GORDON Brown’s plans for reforming the UK constitution have been dismissed by opponents as insubstantial – but what is actually in them?
A key pledge is to abolish the House of Lords – something Keir Starmer has backed – and replace it with an elected “assembly of nations and regions”, which Labour said would have the power to halt devolution-trampling laws like the Internal Market Act.
That law gave the UK Government powers which went against the Sewel Convention. This idea, named after Lord Sewel, sets out the principle that the UK Government should not legislate in devolved areas without the consent of Holyrood.
Brown proposes that the House of Lords’ replacement would have the ability to block legislation like this.
But this would either necessitate US-style outsized representation for Scotland within the assembly or for it to be filled with apolitical representatives.
Had the assembly existed before the passage of the Internal Market Act, it would need to have been filled disproportionately with Scots (who, presuming voting patterns would be in line with Westminster and Holyrood results at that time, would mostly have been SNP) intent on blocking the Tory bill, or that they would be objective guardians of the constitution and the devolution settlement.
Another proposal, to enshrine the Sewel Convention in law, would give Holyrood an effective veto over Westminster legislation which would go against devolution.
What self-respecting English MP is going to give Scotland equal or greater representation than their area in the upper house, as well as a veto on any law applying north of the Border if it is against the principles of devolution? Would this require more Scottish representatives than for Yorkshire or Cornwall?
Labour’s get out of jail free card is that all this will be worked out in consultation – or as Starmer put it at an event in Edinburgh on Monday, “refinement”.
That also covers another key pledge; giving more borrowing powers for the Scottish Government.
Brown was only able to say this would be a matter for a future Labour chancellor to decide.
Cynical voters may read these words as kicking the can down the road, promising more than they intend on delivering.
Are we to expect a Labour government under Starmer, inheriting the husk Britain will be after 13 or 14 years of Tory rule, are going to make their first priority entering a difficult fight to tear up the UK’s ancient constitution?
They want you to think so.
Challenged on this today, Starmer insisted the proposals were linked with the economic problems facing the country.
He said the “only way out of the chaos” was to tackle Britain’s “underlying causes” of our present misery.
