The Folly of Devolution Thus Far and (Worse) EVEL

/

The Parliament of the United Kingdom
(Credit: Jim Trodel via Flickr cc)

     Ever since the advent of devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the late 1990’s, there has not yet been an answer to the infamous West Lothian Question, whereby MP’s from those areas cannot vote on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, or Northern Irish Assembly, but can vote on such issues in the British Parliament at Westminster – even though their own constituents are not directly affected.

     Devolution of certain issues to those legislatures meant that such issues – like health and education – were no longer issues of a UK-wide concern, and were now effectively English issues being decided by the UK Parliament at Westminster – including by Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MP’s, despite English MP’s having no such say over devolved matters in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

     The West Lothian Question is so named because it was brought up by Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian during the parliamentary debates on devolution in the 1970’s. It was he who asked how such a then-hypothetical situation could be sustained, and as such, he was a prominent opponent of devolution because nobody could provide him with an answer to his question.

     Now with devolution entering a stage in which substantial legislative and fiscal powers are set to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (in fulfillment of the Vow made towards the end of the independence referendum campaign), there is an increasing need to answer Dalyell’s 40 year old question.

     Labour attempted to answer it by proposing regional devolution within England following the devolution it had established in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Tony Blair's government succeeded in a referendum to devolve power to Greater London, which involved the creation of the London Assembly and a directly elected Mayor of London. However, the attempt to create a devolved assembly in North East England was so heavily defeated by the electorate of that region in a 2004 referendum, that the idea was shelved for all the other regions (bar London), and the government effectively kicked an answer to the WLQ into the long grass.

     The answer that is now set to be pursued by the current Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron appears to be English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). This has been Conservative Party policy since devolution came about, and it has different variants, but the gist of it is that the Speaker of the House of Commons will determine which bills going through the Commons are applicable only to England (or England and Wales), and therefore require a majority of only English (or English and Welsh) MP’s to pass such legislation. Some variants of EVEL call for an absolute “veto” in which relevant MP’s will have the ultimate say over such legislation, regardless of how other MP’s may vote. Others merely allow for those MP’s alone to vote at the committee stage (where amendments can be made), whilst allowing the full Commons to vote on the legislation at its final stage.

     Either way, EVEL will likely mean some dilution in the voice of Scottish MP’s in the British Parliament because it is simply becoming more difficult to justify their votes on issues that do not affect their constituents – issues which have essentially become English issues because of devolution.

     What’s ironic is that the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigned heavily at the last election on a platform of “making Scotland’s voice heard” and “giving a louder voice for Scotland” at Westminster – as if to say that Scotland never had a voice there, which is plainly ludicrous, as Scotland as been sending MP’s to Parliament since the Union began in 1707. (Here, they engage in the art form of conflating Scotland with the SNP.)

     However, as an acquaintance of mine in Scotland – a gentleman named Graeme – has said, devolution has “turned the hypothetical ‘West Lothian Question’ into reality, creating a situation in which Scottish MPs were voting on English affairs that English MPs no longer had any say over in Scotland.” Furthermore, he adds that as devolution was being implemented during the last Labour government (1997-2010), the UK had a Scot – Gordon Brown – “representing a Scottish constituency [and] serving as Chancellor and then Prime Minister formulating policies on health, education, policing, etc in England that were no longer within the remit of the UK Government within Scotland.”

     Now with the recent extraordinary success of the SNP in winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the Commons and the prospect of further devolution (including the full devolution of setting income tax) to Holyrood, the constitutional anomaly of the WLQ has become “unsustainable” and EVEL “has more or less” become inevitable.

     However, Joyce McMillan in The Scotsman disagrees with such notions, and claims that for decades, Scotland has had to put up with “England’s political preferences.” But this attempt to say that “karma’s a b****” with regard to Scottish influence across the UK ignores the changes wrought by devolution. It also ignores the idea that British general elections ought to be about what the voters across the UK want, as opposed to attempting to break the votes down by certain areas. However, even when you do this, what you find is that since World War II, Scotland has gotten the government it wants more often than not, and indeed on two occasions – in 1964 and 1974 – Scotland voted for and got a Labour government, even though England voted Tory. In a democracy, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

     Nevertheless, devolution was brought about to address a “democratic deficit” with regard to Scotland’s place within the Union, and to lessen “English influence” on “Scottish affairs.” With this, logic follows that some people in England may wish to lessen “Scottish influence” on “English affairs.”

     McMillan says this ignores the “brute fact” that the UK is an asymmetrical union in which 85% of the population resides in one part of the country – England, and that EVEL will shut Scotland out of critical decisions that affect the UK as a whole – including Scotland.

     Unionists such as Graeme are then oft to point out that this is an admission that devolution – at the very least – is a flawed concept whose architects failed to think through its implications on Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and its implementation in a piecemeal manner failed to engage the UK as a whole on constitutional matters.

     They also contend that the asymmetry to which McMillan refers did not exist before devolution, for with a single sovereign parliament in London, all of the British people were represented by MP’s who could equally participate in the parliamentary process in full without question. This allowed for many Scots to take their rightful place in powerful and prominent positions in government – defense secretaries, home secretaries, foreign secretaries, chancellors of the Exchequer, and prime ministers – and representing the interests of the UK as a whole (including Scotland).

     Only after the highly-charged and emotive rhetoric of “Tory government’s we didn’t vote for” and “English laws imposed on Scotland” (especially following the eleven years of Margaret Thatcher’s government – 1979-1990 – during which Scotland repeatedly voted Labour, though the UK as a whole voted Conservative) followed by devolution in 1999 did the fundamental nature of Scottish parliamentary representation come under question – first with the reduction of Scotland’s MP’s from 72 to 59, and now the proposals for EVEL.

