By stewartb – a long read

As 2024 ends, we also leave behind the ‘honeymoon period’ (sic) of the new Westminster Labour government.  A time for casting minds back to past promises and for musing on prospects for ‘change’.

In Westminster, the Labour government recently announced appointments to the House of Lords. These were well trailed. From Labour List (June 21, 2023): ‘New peer plan raises questions about Labour’s Lords abolition intentions’ – ‘comments by a source close to the leadership in the Times calling Lords reform “hardly mission critical” to the first three years of a Labour government will inevitably spark fears of another U-turn’.

We’ve also had the inaugural meeting of Labour’s other big constitutional change offering – the ‘Council of Nations and Regions’. This came and went in October: the most notable feature was the associated appointment to and then immediate refusal of the post of ‘envoy’ to the lands beyond London, England.

This all brought to mind the constitutional reform proposals sold to voters in Scotland by the Labour sage and former PM, Gordon Brown. The notion of ‘pup selling’ inevitably followed! 

The Collins Dictionary defines ‘being sold a pup’ as accepting something and then feeling deceived because it is not as good as you thought it would be. Merriam Webster offers this: to trick someone into buying something that is worthless.

A ‘pup’ pitch timed to perfection?

Recall this from pro-Union newspaper, The Scotsman (August 15, 2014): ‘Gordon Brown backs federalism in event of No vote’. Here we learned: ’Mr Brown said that a new federal settlement could be delivered two years after a No vote, with a series of regional and national assemblies across the UK and a federal government retaining powers over defence and foreign affairs.’ (my emphasis) Compelling stuff!

The Scotsman quoted Mr Brown: “We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population.”

Building the big sales pitch!

Those of us committed to and confident in Scotland becoming a normal, independent nation state encounter Unionists who espouse two positions: (i) the (in terms) too wee, too poor, too stupid adherents – ’Scotland couldn’t cut it outside the Union’; but also the (faux?) ‘empathic’ one (ii) ‘yes, a better Union is indeed needed and this betterment is about to be delivered. So hang on a bit longer: the change that’s coming will bring such significant benefits to Scotland that independence will no longer be needed’.

The Labour Party in opposition in Westminster embarked on the development of a constitutional change agenda for the UK by establishing a commission led by Gordon Brown.

Source: Labour Party (2022) A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy. Report of the Commission on the UK’s Future (https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Commission-on-the-UKs-Future.pdf )

The Party leadership made much of its importance to the future of their ‘precious Union’. (I wonder if personal investment in this commission helped salve the conscience of the Labour sage who in 2014 promised Scotland’s electorate ‘federalism’?) The Commission brought forward some clear recommendations: ’.. we put forward detailed proposals for abolishing the current undemocratic House of Lords, the fundamental reform of which has been the official goal of successive governments for a century, and replacing it with a democratic chamber that is permanently closer to the British people because it is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.’

It also stated: ’Our sixth set of recommendations will clear out the indefensible House of Lords and replace it with a smaller, more representative and democratic second chamber to safeguard the new constitutional basis of the New Britain.

The term ‘indefensible’ is used a lot: ’The unelected House of Lords is completely indefensible today. Our country requires a new, democratically legitimate second chamber. That second chamber should perform a function that a second chamber is best able to do: ensure that the constitutional limits on government power are obeyed, that power is truly shared with the devolved legislatures and across England, and give voice explicitly to the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom.’

The Commission’s report is quite explicit:

• Clause 37: ‘The House of Lords should be replaced with a new second chamber of Parliament: an Assembly of the Nations and Regions.’
• Clause 39: ‘The new second chamber must have electoral legitimacy …’

Taking stock, we don’t have federalism and no prospect of federalism: there is no abolition of the House of Lords in prospect and no Assembly of the Nations and Regions with electoral legitimacy as a second chamber in prospect either – despite Labour’s huge House of Commons majority. Time for Gordon Brown to withdraw from constitutional politics! But more, time for an honourable man to admit that Scotland’s electorate has been ‘sold a pup’ on multiple occasions by him and his duplicitous party?

How many ‘pups’ will we be sold?

