West Lothian/English Question..........your view?

azzuri · West Lothian/English Question..........your view?

see a poll on the topic in the Daily Mail here -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/..._poll_id=14093&in_page_id=711

Incidentally 85% of those polled so far believe that 'Celtic' MPs shouldn't be voting on English-only matters.

Rinty · b

I'm all for English devolution.

We have constantly had to put up with English MPs voting on Scotland only issues. It was English MPs that gave us the poll tax a year before them, English MPs that gave us a £430M parliament building that no-one wanted.

It is Westminster MPs that decide any change to the voting system in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster MPs who will decide if we go ahead with a new generation of trident and a recommissioning of a nuclear power station. Where will the power station and the missiles be?

This idea is just a poor stop gap to avoid breaking up the union. Will Northern Ireland MPs get exclusive voting over issues relating to Northen Ireland? If so then devolution in that part of the UK is over. Why would unionists devolve power to a power sharing assembly when they have a permanent majority and can decide everything about NI in Westminster without the influence of Welsh, Scottish or English MPs.

Morph

The devolved scottish parliament was an easy way to steal the thunder of national unrest in scotland not to give us real power. And until this happens whats the point in the puppet parliament

Aventinian

English only votes in Westminster are virtually impossible to impliment, an affront to our constitution and a complete fantasy of the ignorant and the devious.

An English Assembly is the only way forward and I believe should be introduced immediately in the form of the English Grand Committee with MPs from England meeting separately from the UK Parliament until some other arrangement can be cooked up, possibly via a constitutional convention.

azzuri

Surely a separate English Parliament would be a better solution, though that would need a bill passed in the commons, which would be like turkeys voting for christmas (in my opinion).

parkhead_rfb

no chance of an english parliament it would be too much of a rival for westminster.

Aventinian

It would have very defined roles, just like the present Scottish Parliament... even then, deference to Westminster is assumed.

SLG

That would be the theory Aventinian, but in practice politicains and parliaments seek more power over their patch. Look at Holyrood using planning laws to stop Westminster building new nuclear generators (a reserved matter). It will be especially prevelant if there are different parties in the devolved and UK parliaments.

SLG

Blackleaf

England is ruled by Scotland. Forget the old rubbish that England rules Scotland (Scotland joined the Union voluntarily). It's a country of 4 million ruling a country of 51 million.

The Lib Dems, who were led by the Scot Kennedy, are now looking like they are gonna be led by another Scot - Sir Menzies "Ming" Campbell. Labour (and Britain) are ruled by a Scot (Blair, born in Edinburgh) and will soon be led by ANOTHER Scot, Gordon Brown, who will also be PM.

That leaves the Tories. They have the typical English, David Cameron, leading them. Oh, wait a minute. I've just remembered. Where does Cameron's father come from? Aberdeenshire.

Aventinian

Are you implying England did not join the Union voluntarily? While the incident of Queen Anne having to replace the English Union Commissioners is well documented, the English Parliament did vote for it article by article...

Tony Blair, if he loyalty to any of the home nations, is a son of England. If you ask me, raising this point for its own sake is nothing short of petty racism...

SLG

azzuri

Here's an article from today's Daily Mail -

Daily Mail, 19 January, 2006

Steven Glover

HOW DARE THE SCOTS TELL US WHAT TO DO!

Gordon Brown has a problem. He is Scottish – more obviously so than the aspiring Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campabell. That is not to say that Sir Menzies does not also have a problem, only that it is of a lesser order than the Chancellor’s.

Sir Menzies has the faintest of Scottish accents, and one might almost mistake him for a debonair, slightly affected Englishman. Mr Brown’s tones are not merely more evidently Scottish. He exudes Presbyterian rectitude and a kind of northern bleakness.

His particular difficulty as a would-be prime minister arises because the Scots are less loved in England than at any time since the mid-18th century. A surprising number of English people resent the power of Scots MPs to vote on purely English matters at Westminster, whereas English MPs have no say over many Scottish matters as a result of the Scots having their own Parliament. This is the famous West Lothian question, which this Government has wilfully ignored.

Mr Brown hopes to persuade potentially (if not already) grumpy English voters, whose support he must have if he is to win the next election as Labour leader, that we share a common Britishness which transcends any tribal differences. Hence his recent call in a speech to the Fabian society for a British national day, and his wrapping of himself in the Union Flag.

The Chancellor even hinted that ‘ecclesiastical appointments’ might in future not be made by the Prime Minister. He may have been accommodating himself to the possible objections of some English people if he – a Scottish Presbyterian son of the manse – were to be involved in the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury. As an historian, he will remember how a former Presbyterian Scottish Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay McDonald, created a hullabaloo by appointing the low-church (we would now say evangelical) Bishop Barnes to the see of Birmingham.