     McMillan claims that this is “largely designed to massage the wounded pride of English Tory MPs by offering them a bump up the pecking-order in the public-school politics of Westminster.” However, with the West Lothian Question becoming a reality (as Tam Dalyell had warned), English MP’s – whatever their political stripe – have a legitimate constitutional issue. By attempting to solve one democratic deficit, another one was created in the process.

     This is not to say that EVEL is the optimal response, but after the clamor for “more powers” for the Scottish Parliament (including the prospect of Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA), where all taxes raised in Scotland would go to Holyrood) should anyone be surprised?

     But realistically, given the geographic reality, England will never truly be free of Scottish influence, and Scotland will certainly never be free of English influence.

     Using veteran nationalist Paul Henderson Scott’s description of Scotland’s relationship with England as that of being in bed with an elephant – and the need to be free of the elephant, Kenny Farquharson wrote recently in The Times that this failed to “acknowledge basic geography and economics.” Without the United Kingdom holding them together, Scotland and England may well move to separate beds, but will still have to share the same room – the same island, Great Britain. Being ten times the size of Scotland, Farquharson notes that “England will always be our bigger, more populous, more powerful neighbor” and what it does “politically, economically, culturally — will always have a profound effect on us [in Scotland].”

     In other words – despite what some nationalists may want to believe – Scotland cannot ignore its big sister, the elephant. Farquharson goes on to mention that Scotland’s exports within the UK – to England, Northern Ireland, and Wales – amounted to £44.9 billion, which is a considerable sum when one considers that Scottish exports to the rest of the world combined was £22 billion (and less than half of this was with the European Union).

     Indeed, one of the flaws of EVEL is how to know what issues can be classified as “English only” or “English and Welsh only”, for even though a piece of paper may say that, members from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can also argue that because of England’s size, legislation that legally applies only to England can (and will) have affects – particularly financial – on the rest of the UK.

     This is why EVEL is quite controversial, for it would create two classes of MP’s – English MP’s with full time access to the Commons and all stages of the parliamentary process in the Commons, and non-English MP’s who would effectively be told to stay out of their own parliament on certain days, even though the legislation and issues debated on those days may indirectly affect their constituents.

     It is also why even though Yes Scotland and the SNP were campaigning on the idea of Scotland being master of its destiny, they were also trying to argue for a form of independence that would retain links with the rest of the UK, but leave it without the ability to shape it, as the continuing Union would continue to substantially influence Scotland – regardless of the constitutional arrangements.

     This points to the importance of maintaining the United Kingdom as something that is in Scotland’s best interests, and maintaining as firm a Union as possible with full and complete parliamentary representation in Parliament for everybody, rather than trying to unravel it and creating more grievances along the way.

     Indeed, one of the reasons for the merger of England and Scotland into the UK was to give Scotland access to the much larger English markets, and this – along with the much wider British Empire – proved to be highly beneficial to Scotland. But even without the Empire, being part of the United Kingdom, as Farquharson points out, has been beneficial to Scotland’s economic prospects more than anything else, and UK as a whole has benefited from Scottish contributions (in terms of human, social, financial, natural, and instructional capital) that have helped to make it a global leader and significant world power, which in turn provides benefits to the UK – including Scotland.

     Attempting to loosen the UK with well-meaning, but ill thought out devolution and EVEL threatens to upset these necessary bonds – political, economic, and social – which keep Britain together. Indeed, one of the disheartening prospects is that there may never again be a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister from Scotland representing a Scottish constituency.

     On this point, my friend Graeme believes that:

“Nationalism and devolution has not increased Scotland's power and influence within the Union, it has significantly diminished it. It has rendered much of Scotland's influence within the wider UK intolerable to that part of the UK which forms the majority of its population, and has made it very difficult for it to be [constitutionally] acceptable for any Scottish MP to occupy any cabinet post other than that of Foreign or Defence Secratary, because any other cabinet position would make them responsible for policies in England over which the English have no say over in Scotland, which the English no longer consider to be either fair or acceptable.”

     He further laments that thanks to “poorly handled devolution and [acquiescence] to nationalist demands” Scotland and Scots, “once a powerful and disproportionately influential voice within the Union, have rendered themselves in some respects as bystanders to larger issues within the United Kingdom” – many of which will continue to affect Scotland.

     The result, he fears, will be that “England and the English will come to dominate the UK far more than they have ever done” and that this was perhaps the way the nationalists had planned it, for it certainly would give them “even more grievance fuel to further their agenda”, and that some Scots “will believe them when they say that England is unfairly denying Scotland a voice within the UK by freezing them out of influence at Westminster.” It would make the roar of the Scottish lion “sound more like a cat’s mewling.”

     McMillan attempts to get around this by saying that it would be rather pompous for English Tories to talk about “speaking for England”, as if England is a homogenous community when in fact it is not – pointing out that “the England of the 21st century is a vastly diverse nation, which contains millions of people – from Liverpool to Portsmouth, from Truro to South Shields – who are fully as exasperated with the current Westminster establishment, and its failed politics of austerity, as any Scottish voter.” Her solution is to use the House of Lords as a chamber that represents the nations of the UK, as well as the regions within England, which in her view, would meet the “standards of 21st-century democracy.”

