Time for constitutional upheavals in Britain

By Gwynne Dyer

LONDON (JP): Three months after Britain elected its first Labor government since the 1970s, it's becoming clear that the biggest changes during Prime Minister Tony Blair's watch will not be economic or social, but constitutional. Suddenly the possibility looms of a republican Britain, a federal Britain, even a dismembered Britain.

A British republic? Neither Blair nor Labor particularly wants to kill off the monarchy; this is suicide, not murder. But the royal family's steep fall from weddings of fairy-tale princesses to its present dire image was summed up in the color photo that splashed across the front page of almost every British daily paper on July 24, the day after the memorial service in Milan cathedral for murdered Italian fashion designer Gianni Versace.

There was aging pop star Elton John, red-eyed from weeping -- and there, one arm around his shoulder and her other hand splayed comfortingly across his chest, was Diana, ex-Princess of Wales, choking back her own tears. And the subtext was: these people are British trash noisily mourning the death of foreign trash. Which seems a bit unfair to poor old Elton John.

The mass-circulation British press has never been that fond of gay designers, gay singers, or upper-class young women who behave like starlets and give themselves tragic airs. But it has millions of readers who would have rebelled at such ruthless front-page treatment of a 'royal' ten years ago, so that picture wouldn't have been published then. Now, they're just going with the flow.

Nigel Fountain, writing in the Observer, nailed the message down. "Consider that image...as a statement of where we are now.

Queen of England manque is sitting in a 14th-century Piedmont cathedral, consoling a weeping, defunct, re-haired Seventies glam rocker about the murder of an Italian porno-frock-designing bondage freak by a Filipino-Californian gay hustler serial killer...who has since allegedly blown most of his own face off."

Consider also that Princess Di's ex-husband, Prince Charles, who will inherit the British crown on his mother's death unless something goes terribly wrong, is now determined to marry the woman with whom he has conducted a decades-long affair.

Over the past couple of months Camilla Parker Bowles, now divorced herself, has been the focus of attention at several high-profile events as part of a campaign to test her acceptability to the public as a future Queen of England. If that works, fine. If not, Charles will marry her anyway -- which is admirable in the man, but potentially fatal for the monarchy.

The time is ripe for a constitutional upheaval in Britain. The Labor government is already pledged to take away voting rights from hereditary peers in the House of Lords. But once you attack the hereditary principle, where do you stop?

As Will Hutton, editor of the Observer, wrote recently: "(Charles's) planned marriage to Camilla is a calculated political gamble, and one which he is reconciled to losing. Britain will be the first republic in history launched by its own royal family insisting that the country grow up."

Not only that, but it could be a federal republic. Twin referendums in September will let the five million Scots and the 1.5 million Welsh decide if they want separate parliaments to look after their own affairs. Scotland at least is certain to say yes.

The Scottish sense of separate destiny has been much sharpened by the past 18 years of Conservative rule in Britain. Scotland elects few Conservatives, and almost no right-wing ideologues of the sort that flourished in England. A separate Scottish parliament with control over most domestic affairs is seen partly as a shelter against further erratic behavior by the English.

But that, promises Tony Blair, is as far as it would go. The Scottish parliament could raise an extra three percent tax in Scotland if it wanted, but a Labor government in Scotland (which Blair confidently expects) would never do such a thing. The Welsh assembly, if it comes to pass, will have no money-raising powers and will have to get by on the revenue handed over by London.

Above all, don't worry about the country breaking up. Neither of these new bodies will have the right to vote on the constitution of the United Kingdom, so they will not be able to vote for independence. Power is being 'devolved', not irrevocably given away, and Westminster could always take it back if necessary. That is the theory, but the unintended side-effects of political actions are often greater than the intended effects.

One potential side-effect could be quite positive. Once the Celtic fringe blazes the way, the 50 million English may not remain content with a single, highly centralized national government that concentrates so much of the wealth in and around London. There would probably be pressure for further 'devolution' to the English regions as well, which would lead to a fully federal Britain. But from the start it would be a federation facing secession.

One side-effect of 'devolution' is certain: a Scottish independence movement that grows until it takes up a large share of Britain's political attention and energy. The Canadian example, or more precisely the Quebec example, is instructive.

Two generations ago, in both Scotland and Quebec, politics followed a traditional left-right divide, with both major parties making nationalist noises from time to time but neither making nationalism the main issue. Since then, the Conservative Party has collapsed in both places, leaving no major contenders in the field except the moderate center-left (Liberal in Quebec, Labor in Scotland) and the once marginal hard nationalists.

The democratic reflexes of Scottish and Quebec voters will not tolerate a perpetual one-party state, so the nationalists must be elected from time to time. In Quebec, the closed two-party fight between moderate nationalists and outright separatists has produced an inward-looking political culture obsessively fixated on ethnic grievances, and a constant escalation in claims against the center.

Once there is a Scottish government, the same effect will be produced there, regardless of the actual state of relations between Edinburgh and London. In ten years, the talk could well be about whether Scotland will secede from the federal republic of Britain.