The West Lothian what?

Via Tim Worstall and Laban Tall, I see that Michael Howard is looking to tackle the West Lothian question.

Put briefly, this question was framed by Tam Dalyell when devolution to Scotland was first seriously mooted in the 1970s. Why, he asked, should Scottish MPs be able to vote on English laws when English MPs do not have the same rights in Scotland? Dalyell saw this as such a flaw in the idea of devolution that it would cause the whole thing to collapse.

The Tories' solution? According to the Scotsman, Howard will propose

that the Speaker should decide what legislation applies only to England - and ensure Scots MPS do not debate or vote on such issues.

There is much to disentangle here.

There is the myth that the establishment of the Scottish Parliament has somehow diminished the powers of the UK Parliament to legislate north of the border. The Scotland Act 1998 (the Act establishing the Scottish Parliament) makes it crystal clear (Section 29(7)) that it:

does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.

The UK Parliament's powers following devolution remain completely unchanged. The Scottish Parliament is, in legal terms, merely an offshoot of the UK Parliament, able to legislate for Scotland only insofar as the UK Parliament tolerates this. English MPs can pass laws for Scotland to their hearts' content (and frequently do - there have been over 60 Sewel motions, whereby Westminster legislates on devolved issues, since 1998). Their rights remain exactly those they had 10 years ago.

There is a convention that the UK Parliament does not legislate on Scottish affairs, but there is no rule, no legal bar to prevent Westminster from doing whatever it likes in Scotland.

What Howard proposes, by contrast, makes the establishment of the Scottish Parliament appear completely trivial. He wishes specifically to deprive UK MPs of the right to vote on bills that the UK parliament is discussing. This is surely unprecedented in British history.

The consequence of Howard's proposal would effectively be the end of the UK as a governable single state. The formation of a government would be impossible unless one party had an overall majority through all parts of the UK (which doesn't happen that often) - different governments would have to be formed for different issues, the Prime Minister would have to change depending on what topic was under discussion.

Is this what Michael Howard wants? Is the new Tory slogan to be: Vote Conservative and see the end of the UK? Isn't their full name 'Conservative and Unionist'?

I would have some respect for the Tories if what they were proposing was not the opportunistic gloop they have put forward but rather a fully thought-through federal system for the UK. But that would mean tearing up the existing devolution legislation for both Scotland and Wales (which is completely non-federal), even before beginning to address the knotty issue of Northern Ireland. They in all likelihood do not have the stomach for that.

As it is, what we have is a set of proposals that is intellectually inconsistent and impossible to implement.

The Tories are back on form...

Comments

[dearieme]

"Why, he asked, should Scottish MPs be able to vote on English laws when English MPs do not have the same rights in Scotland?" No, that's just half the West Lothian question: the extension is that NOR DO SCOTTISH MPs have the right to vote on such issues in Scotland. In other words, Scottish MPs can vote on many issues only when their own constituents are NOT affected. Surreal! (P.S better make clear to readers that "Scottish MPs" is shorthand for "MPs for Scottish constituencies": the point is political, not racial.)

[Third Avenue]

You're right that this was indeed part of Dalyell's point. But it doesn't change the rest of my argument - UK MPs of whatever constituency explicitly RETAIN their full rights under the Scotland Act. Howard's proposals would be the first to formally DEPRIVE MPs of voting rights.

[dearieme]

Surely the point is that Blair's bungled reform left England as the must populous country in Europe without a Parliament of its own? It has this strange spatchcocked combination of UK parliament and English parliament. The convention that the UK Parliament does not legislate on Scottish affairs is central to devolution: it needs to be joined by a new convention that the Speaker should decide what legislation applies only to England - and ensure Scots MPs do not debate or vote on such issues. Or, we could go for a federation although, as you say, God knows what to do about Ulster. Alternatively, see my brilliant suggestion at the Freedom and Whisky blog.

[Third Avenue]

There is a strong case to be made that Blair's reforms have been seriously bungled - but Howard's proposals, which you appear to endorse, would compound that bungle a hundred times and effectively deprive the UK of a government.

The only real logical solution would be a federation - but this brings with it huge problems, not just NI, but the disparate sizes of the components, the different legal system in Scotland, the lop-sided nature of any settlement, etc, etc. I don't pretend I have the solution, but I'm quite convinced that, whatever it is, it doesn't bear Michael Howard's name.

[Shuggy]

"Scottish MPs can vote on many issues only when their own constituents are NOT affected."

That's not quite accurate - they can vote on issues that affect their constituents if they are issues that are retained by Westminster.

the Tories have a point; Scottish MPs shouldn't really vote on issues that *only* affect English constituencies, especially if it's Scots MPs that give the government their majority - as was the case with Foundation hospitals...

[Shuggy]

Btw,

There's another version of the West Lothian question: "why's it always raining in Harthill?" (A joke that doesn't really travel well) :)

[Third Avenue]

Shuggy - you're right that the Tories have a point. But what they are proposing is not the answer. If you deprive Scots MPs of the right to vote on non-Scottish issues, without setting up full scale federalism, I can't see how you can avoid making the UK ungovernable.

[Shuggy]

No, I'm happy as ever to agree that Tory plans are no solution.

Personally, I don't think it's such a big problem - but it'll become one if this government continues to impose controversial legislation on England with Scottish votes.

It'd be simpler if Labour followed the convention adopted by the Tories and the SNP - avoid voting on purely English concerns.

[JohnJo]

There is also another issue here. The Scottish parliament can legislate in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish. Indeed, that is their ultimate purpose. There is no parliament in England that does the same for the English and for England. Indeed England is the only country in the whole of Europe that does not have a parliament (I think...Wales having an Assembly instead).

[Gareth]

"It'd be simpler if Labour followed the convention adopted by the Tories and the SNP - avoid voting on purely English concerns."

But that's only a convention for the SNP when Scotland is unaffected by legislation for England. Invariably, due to the Barnett Formula, legislation for England (and Wales) has a beneficial or detrimental affect on Scotland's block grant. In detrimental cases the SNP cast aside their principled convention, as they should for they are elected to get the best deal for Scotland.

Mr Third Avenue is correct. We need a federation of British nations, or we need to abolish the devolved administrations and hand the baton to Scottish and Welsh separatists.

[John]

Who is to divine as to what is an English motion as opposed to a British motion ?

Answer - the Speaker - at present none other than Mr Speaker Martin who has never made even the slightest attempt to be impartial and is happy to be the Labour creature he is.

Come on - EVOEI is just going to be an exetension of the the present illogical and divisive arrangement and would be yet another target for English resentment .

I had expected better of Mr Howard than this . On the other hand perhaps he is being subtle - offering up a proposal knowing it to be unsatisfactory withe expectation that it will be demolished by reasoned debate and then leave the field open to a proposal for what IS logical - an English parliament.

[Dissaffected Youth]

Despite living in England I have more faith in the Scottish Parliament, than that of Westminster..
On the original point of the West Lothian Question and the Conservative Manifesto-I completely agree-its more evidence of tory policies resting more on the fears of the minority than any of their own beliefs. The same can be said for their stance on the European Constitution(which they now oppose) when just 8 years ago, their "2020 vision", claimed that they "would push for the completion of the European Single Market".
I could respect(though not agree with) them were they at least to hold to their own principles. As soon as the public realise that the only candidates with the sense to govern a country, and a union are the Liberal Democrats the sooner, we'll be taken seriously as Democracy.