     As it is, I have written on how the Lords can be reformed in such a way. Looking back, this probably should have been the way to go in addressing the asymmetries that she refers to, which have also been noted by many pro-Union politicians such as Gordon Brown. If this had been achieved long ago, it may have averted the need for devolution, because it would have guaranteed a level of Scottish representation in the upper house that would have been on par – or nearly on par – with England, so that Scotland’s voice (or rather voices, since Scotland is just as diverse as England) could be heard and provide wisdom and scrutiny to government legislation. Even if a reformed Lords did not have the absolute ability to block government legislation, it could – with substantial Scots influence – force the government to think again on its agenda.

     Indeed, perhaps another flaw in devolution was that it made changes along the edges of the British constitution without also making changes at the center, and this has left the country with an unbalanced governmental structure that is prone to misunderstandings and grievance-mongering.

     Of course, there would still be people making the case for devolution and decentralization from London. In fact, the idea of revamping the United Kingdom into a federal union like the United States has taken hold in some quarters in the wake of the referendum. But even Gordon Brown has remarked that federalism can only go but so far in a country where 85% of the population lives in one area, and most forms of federalism still mean having a strong central government with the ability to levy and collect taxes, and make an array of laws that directly apply to all people throughout the entire union.

     In essence, federalism means that there are some powers exclusively exercised by the federal government, some powers exclusively exercised by the federated governments, and some powers are exercised jointly. For example, in the US and Germany, the setting of income and corporate taxes are a joint responsibility of federal and state governments. The federal governments and legislatures in both countries are quite powerful – though their power is limited in certain areas.

     Indeed, the authority of the British Parliament at Westminster has already been limited in practice, regardless of the fact that it possesses ultimate sovereignty across the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly, and London Assembly are now semi-permanent institutions to the point where no prime minister or his/her government will dare contemplate abolishing them.

     The issue at hand now is how these institutions, the British Parliament, and potential institutions in England can fit into a federal framework for the United Kingdom as a whole. This will require an end to ad hoc devolution (including the proposal for Full Fiscal Autonomy for Holyrood) as well as the crude answers contained in the proposals for EVEL. Joyce McMillan herself acknowledged that the decision to devolve control of setting income tax rates was “strange and hasty”, for the income tax allows for one of the most transparent forms of redistribution from wealthier parts of a country to another, and the concept of pooling and sharing resources throughout the United Kingdom for the benefit of all was one of the main arguments used for keeping Scotland as part of the Union.

     If the Union is to survive at this point, there needs to be the establishment of a UK constitutional convention that will attempt to sort out the issues of British governance and forge a lasting constitutional settlement that is as “fair” as possible to everybody.  It means looking at the United Kingdom as a whole and having a firm understanding of how it ought to work going forward, which – among other things – means defining the powers of a federal UK Parliament (as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution does for the US Congress), the limits on the federal parliament (Article 1, Section 9), and the powers and limitations on the federated governments of the nations and regions within the UK (Article 1, Section 10).

     It also means defining the values that bring Britain together as a country, and establishing principles upon which the people and their representatives can build on.

     This effort will require an enormous amount of good faith, tact, skill, statesmanship (likely in the face of political party interest), creative imagination, and a sense of vision and purpose to make such a settlement a success. It will also require the participation of people from all walks of life in Britain – including ordinary citizens, civic organizations, and faith groups in an expression of British civic participation that may also facilitate bringing people together and forging a sense of a common identity and common ideals for Britain going forward. 

     The brute reality is that Scotland and England have been “interfering” in each others affairs for centuries, and they really can't help it, given the island they share. The Union simply made it official, and in my opinion, it is in everyone’s interest for Britain to remain together, for Britain has so much collective potential, and its people can achieve much more together – not just for themselves, but for the world at large – than they could ever do apart.

Saving a Great British Icon

/

     Nearly seven years after her last voyage as an operational ocean liner, the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 is still one of the most famous vessels in the world.

     Launched by Her Majesty the Queen in 1967, she sailed on her maiden voyage to New York in 1969 into an uncertain future as ships like her were no longer the primary means of traveling in the age of air travel. Indeed, the Cunard Line, her owner gambled almost everything on her to save it from extinction in the face of this new reality that had seen the transatlantic ocean liner market virtually collapse in less than a generation since the end of World War II.

     Despite the odds against it however, the QE2 – as she quickly and popularly became known – went on the sail the seas for nearly 40 years. With her revolutionary design, she was able to be flexible as a transatlantic ocean liner between Southampton and New York in the summer and as a cruise ship in warmer waters (including an annual world cruise) during the winter months – allowing her to make money virtually year-around for Cunard and remain commercially viable through much of her career.

QE2 in Trondheim, Norway - June 2008
(Credit: Trondheim Havn Wikipedia Commons cc)

     Throughout that illustrious career, she carried many over 2.5 million passengers – from the well-known (including royalty, presidents, prime ministers, diplomats, and celebrities) to people of modest means who would only make one passage aboard QE2 in their lifetime. All were treated to unparalleled and sophisticated luxury aboard a ship that carried the legacy of the great Atlantic liners that had come before her, and she developed a solid reputation for reliability and comfort – setting a standard against which other ships were compared.

     Along the way, she made 806 transatlantic crossings and sailed 6 million miles. This included the period during which she served her country in the Falkland’s War as a troop transport (just as her predecessors had done in the previous world wars). In addition, she was the longest-serving liner in Cunard’s history, as well as its longest-serving flagship. On top of that, the QE2 was the fastest operating passenger vessel until her retirement.

