That Scottish Question
The Tories are suggesting that the solution to the West Lothian Question is to introduce English only votes on English matters. Oh dear.
First of all, let’s correct a myth regarding this. It is simply not true that English MPs do not have the right to vote on Scottish matters. Westminster retains the right to vote on Scottish issues and can overrule the Scottish parliament or even abolish it if the votes are there. For an informed analysis of the problem with English votes on English matters and on the West Lothian Question in general, you might want to read this post from the Sharpener archives.
That post has inspired (and by that I mean I’ve shamelessly copied) the following scenario on this proposed solution to a problem which doesn’t actually exist.
Consider the possibility that the Tories have a majority in England but Labour have an overall majority. It’s happened before and it’s very likely to happen again.
It’s Prime Ministers Questions. The Labour Prime Minister is ready at the dispatch box. A Lib Dem from an English constituency asks a question about a hospital in that constituency. The introduction of a new policy is causing problems and the MP is not happy. The Tories have a majority on English health, the new policy is their new policy. You can’t seriously expect hold the Labour PM to account for that.
…run around….
All the Tories cross the floor to sit on the government benches while all the Labour MPs move to the opposition side. The Scottish MPs leave the chamber.
The Tory Prime Minister (for England) answers the question. The next question is from a Plaid Cymru MP. It’s on foreign affairs.
… run around…
It’s not workable, is it? The policy sounds sensible but it’d effectively create another separate government for England which wouldn’t necessarily be run by the majority party in parliament. That way, chaos lies.
But something does have to be done. Whether the system as it currently stands is unfair on the English is open to debate. The perception south of the border that it is unfair is not. Neither is the growing resentment that this perception is generating.
What’s the answer then? Now that’s a question.
dawn said,
October 30, 2007 @ 4:04 am
>…run around….
>All the Tories cross the floor to sit on the government benches while all the Labour MPs move to the opposition side. The Scottish MPs leave the chamber.
I recommend this lazy susan solution for the issue of majority party seating and perhaps this one to deal with those superfluous Scots MPs.
All very fitting for the panto that is Westminster.
Tom Freeman said,
October 30, 2007 @ 11:47 am
The problem you’re describing comes about because in our system, the government derives its existence from a majority in the Commons - if we start setting up a system of different Commons majorities we lose the coherence of government.
One solution might be to have a presidential system whereby the executive is separately elected and could then negoatiate with different Commons groups to get different policies through. I’m not a fan of that at all, though.
Another idea might be to leave the Commons as it is but introduce some sort of ‘English votes’ system for a reformed Lords, to be elected on a regional basis. It wouldn’t ’solve’ the WLQ in the sense of creating a logically consistent system, as the whole-UK Commons would still be supreme - but it would aim to acknowledge the ‘English votes’ principle, in a way, so taking some heat out of the WLQ.
Paul Kingsnorth said,
October 30, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
It is a ridiculous scenario, as described here. But, as you correctly say, the problem it attempts to solve is a real one. I think that problem is considerably more than a perception.
There are two potentially workable scenarios for running the UK. The first is the pre-1997 model, where the Westminster parliament makes decisions for the whole nation state; this proved too unpopular with its peopple to last. The second is a devolved model, in which devolved institutions in each nation run that nation’s affairs, or many of them, with wider economic powers, control of foreign affairs, etc, retained by Westminster.
What we have now is a halfway house, in which a powerful Scottish parliament, an effective assembly in Northen Ireland and a weaker one in Wales run the affairs of those nations, but the affairs of England remained subsumed within ‘Britain.’ It is a situation with which the people of English are rightly becoming impatient. The Tories are attempting to tackle this inequality, but their solution is half-hearted - and, as you say, potentially ridiculous.
To my mind, the solution is the creation of an English Parliament, with devolved powers of its own to run English affairs. What those powers should be and how it would be run can be debated at great length, but the principle is sound, and the best way to ensure that the union runs fairly again.