The BBC News website on December 20, 2024 reported that: ‘The government has appointed 30 new Labour peers including a string of ex-MPs and Sir Keir Starmer loyalists’. It added: ‘The Conservatives appointed six new peers including former deputy prime minister Therese Coffey and Toby Young, the associate editor of The Spectator and son of former Labour peer Lord Michael Young. The Lib Dems have appointed two peers.’

The Tories have no interest in House of Lords reform, far less abolition. If House of Lords reform was in the Lib Dems 2024 General Election manifesto, it is well hidden. But what of the Labour Party, now in government in Westminster with a huge, enabling majority of MPs?  The Labour Party has ‘history’ on Lords reform!

Written from a left wing perspective, see this from Tribune (November 16, 2021) ‘Abolish the House of Lords’: ‘In our complex, uncodified, and evolved constitution, one thing has always been a constant: the insistence on a second, unelected chamber to temper the democratic passions, such as they are, of the House of Commons. The House of Lords remains a testament to the English revolution that never was – there never was that Jacobin moment, that sweeping away of the ancien regime. Instead, the English bourgeoisie learned to live with the pageantry, and, indeed, ached to join in.’ (my emphasis)

The Tribune article goes on: ’The Labour Party has not been immune from this. Until recently, only in 1935 and 1983 did Labour go into an election with the abolition of the Lords in its manifesto. The 2010 manifesto promised a gradual move towards an elected Lords. In office, the most Labour had been able to achieve was the reduction of the number of hereditary peers and making the remainder appointed.’

‘The 2017 (Labour) manifesto called for an elected second chamber, and the 2019 manifesto promised a ‘Senate of the Nations and Regions’. Towards the end of the Corbyn era, the leadership published its constitutional vision, ‘Remaking the British State: For the Many, not the Few’.’

If not now, when …. ever?

And now with its huge parliamentary majority, has Labour’s time to reform finally come? Aye right! Let’s reflect on recent history through the lens of mainstream media reporting:

Source: Sunday Post (July 31, 2022): ‘Gordon Brown calls for abolition of House of Lords as Boris Johnson plans to hand out dozens of peerages’.

‘Gordon Brown called for the ­abolition of the House of Lords yesterday as Boris Johnson prepares to hand out dozens of peerages before leaving Downing Street.’ The article claims: ‘The abolition of the current House of Lords was a key commitment made by Sir Keir Starmer when he became Labour leader.‘

And following these Tory elevations to the Lords: “Now Boris Johnson and Lynton Crosby have handed him the strongest possible case for long overdue reform,” said Brown.’

In the same article: ‘Sarah Boyack MSP, Scottish Labour’s constitution spokesperson, said the “broken system” of the House of Lords should be replaced with an elected senate of nations and regions”. She is also quoted stating: “Only by reforming the House of Lords can we build a truly representative democracy fit for the Britain of the 21st Century.” 

That’s some claim from a leading Labour MSP: might a large majority of the Scottish electorate actually wish to live in a ‘truly representative democracy’? Is that too much to expect? And is such a reasonable aspiration now being shown to be unrealisable for Scotland whilst within the UK, even with a large Labour majority in Westminster?

Source: The Independent (December 5, 2022): ‘Labour must abolish ‘indefensible’ House of Lords, says Gordon Brown – The party to unveil its blueprint for reform as Sir Keir Starmer hints scrapping the upper chamber may have to wait for a second term for Labour.’  There’s that word again – but reforming the ‘indefensible’ is no reason to rush into things it seems!

From the same article: ’Abolition of the House of Lords must form a key part of Labour’s plans to overhaul the way Britain is governed, former prime minister Gordon Brown has said.

‘Mr Brown and party leader Sir Keir Starmer are to unveil the report of the party’s commission on the UK’s future – which the ex-premier headed – at a joint press conference in Leeds on Monday.’  Brown and Starmer in public lock step towards reform?  Maybe aye, maybe no!