     That retirement came when the QE2 was sold to Dubai World for $100 million and sailed there in November 2008, where she was supposed to be converted into a floating hotel like the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California. However, at the time when QE2 was purchased in 2007, the property boom was at its height, and by the time of her arrival over a year later, the global economy was on a downward trend, and this seriously affected the QE2’s prospects in Dubai. Since then, no conversion work has been done on her, and all long-term plans for use of the ship have fallen through.

RMS

Queen Mary as a floating hotel, convention center,
and maritime museum in Long Beach, California.
(Credit: Christopher Finot via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     Up until two years ago, she was very visible and well-kept at a berth in Dubai with her engines and internal power systems still running as if ready to head back out to sea again. In 2009, she was drydocked and her hull was cleaned and given a fresh coat of paint, which raised prospects of sunny days ahead. However, the engines have been since turned off, and without them, the ship has been left to bake in the desert sun of the Middle East – with mold and mildew now making themselves present. Worse, she has been placed into a rather nondescript area with tankers and cargo ships, and the latest photos show her looking derelict and forlorn – as if she is being deliberately left to rot. Other photos, including those with workers roasting pigs near the swimming pools, have only confirmed the languishing state in which the former flagship of the British merchant fleet finds herself.

     Rob Lightbody, the founder The QE2 Story – a website dedicated to preserving the memory of the great vessel and to raising awareness to save it – told The Scotsman: “Nothing has happened to it in the last two and a half years. There’s no power. There’s no air. She’s filthy.”

     Dubai meanwhile have been frustratingly silent on the fate of this much-beloved ship. Having promised to be faithful stewards of the QE2 from the outset – with an ambitious plan for her going forward – they have all but signaled that they are no longer interested in what was once supposed to be the crown jewel of their Palm Jumeriah development. This lack of interest is only ripe for them to want to be rid of what has now become a liability, and by any means if necessary, which obviously means the scrapyard.

     However, there are those who are adamant on not allowing this to happen, and have been working to get the QE2 returned home to the United Kingdom, where she undoubtedly belongs. But then, where should she go?

     With regard to suitable locations in the UK for QE2 to enjoy her retirement, I believe Greencock, Southampton, Liverpool, and London should be considered in that order.

     Why Greenock at the top? Well, the QE2 was built on the River Clyde – specifically at the John Brown shipyard in Clydebank (just to the west of Glasgow), where many other Cunarders were also built, and the wharf where those great liners were fitted out is still there. This would make it a suitable location, were it not for the Erskine Bridge that was built downriver from Clydebank in 1971 after the QE2 had been constructed. It has a clearance of 148 feet, which is not high enough for the QE2 – 171 feet tall from the water line – to sail under, unless her iconic funnel and mast where removed and replaced upon her arrival at the old Brown’s yard.

Hull 736 on the stocks at John Brown's in Clydebank before her launch as Queen Elizabeth 2.
(© Copyright James Allan and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.)

     Barring that unlikely scenario, Greenock at the mouth of the Clyde would be the next best option. It was where the QE2 was drydocked for the final stages of her construction and fitting out, and she visited the area in 2007 for the 40th anniversary of her launch and in 2008 during her farewell tour of the UK before sailing off to Dubai.

     In addition, Stephen McCabe, the council leader of Inverclyde (which contains Greencock) pointed out the reception received by the RMS Queen Mary 2 – Cunard’s current flagship and now the only operating ocean liner in the world – when she visited the area along the lower Clyde a few weeks ago to celebrate Cunard’s 175th anniversary. Even though she was not Clyde-built like her predecessors – starting with the first Cunarder Britannia – in many ways, there was a spiritual connection because of the generations of Cunarders that have been built there.

     Many other vessels have been built along the Clyde as well, and the area has also been a major port of entry for maritime trade – so much so, that at one point, Glasgow was considered the second city of the British Empire. During World War II, the Clyde also played host as a strategic landing point for hundreds of thousands of American and Canadian servicemen who were to take part in the D-Day invasion of Nazi-occupied continental Europe. Many of those people sailed across the Atlantic courtesy of the Clyde-built steamers Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, each of whom were converted to carry over 15,000 people at a time, and for their extraordinary contribution to the war effort, they were commended by Prime Minister Winston Churchill for shortening the war by a year or more.

Queen Mary arriving in New York carrying thousands of serviceman home following the end of World War II. To this day, she retains the record for the most souls ever carried aboard a single vessel: 16,683 (including crew) on a crossing from New York to Greenock in July 1943.
(Credit: Public Domain)

     With this heritage in mind, Councillor McCabe said to The Telegraph that “it is clear that the QE2 could be a major draw for visitors to Inverclyde and Scotland. It could also boost the promotion of the Clyde and Inverclyde’s proud maritime history to a national and, potentially, international audience.”

     The next logical location for the great liner would be Southampton, her home port for 40 years. This city was proud of having the ship carry its name around the world to various locations – providing it with an exposure that it otherwise might not have had. The people living there treated the QE2 as a semi-permanent landmark – a point of local pride that had a global reach, and they gave the vessel a fitting send-off in 2008 when she departed for the last time. For them, the loss of the QE2 was more than a loss of a ship; it was like the loss of a long-time neighbor and friend – a void left unfilled.

     Southampton is still a major working port, with ships – including modern cruise liners, ferries, and cargo vessels – arriving and departing every day. It is also ancient, having hosted many ships throughout its history, including greatest ocean liners in the world – such as the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Aquitania, and Olympic. The city is particularly known for its connection to the Titanic, since it was the port from which the doomed White Star liner sailed on its maiden and only voyage in 1912.

RMS Titanic casting off from Southampton on April 10, 1912.