Some people will think Mr Brown’s speech calculating and self-serving and no doubt it was. But there is no reason to suppose that he does not genuinely celebrate Britishness, and honestly see himself as a defender of the Union. Politicians, after all, often have their hidden agendas. If Mr Brown has arrived at the right conclusion – I speak as an ardent Unionist rather than a little Englander – we should perhaps not examine his motives too closely.

The trouble is that what he says unfortunately makes no sense. He presents himself as a loyal and convinced Briton, proud of our island history and our shared values of liberty and tolerance, as well as of the enterprise and ingenuity which enabled out forefathers to colonise a quarter of the globe. And yet he – or New Labour – has substantially undermined the very notion of Britishness about which he waxes to eloquently.

Since 1997 the Government has regularly relied on Scots Labour MPs to carry contentious legislation which involves only England. For example, Scottish (and Welsh) Labour MPs voted for the introduction of student top-up fees affecting only English universities. With a much reduced majority since last May, the Government is likely to rely increasingly on its Scottish MPs to pass legislation that concerns only England. It the new education bill affecting England does not receive the support of the Tories, the Government, facing a backbench rebellion among its own MPs, will be dependent on its Scottish contingent to pass it into law.

This is a glaring injustice that is bound to infuriate many English people and chip away at their feelings of Britishness. A Scottish MP may have a say in purely English matters regarding health or education or law and order, but an English MP has no corresponding rights in respect of Scottish affairs. This contradiction was foreseen nearly 30 years ago by the former Scottish Labour MP Tam Dalyell in opposing devolution, and it was he who described it as ‘the West Lothian question.’

There is, in fact, a perfectly straightforward solution to the West Lothian question, which was put forward by the former Tory minister Kenneth Baker earlier this week in the House of Lords. Lord Baker suggested that only English MPs at Westminster should be able to vote on bills exclusively affecting England. In the case of legislation concerning Britain, on matters of defence or finance or social security, all Westminster MPs would naturally be allowed to vote.

Here is a solution that would be just and fair, and would deflate burgeoning anti-Scottish feelings. Why, then, does the government not adopt it? Because if it were to do so, it would be unable to pass much of its legislation that has only to do with England. Deprived of the electoral power of its Scottish MPs, it would barely be able to muster a majority in respect of English affairs, and that majority might melt away in the case of contentious issues. To govern England, Labour must have Scotland.

That would be a defensible state of affairs if there were no devolution, and if the United Kingdom had remained a unitary state. But devolution has changed all that. Labour has introduced grotesque inequalities into the British constitution which it has done nothing to correct.

The system by which billions of pounds of tax receipts are transferred from England to Scotland (the so-called Barnett formula) will inevitably provoke more and more English outrage as long as these constitutional inequalities persist. To put it bluntly, the English did not mind subsidising the Scots too much when there was one State and one Parliament. It becomes a different matter when Scottish MPs at Westminster have far greater powers over England than their English counterparts enjoy over Scotland.

It must have taken a lot of chutzpah for Mr Brown to have celebrated Britishness in which the Government in which he is such a leading light has done so much to undermine it. He is too astute a politician not to have realised the contradictions in what he said. Stirring through his evocation of Britain may have seemed on a superficial level, it was an appeal to a dying ideal, or at any rate an ideal which New Labour is slowly killing off.

And, more than the very English Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, as an unmistakable Scot, threatens to become in English eyes the embodiment of the gross unfairness of the West Lothian question. As he seeks to reassure us that he is British first and Scottish second and that he shares a common heritage with English voters, so paradoxically he may serve to highlight the inequalities Labour has created. I’d say it was one of the two or three most pressing issues in British politics. There is a solution, though I very much doubt whether Labour, or Gordon Brown, has the courage to embrace it.

Rinty · n

I wonder of the author of this piece and LOrd Baker will be so upset when English MPs get to decide on a new voting system for the Scottish Parliament, or if they were upset when Westminster foisted the £431M Holyrood building on us?

What would they tell a constituent of a Scottish MP who is a student at an English University if that constituent asks why they didnt vote against top up fees? What do we tell the scots potential students who may lose out due to the increase of English students heading to Scottish Universities?

Neil

The obvious answer to the question is federation.

Westminster doing 2 jobs as UK Parliament & English isn't feasible. Will we have Gordon Brown as PM answering questions on Iraq & then David Cameron as first Minister answering questions on whales in the Thames?

The problem with federation is that if England is 1 federal unit it would tend to overshadow everybody else. Much of the constitutional advantage of federation is that, because there are multiple sources of power, we can try out various solutions to see which works - this would also work better if England was given 4 (or 3 or 5) assemblies.

However in the end only England can decide what sort, or even if, they want devolved power.

