was the only time a London authority election was won by the party in power at Westminster since 1949. And even that was down to Livingstone returning to Labour rather than running again as an Independent. Whether this pattern will change remains to be seen, but it is not an encouraging precedent. So what is the solution?

Is devolution a concern for England - or just the south?

I've just come across an article in The Herald entitled Why the figures peddled by Scotland's critics don't add up, looking at several "myths" and "facts" about the various claims and counter claims about what Scotland puts into and gets out of public spending. If one thing stands out clearer than anything else, it's that statisticians could join economists as a vocation that can never reach a collective conclusion.

But one thought did stand out from the figures and that is that by and large most of the financial grounds for grievance are ones that have rather more resonance in the south of England than the north. This is by no means a universal statement as both have areas of affluence and poverty (and to some extent the English regions are not the most natural of boundaries) but figures that suggest the north east of England gets a much greater benefit out of the financial settlement than Scotland - and the "Labour north east Mafia" is a term not without some numerical basis in the voting lobbies at Westminster - but it is rarely complained about. Now someone is bound to raise the point about the Scots having devolution etc... but spending throughout the UK has never been an absolute equal amount per capita. But of course there's no north east equivalent of the Barnett formula or the Scottish Parliament or so forth to give an angle to complaints about taxes in one part of the country financing services in another part.

It's also true that Scottish devolution and the Barnett formula have not been sold very well to many in England, making it possible for the wilder claims about the differences in spending (but then Scottish devolution is not alone in this regard - a lot of people seem to think the Greater London Assembly is a devolved assembly to give London its own devolution, rather than being in theory a metropolis wide council and in practice a waste of space talking shop). But would an English Parliament deliver the same for England? Or would it continue allocating its funds much as it does at present? Or would the north of England become the new whipping boy in the press?

The current devolution settlement is messy for the UK as a whole. There are grievances in one part, whilst attempts to find a settlement provoke accusations of partisan advantage and risking the future of the Union. A growing sense of perceived unfairness in different sections of the UK is not good for the country as a whole, especially when it is based on tilted figures and heavily appeals to one end of the country without pointing out the benefits at the other end.

Just what is the solution though? I'm not sure at all - short of the classic fudge of creating a public enquiry in the hope that it can go away and bring back the Holy Grail of a solution. A grand constitutional convention to try and sort out the numerous constitutional issues raised by not just devolution but also Lords "reform" and other changes sounds good in principle but would all the key parties in the UK participate and could a settlement with overwhelming consensus be found, or would parties bring the whole thing down because they couldn't get their pet demand (e.g. voting system changes) through?

Questions to which the answers seem more elusive every day...