     With this rich maritime heritage, Southampton is a suitable location for a vessel that will do more than its bit to celebrate that heritage and to further enhance it.

     Liverpool meanwhile, does not have the substantial links to the QE2 as the River Clyde or Southampton. Liverpool was not its home port, and nor was it the place of its birth. However, Liverpool is in many ways, the QE2’s spiritual home – being the long-time base of operations for the Cunard Line, and it was in Liverpool where the QE2 was conceived and designed. Today, the Cunard Building still stands alongside the Liver Building and Port of Liverpool Building at Pier Head along the River Mersey. These buildings – collectively known as the Three Graces – dominate the Liverpool skyline and stand as a testimate to Liverpool’s own heritage as a significant maritime and trading port.

     Like Southampton, Liverpool was also connected to maritime tragedy – being the port where the Cunarder Lusitania was destined to arrive just over a century ago on May 7, 1915, but was torpedoed by a German U-boat that morning and sank off the coast of Ireland during World War I.

The Three Graces of Liverpool, with the Cunard Building in the middle.
(Credit: Rept0n1x via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     In addition to its association with the Cunard Line, Liverpool also hosted the headquarters of other shipping companies, most notably Cunard’s arch-rival, the White Star Line, whose old offices still stand at 30 James Street. As such, Liverpool was also the port of registry (the official home port) of the Titanic, as well as that of many other ships from Cunard and White Star – although both companies had moved their main terminus to Southampton by the 1920’s.

     By the time QE2 was built, the city was not even included as the official home port with “Liverpool” written across the stern (rear) of the ship, for Southampton had taken precedence when Cunard moved its headquarters there. Nevertheless, Cunard did recognize their shared heritage with the city by sending her there nine times over the course of her 40 year career. Most recently, the company’s latest edition of its fleet – the Queen Mary 2, Queen Victoria, and Queen Elizabeth – were all in Liverpool to celebrate its 175th anniversary from the time when Canadian-born entrepreneur Samuel Cunard founded it.

     With these facts in mind, it is clear to see why the first three cities I have mentioned should have a clear shot at being the new home of the QE2. In contrast, London has virtually no connection to the QE2 – not even a one-off visit from the ship. There is nothing against London in my bones, but it simply does not have the same status with regard to the QE2 as Greenock, Southampton, and Liverpool – not even close to it, but it is included in the conversation in part because of its status as Britain’s capital city, as well as a world city that is a prime tourist destination.

     In addition, QE2 London – an organization that is working to get the QE2 permanently berthed along the Thames – have been promoting their proposals since 2012, which are already well-developed and involve placing the vessel near the O2 Arena on the east side of the city. Its project manager is John Chillingworth, a former chief engineer with Cunard who worked aboard QE2 for 20 years. He was also the general manager tasked with overseeing the conversion of the ship in Dubai before those plans were shelved, and has estimated that £100million would be needed to purchase the ship, return it home, and transform her into a 530-room hotel and entertainment center.

A mock-up of the QE2 berthed across from the O2 Arena along the Thames in London
(Credit: QE2 London)

     Chillingworth is also open to the idea of bringing the ship to Liverpool or Clydeside – stating that feasibility studies have shown that all of them could house the vessel with a potential return on investment towards the end of 10 years.

     Given the dire circumstances however, it may be unproductive to be too picky on where the Queen Elizabeth 2 ought to be located. Any of the places mentioned, including London, are infinitely better than where she is right now – in a location for which she was not designed for long periods of time, where her needs and maintenance are neglected by people who were looking to make a quick buck, and are now probably all too happy to get rid of her by any means necessary.

     In contrast, at any location within the United Kingdom, she will be welcomed back into the country where she was built, where was home-ported, and whose flag she flew. She will be treasured and cherished by people who care about her and will care for her, and I’m sure there may even be some people who will gladly volunteer to help bring back the ship to her prime condition.

     Some people will say that as unfortunate as it may be, it is probably time to let the great liner go and be scrapped. After all they say – with justification – that we cannot expect to save all the ocean liners that have ever been built, and the brute reality is that when a ship reaches the end of its intended use of sailing on the high seas, its only realistic destination is the scrap yard. As the last captain of the Queen Mary said upon the great liner departing New York for the last time in 1967: “Ships, like [human beings], have a time limit, and they day must come when we go.”

     However, the Queen Elizabeth 2 is different, and ought to be an exception to the rule. For 40 years, she sailed across the waves representing the best of Britain to the world with a standard of luxury, comfort, style, and class that made her stand out amongst her contemporaries. Many a passenger has said that upon boarding the QE2, they knew what to expect from such an illustrious vessel and were always impressed, especially by the service rendered aboard – whether it was on a transatlantic crossing or a cruise in tropical areas. When people saw the QE2 – as I did in New York several times – they did not have to ask name of the ship, for she was that distinctive from the rest of the pack.

RMS

Queen Mary 2 in Southampton. She is a fabulous liner in her
own right and carries on the traditions of her predecessors,
but unlike them, does not carry the distinction of being British-built.
(Credit: Barry Skeates via Flickr cc)

     The result is that she one of Britain’s best-known exports to the world.  More fundamentally, as John Chillingworth has pointed out, not only is she the “best known ship in the world and an important part of British maritime history”, but she is also the last British-built passenger liner, and that alone makes her special and worth saving. It is why a location along the Clyde is preferable, for while she is a British national treasure, she was built in Scotland, and is also the Pride of the Clyde – the last of a long line of ocean liners built on the river, and the embodiment of generations of shipbuilding heritage.