‘However, he (Starmer) earlier hinted that some of the measures – including a new democratic assembly of nations and regions to replace the Lords – may have to wait for a second term Labour government. But in a briefing for Scottish journalists ahead of the launch, Mr Brown insisted the current upper chamber was “indefensible” and had to go.’  As Starmer ‘hints’ at slip sliding away from change, Mr Brown deflects from rejection.

Source: BBC News website (December 5, 2022): ‘Gordon Brown: Labour plan would make UK work for Scotland’.

‘Labour’s proposed reforms to the British political system would “make the UK work for Scotland”, former prime minister Gordon Brown has said.’ Adding: “Labour is also looking at replacing the House of Lords with an elected “assembly of the nations and regions”.  Sir Keir Starmer said they would give the nations a “louder, prouder voice”.’

If the implication is that UK constitutional change is needed to ‘make the Union work for Scotland’ what conclusion is to be drawn when such change is kicked (again) into the long grass?

Source: BBC News website (June 1, 2023): ‘Senior Labour figures call for political reform of UK’.

‘A group of senior Labour politicians has launched a new campaign for political reform of the UK. Led by former prime minister Gordon Brown, the group wants constitutional changes to deal with the “economic and social challenges” across the country.

‘The Alliance for Radical Democratic Change group includes Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford. It was launched at an event in Edinburgh on Thursday evening. Other speakers at the launch included Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin.’

I wonder how this group is reacting to the current ‘position’ of the Starmer government on constitution reform  – something regarded by Gordon Brown as so crucially important for the future of the UK. So relevant to making the Union ‘work’ for Scotland? Does it even still exist?

Source: The Independent (June 21, 2023):  ‘Starmer will swell the House of Lords despite wanting to abolish it – the Labour leader plans to appoint dozens of peers if he forms a government so he can push policy through Parliament.’

‘Labour has insisted it still wants to abolish the House of Lords despite planning to swell its size with new peers in order to push through policy if it forms a government.

‘Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said he was standing by the pledge to get rid of the upper house in the first term of a Labour administration, but said there could be “interim reforms”.’ Abolition in first term – really?

Again it’s maybe aye, maybe no! From the same article: ’The party conceded that it may take more than one term to shift the balance but said it still wants to replace the “indefensible” Lords with a new elected chamber in a first term.’ Confused? How long has Labour been ‘insisting’ and ‘pledging’ such reform? Have we had another ‘vow’ yet?

And then there are sales of other ‘pups’

We’ve had the inaugural meeting of the Labour Westminster government’s Council of Nations and Regions (Edinburgh, October 11, 2024) – anyone notice significant net additional benefit of constitutional or economic or social or environmental significance in prospect for Scotland since this Council was created? Will we have another ‘envoy’ appointed?

The UK government issued a statement following the first meeting: see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-of-the-nations-and-regions-inaugural-meeting/council-of-the-nations-and-regions-inaugural-meeting-on-11-october-2024

Apart from listing attendees, it only had one paragraph: ‘Council members discussed opportunities for attracting long-term inward investment ahead of the International Investment Summit 2024 taking place on 14 October. The UK Government also gave an update on Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy. Council members confirmed their commitment to working together to leverage maximum investment to all parts of the nations and regions and support economic growth.’  Game changing?

Reporting on the inaugural meeting of the Council, the BBC News website (October 10, 2024) had this headline: ‘Council of Nations tackles challenge of UK power-sharing’. BBC Scotland’s political editor wrote ‘The new Council is not quite the “powerful, legally-mandated” body that Gordon Brown envisaged in his commission on the UK’s future.  It’s not clear what decision-making power it will actually have. However, Downing Street seems determined to avoid giving the impression that this new body will simply be a talking shop.’  Now that is understating manfully for the Union!

The Labour government appointed the Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and gave him the role of ‘Minister for Intergovernmental Relations’: ‘the role holder leads coordination with the devolved administrations on the Prime Minister’s behalf, working closely with the Territorial Offices, to make sure that across government work is being done on behalf of the entire United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.’ Michael Gove previously had a similar role. Have you felt significant net additional, tangible benefits for Scotland delivered by these post holders?

