THE EU referendum result should be a “wake-up call” on the future of the UK, a senior Scottish Tory claims.
In a paper published today, former Scottish Tory leadership candidate Murdo Fraser renews calls for a federal system, claiming this could save a fractured UK from the major differences in political outlook revealed in the EU referendum. The June 23 vote saw Scotland, Northern Ireland and London vote to remain in the European Union, while the rest of the UK voted to leave.
The paper, published online by independent political thinktank Reform Scotland, cites the election of 56 SNP MPs at the 2015 general election as one reason for boosting support for federalism, with Boris Johnson among supporters.
It says pressures on the union “appear to be greater than ever” and says the system would mean little change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and create “strong city regions” in England.
The paper also states that the Scottish referendum campaign created a “very divided country” and claims federalism could sway Yes voters, adding: “It is hard to see that the UK is sustainable in an unreformed state if 45 per cent of the population of one component part wish to leave.”
Commenting on the publication, Fraser said: “The vote in the EU referendum shows that there are disparities in the way that different parts of our United Kingdom act and think politically.
“This should be a wake-up call to governments and politicians. If the UK is to continue, then it must be willing to continue to devolve power to its territories.
“The answer to this problem is federalism. Its time has come.”
He continued: “From a Scottish perspective, the most significant difference in creating a federal state would be that the existence of the Scottish Parliament would be entrenched in a written constitution.
“In England, we could move to a situation of a network of strong city regions. These would be areas of administrative devolution, not legislative.
“That would leave a de facto English parliament, sitting within the House of Commons at certain times.
“And it would also allow us to deal, for good, with two other constitutional problems: the West Lothian Question and reform of the House of Lords.
“The latter could be replaced with a senate, providing equal representation for each federated part of the UK.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here