     Chillingworth has said that if Scots can but pressure on Dubai and raise funding for an organization similar to his in London, he “would welcome the opportunity to assist them as our ultimate aim is to save the ship and provide a viable future for her.”

     Whichever way it goes for the QE2 in the UK, it is likely that help from the government – financially and otherwise – will be needed.

     Council leader Stephen McCabe of Inverclyde has said: “Bringing the QE2 home is a herculean task, one that requires national support in Scotland and perhaps across the UK, if it has any chance of happening.” Meanwhile, Stuart McMillan, an MSP for the West of Scotland region, said that several agencies and governing institutions would have to work together, including the “Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Inverclyde Council, and Clydeport”, and like McCabe, he is looking to the potential for a boost in tourism and economic development that would “generate more jobs for the area and restore a key part of Scotland’s maritime heritage to Inverclyde.”

RMS Queen Elizabeth - the largest passenger liner built in the United Kingdom.
(Credit: Public Domain)

     In addition to writing to appropriate people and public bodies in Britain, Councillor McCabe has also said that Inverclyde intends to ask Dubai for an assessment on the situation, where the government, according to Chillingworth, have “advised that they are considering their options.”

     As a person who has a passion for the great ocean liners, it is enormously heartbreaking to see what is happening to the QE2, and it would be even more depressing to see her taken away to a beach in Asia to be ignominiously scrapped as the last of her kind.

     In America, we have our own iconic vessel, the SS United States, which like the QE2 was the national flagship and a source of national pride. The “Big U” – as she became known – became the fastest passenger ship ever built when she crossed the Atlantic in just over three days on her maiden voyage in 1952 and beat the Queen Mary’s best time by 10 hours. However like many other vessels, the Big U fell victim to the advent of even faster air travel, and she was withdrawn from service in November 1969. Since then, she has passed through several owners – all of them with plans to resuscitate the ship which have fallen though, and now she is tied up along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and like the QE2, is facing uncertain future.

SS United States
(Credit: The Hartford Guy via Flickr cc)

     Both Britain and America have rich seafaring traditions which ought to be celebrated and cherished. This is true for Britain in particular because of it being an island nation dependent on overseas trade throughout the world.

     For this reason, it ought to be imperative that both ships be saved. In the QE2’s case, there needs to be cooperation between the UK Government, private entities, individuals, and the governing institutions and agencies of the areas that are willing to berth the ship – whether it be in Greenock, Southampton, Liverpool, or London. Indeed, if it is possible, perhaps all of the places that had a connection to the QE2 ought to have a stake in the ship, regardless of where she ends up in the UK. Going further, she can be a great national project for the UK in terms of restoring her to her former glory and making her both a symbol of what Britain was able to go at one time, and a symbol of what it can do going forward.

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 on her last visit to the Clyde in 2008.
(Credit: Dave Souza via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     Time is running out for the QE2, and there is the real possibility that she will be scrapped, and if that were to happen, I cannot help but to believe that the UK will have lost a part of itself in the process. Bringing her back will not be easy, and will require the cooperation and good faith of many people and organizations. But with help from all stakeholders and the wider public, she – a great British icon, the pride of the Clyde built in Scotland – can be returned home to a more happy and glorious future.

Sources:

For More Information:

Proportional and Equal Representation in the House of Lords

/

     In the wake of the last general election, much commentary has been made by the media, opinion writers, politicians, and the public at large about the perceived unfairness of the United Kingdom’s age-old first-past-the-post (FPTP) system for electing members of the House of Commons - the lower house of the British Parliament.

     Such criticism is not new, for even in the days when the two major parties – Labour and the Conservatives – could command almost 90% of the popular vote between them in general elections, neither commanded a majority of the popular vote throughout the UK, though through the votes in each individual parliamentary constituency (or district), the parties often achieved majority status in terms of the number of seats in the Commons. Furthermore – with some exceptions – at least the election results had somewhat of a semblance to the actual number of seats won.

     However, first-past-the-post punishes smaller parties whose vote may be substantial but spread out across the country in such a way that it is not reflected in individual constituencies (where they tend not to stand a chance against the main parties), and therefore does not translate into seats in the Commons. From this view, the British Parliament is not representative of the electorate, resulting in a democratic deficit.

     Yet in many ways, this is what the system is designed to do: shut out smaller single-issue/regional parties and produce single-party majorities for stable and effective governance throughout the United Kingdom. But as the vote share of Labour and the Conservatives (a.k.a. Tories) has fallen to the rise of such smaller parties, this argument falls on the deaf ears of people who feel as though they are not represented in Parliament and the government of the day.

     It certainly seemed like a spurious argument during the 2015 General Election, when the opinion polls were predicting apocalyptic outcomes in which neither party would attain a majority of seats, and with the collapse of the Liberal Democrats – traditionally the third-largest party in Parliament and the coalition partners with the Tories since 2010 – there was talk of rainbow coalitions/post-election agreements with the Scottish National Party (SNP), UK Independence Party (UKIP), the Green Party, and the various parties from Northern Ireland – including the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP).

     As it was, the electorate produced a surprise – albeit wafer-thin – majority Tory government with 330 seats (out of 650) with party leader David Cameron as prime minister for a second term. This appeared to vindicate the continuance of FPTP, but the Conservatives achieved only 37% of the national popular vote – meaning that a clear majority of voters did not vote for the party. However, it won 51% of the seats in the Commons, and therefore gained a mandate to govern the entire UK without the Liberal Democrats or anyone else.