The Campaign for an English Parliament (of which I’m not a member, incidentally) lays out the case effectively: http://www.thecep.org.uk
Garry said,
October 30, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Dawn, heh! Fitting indeed. Maybe the speaker should be replaced by Widow Twanky while we’re at it.
Tom, interesting idea and worth reflecting on. From up here, it’s difficult to tell whether it would be enough to satisfy EVEL advocates.
Paul, I can see the appeal and believe that public opinion is moving in that direction. If it did happen, I think Westminster would have to give up the right to to allow English MPs to overrule or dissolve the Scottish parliament. It’d be far more difficult (or even impossible depending on how you look at it) for Scottish MPs to overrule the EP.
Giving up this right would have serious implications. As is, power ultimately remains in the hand of Westminster to devolve or centralise as they see fit. I’m not saying that the English don’t have a right to their own parliament but that because the vast majority of MPs are English, it would have different consequences to the formation of the SP.
As an aside, I’ve always thought it odd that the English use “God Save the Queen” as their anthem. It seems particularly odd when the Scottish or Welsh play the English at rugby or whatever. Slightly off topic but maybe it’s time for an English national anthem.
chris said,
October 30, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
People are queuing up to criticise the present constitutional arrangements between Scotland and England. Concerns have been expressed by a growing number of Labour and Tory MPs as well as commentators such as Michael Portillo and Simon Heffer. A recent poll suggests that support for an English Parliament has almost doubled
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the UK is constitutionally primitive compared to most other countries. This is partly because there is no written constitution, but it is also because too many people have acquiesced in the belief that the UK Parliament has “absolute sovereignty” and can therefore do more or less as it likes. Such a situation is both undemocratic (because the present Government received the votes of only 22% of the electorate), and intolerable. Things cannot go on this way. We need to do some fundamental thinking about Scotland’s relationship with the UK and about our constitutional future for several other compelling reasons too
First, the “war on terror” has shown how fragile UK Constitution is. In nearly every other country, many of the changes advocated or enacted by the UK Government would require the consent of at least two-thirds of the electorate and would, in any event, be subject to the overriding scrutiny and veto of a constitutional court, an institution conspicuously absent from the UK. Clearly, threats to the UK Constitution are of great concern to us in Scotland.
Second, there is a groundswell of opinion in Scotland in favour of more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Some people want it to have a lot more power. Some would be content with just a few additional powers. Others would be happy to keep things more or less as they are. Whatever the arguments, this discussion begs some important questions. For example, who ultimately decides whether the Scottish Parliament should have more powers and what these powers should be? And, if the Parliament acquires significantly more power, how will that affect our relationship with the UK Parliament and with England, Wales and N Ireland? Although there is much debate about these, and related, questions, there is no commonly agreed framework and process for the discussion. There is an urgent need for just such a framework and process.
Third, there is a growing body of opinion south of the border in favour of English votes for English matters. This raises fundamental questions about the continuing role of the UK Parliament because, if purely English business is taken away from it, it would have much less to do. Although it would have defence and foreign policy, these matters do not, in practice, occupy much parliamentary time. And while many assume that a residual UK Parliament would retain overall responsibility for taxation, an English parliament would be unlikely to accept a block grant system, simply because of the sheer scale of its expenditure, while the Barnett Formula is not expected to last much longer in Scotland. One way or another, tax-raising powers will probably come to Scotland and England respectively. Much better to plan for this eventuality and for the possibility of an English parliament than to wait until these things happen and then respond in crisis mode. The planning will involve many things, but it will certainly involve making some clear decisions about the constitution of Scotland and about our relationship with England and the other countries of the UK.
Fourth, Scotland is diverging politically and morally from England. That may lead to serious tensions between Scotland and England. It would be wise to consider the constitutional implications of these tension sooner rather than later.
