More on English Devolution: the Foreign Policy Snag from Scotland

Having made the claim that it is time to take English devolution seriously, the current debacle over the Lockerbie Bomber shows one of the dangers with changing the British Constitution. All kinds of changes are being proposed. Many have already been implemented. The difficulty lies in the fact that no one actually designed the system but it has evolved over the centuries with a series of settlements which have emerged from civil conflict and/or compromise. As a consequence many of the details have been left open to leave room for flexibility or because delving into the detail would re-open old arguments.

In the case of Scottish devolution the present arrangement can be seen as having been a major shift of Scottish affairs away from the Westminster Parliament and Whitehall ministers, with a consequent enhancement of the exercise of power through an elected Scottish Parliament. This devolved the exercise of the powers previously exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The assumption has always been that Foreign Policy and Defence would l remain with Westminster and, more realistically, with the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs within the Cabinet, togther with their attendant ministries filled with experts to support them.

No one seems to have foreseen that Scottish policy on Criminal Justice could hold such dangers for UK foreign policy. It is hard to imagine a Home Secretary or a Minister for Constitutional Affairs being left to pursue a policy of this kind, even though it is quasi-judicial in nature, without attracting the attention of Foreign Secretary. They would be well within their range of influence, to which would added the influence of the [Prime Minister, except in this instance the PM, Gordon Brow, is still, for some reason, still on an extended holiday. Even before devolution Scotland had retained its own judicial system, but the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting in the Cabinet would have been directly within the sight line of the Foreign Secretary. Whilst the exercise of this influence might contravene the constitutional proprieties, is somewhat naive to think that ‘words would not be had’. As far as one can see, if there was any influence coming from Whitehall as to UK Foreign policy it did not get through.. Even if such influence might be seen as improper, an independent Minister would surely have to take into account the wider public interest, which in pre-devolution days would have been the UK’s interests. Were such interests within the considerations of the Scottish Minister for Justice? I think not, and in any case, it might well have served the Brown government to let things run their course. It was after all, nothing to do with them.

As a result British/American relations have taken a knock, with threats of trade boycotts and talk of holiday makers being advised to go to Ireland rather than the UK: just the sort of thing that our regions and struggling rural economies could do without in a recession. The other result is that it shows that any constitutional changes need to be carefully thought through as to their consequences. House of Lords reform seems to be stuck in the oven half baked; the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law no longer seems to convince the government that brought it about, while the undermining of Cabinet Government in favour of the presidential model continues by unabated stealth.

The case for English devolution, or the existing devolved arrangement, is not weakened by the present embarrassment. It reminds us of the subtleties of the British Constitution and warns us that tinkering with the system within the short term mentality of politicians is dangerous, and with the wrong combination of factors, it could be disastrous for the values of liberty which our system is supposed to embody.