     Yet, if this appeared somewhat distorted, it was nothing compared to what happened in Scotland in particular, where the insurgent SNP won half of the vote, but took all but three of Scotland’s 59 seats in the Commons, which amounted to 95% of the seats and the party’s best electoral performance for a British general election. This has caused consternation among the half of Scots who did not vote for the SNP, especially those who support Scotland's place within the UK, whose voices are now only represented by three Members of Parliament (MP’s) – one each from Labour, the Tories, and Liberal Democrats.

     From a UK-wide perspective, the distortion was even more apparent with regard to UKIP, which received 13% of the vote across the UK, but returned only one MP, in contrast to the SNP, which won 5% of the UK vote but returned 56 MP’s because its vote was heavily concentrated in Scottish constituencies. This amounted to nearly 9% of the seats in the Commons and allowed them to displace the Liberal Democrats as the third largest party. For their part, the Lib Dems won 9% of the vote, but wound up with eight seats – or just over 1% of the Commons.

     These distortions – leaving the SNP overrepresented, the Lib Dems and UKIP underrepresented, and the Tories able to govern alone despite not having a majority of the electorate behind them – have fueled calls for FPTP to be replaced with some form of proportional representation in the House of Commons, so that the Commons can be more representative of the British electorate. It would have deprived David Cameron and the Tories of a majority, but also would have more accurately reflected the “sovereign will of the Scottish people” by preventing the SNP from taking more than about 30 seats and leaving respectable numbers for Labour and the Tories.

     However, there are people who value the link between MP’s and their constituents, which would be diluted in a pure proportional representation system. Another criticism is that PR would entrench high-ranking politicians since they would be placed at the top of PR voting lists, and would almost certainly be elected with no direct constituents to which they answer, which will make democratic deficits worse, not better. Then there are those who simply believe that FPTP, for all of its problems, has served the UK well, and subscribe to the belief that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

     The problem is that for many people in the UK, the system is broken, unfair, and unrepresentative. Throughout the referendum campaign in Scotland, one of the main talking points from the “Yes” campaign and its fervent supporters was that though Scotland had representation in the British Parliament at Westminster, it was nothing compared to the 533 English members and the English electorate, who could “out-vote” Scotland and deliver governments and government policies that “Scotland didn’t vote for.”

     Of course however, Scottish residents vote alongside their fellow British citizens (in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales) during general elections, and the elected Parliament and the subsequent government that is formed is the result of MP’s voted by the people from throughout Britain, and that government is one voted for by the British people as whole from Shetland to Land’s End. Its responsibility is to the United Kingdom as a whole (which includes Scotland) and not simply one part of it. In addition, MP’s are not organized into an “English bloc” or “Scottish bloc”, and nor do they often vote in such a way. Instead, they vote in accordance to their party and/or their personal values, which transcends the domestic boundaries within the UK.

     However, there perhaps is a case to be made that London and the South East do exert an inordinate amount of influence on the policies pursued by the government of the day by virtue of the concentration of people, wealth, and economic power in that area. With this in mind, it is therefore reasonable for parts of the UK outside of London to feel as though the capital and its environs have too much power over the direction of public policy in the UK.

     The fear of larger areas with concentrated wealth and power overpowering smaller areas with less wealth and power was a feature of the US Constitutional Convention of 1787, and it produced a deadlock amongst convention delegates, some of whom wanted a legislative body with two chambers based on population (which would have benefited larger states), whilst others wanted a single chamber body with equal representation, as it was in Congress under the Articles of Confederation. This was settled with a compromise in which the lower house of Congress would have membership allocated to the states in proportion to their population and the upper house of the Congress would allow each state to be equally presented by two members regardless of population.

     Eventually, the lower house became known as the House of Representatives, and as the chamber chosen by the people according to congressional districts within their state, it is larger than the upper house, the Senate, which is smaller and more exclusive, and functions to represent the interests of the states in a manner that befits a federation such as the United States. It means that the interests of the smaller states cannot be easily ignored as they can be in the House, where the sheer force of numbers from bigger states can drown them out.

     It sometimes means that the majority party in the House is not necessarily the majority party in the Senate, and even when both parties are in control, compromises may have to be hashed out in order to get things done, and by bringing the states to an even level with each other, it gives all of them a sense of having a significant role in governing the country. In addition, the Senate is also known for being the "world's greatest deliberative body" because of its tendency to slow legislation down for extensive debate, and to ensure that all voices are heard.

     If the United Kingdom is to move toward a federal system and address the legitimate concern of too much political and economic power being concentrated in the South East, then it is time to look toward changing elements of the UK’s parliamentary system, with a particular focus on reforming the upper chamber of Parliament - the House of Lords - so that it can become more representative of the UK’s nations and regions, as well as to more accurately reflect the will of the British electorate.

     To this end, I suggest that the House of Lords be composed of 100 members – with 25 allocated to each Home Nation and elected by some form of proportional representation (as is done in the Australian Senate, where twelve senators are elected via proportional means from each state, regardless of population).

     There are two main ways that this can be put into effect: proportional vote by Home Nation or proportional vote by region.

Option 1(a): Election of Lords via each Home Nation with simple proportional representation

     Under this plan, members would be elected according to the proportional vote for their party within their Home Nation. As with the European Union (EU) parliamentary elections, candidates will be arraigned according to a party list, but for the first part of this example, I will simply allocate candidates in relation to the percentage of the vote received by their party.