Finally, it is increasingly clear that the formal political processes are no longer capable on their own of solving the many difficult issues of policy and governance in a rapidly changing world. And there has been a widespread collapse of trust in politics and politicians. This is deep rooted and cannot be met by “tweaking the existing system, with a bit a new technology here, or a consultation there. The result is that no political space is being created for the new politics and new ideas to emerge.” (Helena Kennedy in the introduction to the Power Inquiry Report)
Paul Kingsnorth said,
October 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Very good points Chris and Gary. This is indeed something that needs to be planned for long-term. Unfortunately the Labour establishment is currently resisting all discussion of English democracy. The line they use - and this may be familiar to you Scots - is that democracy for England would ‘destroy the union.’ In Jack Straw’s words, it would be ‘dangerous’.
Heard that before? Oh yes: it was the argument the Tories used against the creation of the Scottish parliament. Why do I get the impression that our governing classes are getting nervous, on both sides of the fence?
As for an English anthem, Gary - I think we have one already. it’s called ‘Jerusalem’, and its popular across the politcal spectrum. Unfortunately, the English seem to be waiting for permission to sing it, rather than taking a lead from ‘Flower of Scotland’ and just singing it anyway at public events until it becomes a foregone conclusion.
But we’ll get there…
Alex frae Glasgow said,
October 31, 2007 @ 2:23 am
May I remind all that prior to devolution the reverse of the Mid Lothian question had applied to Scotland for 300 years. Take the Poll Tax as an example: This was voted through by the Tory party in Westminster. The Tory Party in Scotland were a vanishingly small party and Scottish MP’s voted against! The English MP’s steamrollered the decision through. So England welcome to the system that Scotland has suffered. Of course there is a solution, let’s not have these half measures of devolved parliaments lets DISSOLVE the ACT OF UNION OF PARLIAMENTS. Simple everybody is happy!!
Tom said,
October 31, 2007 @ 2:31 am
The English are welcome to discuss English matters in private, but what makes them think they can use the UK Parliament buildings and facilities for it? They can bloody well campaign for a devolved parliament and build some new buildings (at outrageous expense like any good government controlled project) like Scotland did!
The Worst of Perth said,
October 31, 2007 @ 4:15 am
As long as Scotland doesn’t get any more powers until the last drop of North Sea gas and oil is finally drained. Should be soon.
Paul Kingsnorth said,
October 31, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Good idea Alex. I respect your Scottish schadenfreude … Pre-1997 the system shat on the Scots - now it shits on the English. Political parties seem to be the only ones who gain from either situation (we didn;t want the poll tax either, but our MPs did). Dissolve the union? Sounds good to me. Anyone else? Perhaps we need a campaign…
Oh, and Tom - if I were allowed to choose I’d stick our new English parliament in the old Viking capital of York. And I bet we can make it cheaper than yours!
john b said,
October 31, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
“Scotland is diverging politically and morally from England.”
What? Seriously, what?
My 2p: running an English parliament *and* a UK parliament, with 80%+ common membership, would be bonkers. What we really need is proper regional devolution, with each of the English regions taking on similar powers to the Welsh Assembly.
(or to put it another way: I’d much rather the political decisions affecting my day-to-day life were taken by my fellow Londoners, rather than by the Daily Mail readers of Tunbridge Wells…)
Dave H said,
October 31, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
John b, with regard to regional assemblies, labour have tried that in the North-East of England and it was rejected by more than 4 to 1 by the voters and this was in an area that was supposed to be favourable to it. Part of the problem being that the English see themselves as English, not regionally devolved. Perhaps the ultimate solution is a federal UK, with four separate but equal parliaments with a British Grand Committee, selected from members within those Parliaments to oversee the needs of the whole. Either that or break the union.
Scottish Roundup » Blog Archive » Money, extremism and balls said,
November 4, 2007 @ 12:55 am
[…] the press. Holyrood Watcher suspects it’s a lot harder to solve than Sir Malcolm makes out, while Garry looks at the next set of Constitutional anomalies the proposal will produce, and how they might end […]