A Federalist Paper. By Sam Fowles

The phrase “constitutional crisis” is thrown around more often than others when it comes to the issue of Scottish independence, but its use ignores the fact that we’re facing something worse. History is rarely defined by one crisis, but by a critical mass of missed opportunities. Scottish independence marks the second major constitutional question in less than a year that David Cameron’s coalition has handled and fluffed. Whether or not you supported AV, it’s difficult to argue that the referendum last May did not represent an abject failure to deal with the substantive issues. Beginning, as it has, with a Travolta and Cage-worthy display of testosterone, Mr Cameron’s face off with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, seems set to go the same way.

The result is that we’re no closer to solving any of Britain’s underlying constitutional problems. Even the most ardent of unionists would struggle to argue that a system designed for a world before either the popular franchise or real constitutional monarchy might be in need of a little tinkering at this point. For the rest of us it’s pretty clear that a complete refit is more the order of the day.

Independence for Scotland isn’t that refit. As Alistair Darling pointed out in last Monday’s Guardian, if an independent Scotland was to keep the pound (as Mr Salmond suggests it will) it would have no control over its monetary policy, making it’s newly won “sovereignty” largely an irrelevance. This is before one even begins to consider the issues of North Sea oil rights, defence, foreign policy, an inevitably reduced budget and the giant national liability that is the Royal Bank of Scotland.

But if the outlook for an independent Scotland looks worse than Mel Gibson’s career prospects, the current situation is little better. According to the Director of the Scottish CBI, Ian McMillan, the current uncertainty is bad for Scottish business and very bad for investment (http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/scotland_recession_latest_economy_is_no1_priority_not_independence_says_business_1_2062013). In addition, a majority of people in Scotland are unsatisfied with the current situation, with over 60% supporting greater powers according to YouGov’s latest polls (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/scotland).

Our current constitutional arrangement is causing problems south of the border as well. A commission set up to consider the possibility of solving the West Lothian question by reserving “England only” bills on which only English MPs can vote has been condemned by Labour as fudging the issue. Margaret Curran, the shadow Scottish Secretary, has warned that the proposal will create “a second class of MPs based on what part of the UK they come from”.  Quite apart from the political issues,  Alan Trench (an academic at the University College London Constitution Unit) points out that all bills necessarily have minor clauses or repercussions that affect the whole of the UK. “England only” bills do not exist. But West Worcestershire MP Harriet Baldwin raises an important point when she poses the question: “What would happen in future if a government relied for its majority on MPs from outside England?”. In reality, probably exactly what happened before the 2009 election when the Brown government did just that. However, as most of those MPs came from Scotland (and thus a majority of their constituents now want less and less to do with England) it’s hardly ideal.

All this is before one even gets to the many other constitutional imperfections the UK faces. The Plaid Cymru MP, Jonathan Edwards, argues that Scottish independence would be the political equivalent of offering an elastoplast to someone who’s just lost an arm: “The reality is that a parliament where more than 80% represent one country [England] is always going to be skewed in one direction, with or without Scottish independence.” All this is before one even considers electoral reform and the House of Lords.

But what if all of these problems could be solved with one grand bargain? A solution preserving the historic union but also indulging the Scottish, Welsh and (to a less unified extent) Northern Irish craving for nationhood, answering the West Lothian question but also satisfying those crying out for electoral reform? Perhaps David Cameron’s legacy lies, not in re-establishing Chamberlain’s narrow vision of the economy, but in demonstrating a Churchill-ian grand vision for the nation?

Mr Cameron should grasp the nettle and take this opportunity to radically redesign the British constitution. A federal system, giving the “states” of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each their own First Minister, cabinet and legislature would make Mr Cameron’s rhetoric about localism more than just an excuse to cut council funding. It would also strike a far greater blow in the cause of a decentralised democracy than elected police commissioners. A federal system would need a federal government. Electing a bi-cameral federal legislature but also directly electing a federal executive (possibly by an electoral college based on the constituencies) would solve the problem, highlighted by proponents of electoral reform, that voting for ones constituency MP doesn’t actually give one much direct influence on who actually makes up the government. At the same time, it would satisfy those who opposed AV by avoiding establishing messy hung parliaments as the norm and making a complex voting system unnecessary. Establishing the new “national” government somewhere geographically central for the federal UK could revitalise one of England’s horrifically poor northern cities and possibly kick-start an economic recovery that extends further than London. The capital’s status could be preserved by maintaining England’s state government in Westminster.

There would also be huge political benefits. Constitutional reform of this scale would be the holy grail for the Liberal Democrats and would give the coalition’s junior partners a genuine stake in the government. Mr Cameron could cement his coalition as a political fixture which would most likely give him control of the UK legislature for the foreseeable future, and almost certainly permanently free him from the paleolithic influence of the far right of his own party. Mr Cameron’s newly earned status as a radical bestower of nationhood might even give his party enough of a foothold in Wales and Scotland (where Conservatives currently have a combined total of only 15 seats in the national assemblies) to genuinely influence regional politics.

Essentially it’s win/win for Mr Cameron and might even revive Nick Clegg’s reputation. Unless, of course, there is any major political opposition: perhaps a major party ideologically opposed to radical change to the union, whether beneficially or not. Oh wait, that’s Mr Cameron’s Conservative and Unionist Party. Mr Cameron has, thus far, proved quite adept at claiming to lead his party away from its historical routes. If he thinks he can do it in this instance then I’d be more than willing to dig out my combat shorts and flip-flops and join Steve Hilton in the policy room.

(Sam Fowles is Director of Representation at the University of St Andrews Students Association)