The Tory government under PM Johnson created the post of Minister of the Union in 2019. PMs since, including the current Labour one, have continued to hold this post.  According the the UK.gov website: ‘Responsibilities: As Minister for the Union, the Prime Minister works to ensure that all of government is acting on behalf of the entire United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.’ Anyone notice a significant net additional constitutional or economic or social or environmental benefit to Scotland since the creation of this post?

There is another way!

To those supportive of collaborative initiatives between neighbours, especially between those with longstanding cultural, historical, social, economic etc. links, there are other, well proven and highly successful models available. Here one could have referred here to the European Union but let’s instead use as an exemplar: ‘‘The Nordic Co-operation: ….. Our vision is to make the Nordic region the most sustainable and integrated region in the world.’ (https://www.norden.org/en )

The ‘Nordic Council of Ministers’ and the ‘Nordic Council’ are the main organisations dedicated to official co-operation between governments and legislatures across the Nordic region:

• ‘The Nordic Council is the official body for Nordic inter-parliamentary co-operation. Formed in 1952, it has 87 elected members from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.’ (my emphasis)
• ‘The Nordic Council of Ministers is the official body for inter-governmental co-operation in the Nordic Region. It seeks common solutions wherever and whenever the countries can achieve more together than by working on their own.’

(The Nordic Co-operation website reports on the activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the substantial and diverse work of these councils. It also provides information on the Nordic Council of Ministers 14 new sectoral co-operation programmes that will guide its inter-governmental work between 2025–2030.)

The two Councils engage members in substantive, close and extensive collaborations whilst the neighbours remain able to make and sustain their own distinctive democratic choices, including but not restricted to big issues like head of state, EU membership, and fiscal and monetary policies. In other words, they have agency AND choose to collaborate/co-operate!

• Denmark – independent nation state; constitutional monarchy; member of UN, of NATO, of EU – within the Schengen area but not in the Euro area (has a formal opt-out from Euro but tracks the monetary policy of the European Central Bank)
• Finland – independent nation state; republic; member of UN, (recently) of Nato, of EU – within the Schengen area and the Euro area
• Iceland – independent nation state; republic; member of UN, of NATO, of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), of European Economic Area (EEA) – within the Schengen area
• Norway – independent nation state: constitutional monarchy; member of UN, of NATO, of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), of European Economic Area (EEA) – within the Schengen area
• Sweden – independent nation state; constitutional monarchy; member of UN, (recently) of NATO, of EU – within the Schengen area but not in the Euro area (choosing not to adopt Euro for now)
• Faroe Islands – ‘self-governing nation with extensive autonomous powers and responsibilities within the Kingdom of Denmark’: ‘a third country in relation to the EU, the Faroe Islands have a fisheries agreement, an agreement on trade in goods, and an agreement on research cooperation with the EU’.  And ‘In addition to the EU and Iceland, the Faroe Islands have bilateral free trade agreements with Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom’.
• Greenland – part of the Kingdom of Denmark and with wide-ranging autonomy, excluding foreign and security policy and currency policy.
• Åland – part of the republic of Finland (the population speaks Swedish), it has its own autonomous parliament. In areas where Åland has its own legislation, the group of islands essentially operates as an independent nation. It is a demilitarised and neutral zone.  Åland’s relationship with the EU is regulated by way of a special protocol.

The Nordic Council of Ministers, founded in 1971, actually consists of many individual councils of ministers:

• Ministers for Cooperation
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Sustainable Growth
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Fisheries, Aquaculture, Agriculture, Food and Forestry
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Gender Equality
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Culture
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Justice Affairs
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for the Environment and Climate
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Health and Social Affairs
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Finance
• The Nordic Council of Ministers for Digitalisation.

End note

The contrast between Scotland’s status and agency now and what is demonstrably possible from the evidence of Nordic Co-operation is stark!

There are many dimensions to the realisation that the Union is not that ‘great’, that Scotland with the full agency of an independent nation state could aspire to and is capable of achieving so much more and better. Those who have sought to persuade the people of Scotland that the Union needs to be improved – and that the reforms necessary for improvement are feasible and imminent – have failed to deliver. Their credibility is shot! 

Henceforth, we should reject the ‘pup sellers of North Britain’!