The fact that we have a FTPT electoral system makes it worse because it makes differences within the UK look larger than they are. Scotland is an almost Tory free zone (Westminsterwise) on 20% of thevote but in the UK is the official opposition on 33%.

Rinty · agree

I agree in general nial but whether England has regional assemblies or not would have to an internal matter for an English parliament and English local government. In a federal UK England would be an equal partner constitutionally.

Neil

The question was whether England would choose to be part of a federation as a unitary state or as a number of regions. An "English Parliament" presupposes that such a choice has already been made.

SLG

Well given that one region of England has had a referendum and rejected an English regional assembly, is a unitary English state not the only solution? Even if the other regions of England wanted their own assemblies, what would happen to the NE England?

Blackleaf

SLG

Aventinian

Pandering to racists are we, SLG?

azzuri

SLG

SLG

Rinty · b

Neil

Your opinion is wrong. A federation is between the constituent parts of the federation.

It is proveably possible for both Quebec & British Ontario to be parts of a federation although onlyone of them considers themselves a separate ntoinal community.

Rinty · y

You must mean dissolving the union altogether rather than changing the existing union to a federal one. In this scenario then Scotland and England could form a federation with an English (or Scottish) region. But in this scenario Scotland could form a federation with Norway, Iceland, or whoever they wish.

My opinion is not wrong, I simply thought we were talking about restructuring of the UK not starting with a blank canvas. In this case of course you would be right that Scotland (or Dumfries for that matter) could form a federation with anyone who wanted to form one with them. But it is hardly likely.

Neil

If you wish to start a thread about union with Norway please do so & I will probably contribute - this thread is about the West Lothian question. Neither you nor anbody else has the right to tell the English what type of union they could or "could not" form. All options must be open.

SLG

Opinion piece in the EN from David Stenhouse, author of How the Scots took over London.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=123092006

Neil

There are generations of Scots living in England (eg David Cameron) - just look at any English phone book under Mac. At the time of the Act of Union there were a million Scots & 5 million English 7 while we have probably disproportionarely emigrated overseas it is also obvious that a lot of southerners can claim scots blood. Equally anybody in London will tell you that a londoner born is a rarity.

While I am immensely proud of my Scots heritage, particularly the post union heritage let us stop pretending the English are foreigners - else some day they might believe it.

SLG

What do you mean by foreigners? Are you trying to say that David Cameron is Scots?

Many parts of the new world have phone books with plenty Scottish names. plenty parts of Scotland have phone books with lots of Irish names. Are these places foreign to each other?

SLG

Aventinian

Tory Central Office has yet to think up any decent answer to the West Lothian Question, so I think this is all a little rich coming from them.

Secondly, you won't find me criticising the Queen very often, but it should really be down to her to tell a prime minister that unless the situation is urgent, they should seek Parliamentary approval of their little foreign hunting trips.

Sawney Beane

To be pretty honest, there is far, far too much flapping of arms and blubbering about this whole entire subject.

Actually, it isn't quite true that English MP's don't get to vote on Scottish issues. This is why there has to be a lot of myth-busting around the West Lothian Question - most of its protagonists pay bugger-all cursory attention to the facts.

In fact, there have been a few Scotland-specific bills passed at Westminster since devolution compared to NO England-specific bills in that time. Any bills pertaining to England also apply to Wales (by en large due to the common Legal system) or Great Britain or to the whole of the UK.

You look at any number of Acts passed by the UK government in recent times, and you will see a lot applies to Scotland that is actually devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They could be listed in the dozens.

For instance, the Serious Organised Crime Bill which was passed in Westminster - a large amount of legislation in this bill with respect to police and the Scottish criminal justice system applied to Scotland, and Scotland only. As we should all know, Scottish Police and Justice issues are a Scottish devolved matter. The Civil Partnerships Act legislated by Westminster - Marriage Law – another devolved issue. The Children Act - Child Policy and Education – also a devolved issue - the Civil Contingencies Act - the Energy Act etc ad infinitum - all passed by Westminster, and all affecting devolved issues. Many of these Westminster Acts have Scottish-specific clauses on issues, which are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.

The thing is, that English MP's may not be even aware that they are actually voting on issues devolved to the Scottish parliament - in actual fact I'd go as far as to say they are woefully ignorant about it (as are a great deal of the public). I also think that the Government have been very incompetent about being forthright about the position of Westminster in governing for the whole of the UK. Which in actuality, it isn't really surprising!!! Rolling Eyes

If anyone is interested, check out the following links. They are both articles relating to the above subject and are both very convincing and revealing critiques on it.

http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=72

http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=194

Aventinian

I don't think anyone can be accused of ignorance in applying laws over devolved issues in Scotland. Most are down with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament by Sewel Convention and often seperate provisions must be made for an Act to have the same effects in Scotland (called 'putting a kilt on' a provision by those witty chaps at the Parliamentary Counsel Office)