     Such a result based on simple proportional representation is expressed in the following graphs – beginning with the membership from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

DUP - Democratic Unionist Party; UUP - Ulster Unionist Party;

SDLP - Social Democratic and Labour Party; TUV - True Unionist Voice

     When the sums from each Home Nation are added up, here is what the UK House of Lords would look like under simple PR:

Option 1(b): Election of Lords via each Home Nation using the D'Hondt method of proportional representation

     The first variation of Option 1 used the percentage of the vote to allocate seats, and while this is very simple, it is not exactly proportional because it produces a fractional number of seats and requires rounding, the results of which some parties would protest. The D'Hondt method attempts to achieve a more perfect (though still imperfect) proportionality based on the actual votes cast, not the percentages, so that seat allocations are whole numbers and hopefully more fair to the parties and the electorate.

     This method of PR is named for Victor D'Hondt, a 19th Century Belgian mathematician and lawyer, and his system is used for elections throughout the world, including the election of British Members of the European Parliament (MEP's) from England, Scotland, and Wales. For more information on how D'Hondt's system works, I recommend this article from the BBC.

     Using that system, proportional representation in the Lord's is expressed in the following graphs – beginning with the membership from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

     When the sums from each Home Nation are added up, here is what the UK House of Lords would look like under D'Hondt:

     Comparing the two results, there is little substantial change, but there are winners and losers. Most significantly, the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) in Northern Ireland would have one seat under simple PR, but none under D'Hondt. Another significant loser under D'Hondt would be the Greens, which would be left with one seat in England, as opposed to one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland as well under simple PR.

     With that system, the Conservatives could boast of being the only party to have representation at the British Parliament from all four Home Nations of the UK, but D'Hondt would take away their sole Northern Irish seat, which would be compensated with an additional seat in England - keeping them at 22 seats. Meanwhile, Labour would gain one seat in Wales and increase their tally to 24, whilst the Lib Dems lose one to bring their number of Lords to five.

     In Wales, UKIP would have a bigger number of seats there (4) than in England under D'Hondt (3), whilst simple PR would produce the opposite result. In Northern Ireland, UKIP loses a seat, whilst the DUP, Sinn Fein, and the SDLP all make gains with D'Hondt. Indeed, D'Hondt would slash the number of Northern Irish parties in the Lords from nine to five.

     The only parties throughout the UK with no changes between the two systems would be the SNP, UUP, Alliance, and Plaid Cymru.

Option 2: Election of Lords via regions within each Home Nation using either simple PR or D'Hondt

     For the first option (in either variation), the popular vote in each Home Nation was used to calculate the allocation of seats for each party in an elected House of Lords.

     This second option would see members elected via regions within England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

     The benefit of this option is that it would capture the regional political, social, and economic variances throughout the United Kingdom. However, if such a regional option were to be adopted, the seats would have to be allocated through the regions as equally as possible.

     For this purpose, the existing electoral regions used for the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh assembly elections, as well as the regions used for electing MEP's in England could be used. Electoral regions for Northern Ireland would have to be created, as it does not have any.

     But true equality would mean that each Home Nation would have to have five regions, but the only one that has five is Wales, and so this raises the question of regions elsewhere. However, having to redraw them to suit this purpose, or using the existing ones and allocating seats to them as equally as possible may prove to be a contentious issue that goes beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, there will be no calculation of what the Lords would look like via regional proportional representation.

     In conclusion, creating a House of Lords that is elected by proportional representation can go a long way in equalizing the political balance between the nations and regions of the UK, as well as to more accurately reflect the British electorate. Areas with less wealth, power, and population will have a greater say in the running of the country as they are brought to the same level as the wealthier, more powerful, and more populous areas.

     By doing this, it has the potential to create another binding aspect of the Union. For Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, this - as part of a move toward federalism - would amplify their voices in Parliament and move them closer into the heart of the Union, as opposed to the so-called "Celtic Fringe". Indeed, it may also force single-issue parties to step up and actually take part in shaping public policies and provide useful solutions to Britain's problems - putting themselves on official public record, as opposed to just protesting (and complaining).

     There are issues which need further discussing. For example, it can be argued that Northern Ireland is small enough to be a region in and of itself (as it is for EU elections), whilst England's size means that regional representation may be better at capturing its own political, social, and economic variances (i.e., Tories in the red Labour north and Labourites in the blue Tory south).

     In addition, there is the question of whether the Lords ought to be a body that has a mixed composition of elected and appointed members (or if it should be entirely appointed or elected), as well as to the extent it should be occupied by nonpartisan crossbenchers and Church of England bishops. Another issue is that of what to do with the officers of the Lords - some of whom are hereditary and occupy some of the oldest offices of state in the land.

     Then there is the question of what role the Lords would play - whether they would be able to (absolutely) block legislation from the Commons again, or remain as a revising chamber that provides useful scrutiny and amendments to government legislation and directives.

     As for how long members can serve, it may be advisable for them to be elected to lengthier terms (ten years perhaps) that are staggered compared to members of the Commons, and that such members may be limited to one term and subject to a minimum age requirement. Such measures can help to ensure that the Lords doesn't simply become a glorified version of the Commons and focuses on keeping the government of the day in check.

     But this and other issues noted here will be explored in future blog posts, which will focus on ideas to renew, refine, and reform Britain's constitutional system. For now, this article has discussed ways of using proportional representation to provide a proper outlet for the nations of regions of the UK in a similar way that the Senate does for US states, and as upper chambers tend to do in many countries (and typically with less members than the lower house).

     Almost everyone agrees that something has to be done about the Lords. Hopefully, the suggestions I have outlined can provide some guidance on the way forward for this honorable house, while also keeping its useful features intact and providing better and pluralistic governance for the United Kingdom.