That Accursed West Lothian Question

Peter Whale commenting yesterday on the fingerprinting post attempted to derail me with the West Lothian question. Given that Gordon Brown is currently talking about the union and devolution – and this being the 300th anniversary year of the act of Union, perhaps it would be better to come back to the matter in a separate post.

I briefly noticed the matter being discussed on Andrew Marr’s programme this morning. I was only half listening and didn’t take much notice until one of his guests started talking about “little Englanders”. Ah, yes, anyone who dares to suggest that devolution has been inequitable is immediately labelled as a little Englander – or worse. Anyone who dares to admit – let alone revel in their national heritage; if it happens to be English, is labelled a nationalist, or worse a racist. It’s okay if you are Welsh or Scottish, that’s just being proud of your heritage and not in the least bit nationalist or racist.

My ethnicity, like many (most?) people born in England is something of a potpourri. I have Celtic ancestry from Ireland, Scotland and France all stirred up and deposited in England. That makes me English. It is something that, generally, I am content to be. I am what I am and I am happy to rub along with others who are different. Like others, I want the union to continue. However, I want it to continue as a union of equals. That, it is currently not.

The Labour Party, along with the LibDems and the nationalist parties wanted devolution. Presumably, so too, did the majority of Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh electorate. If that is what they want, then so be it. However, that the outcome is one parter in this union being treated less fairly than the others is wholly wrong. It is obviously wrong, it is the proverbial elephant wearing a fluorescent yellow coat and a flashing beacon tied to its head. When English voters see legislation voted on at Westminster that does not affect the constituents that the MP represents, then that inequality is staring them in the face. As John points out:

It’s happening because people discover, through living in the real world, that the issues facing them, their families and their friends are issues not shared in the same way across all the nations of Britain and that, in this instance, it’s because of government. “Yours” and someone elses.

People may not have understood the West Lothian Question but it’s inevitable that more and more people will.

He is absolutely right. People will start to take notice and ask awkward questions. At the moment, the government and the BBC will brush it off by ridiculing the gainsayers, writing us off as a marginal and slightly extreme opinion with insulting language designed to undermine the perfectly reasonable case being put forward.

The West Lothian question is not going to go away. More and more people will finally come around to the obvious conclusion; that the union, if it is to survive, must be a union of equals. Perhaps that English parliament is the right idea after all – and I deplore the idea of more politicians.

11 Comments

  1. Note, however, that these same people now so concerned about Scottish MPs voting on English-only legislation had no concerns at all when it was English MPs (being the vast majority) voting to impose legislation on Scotland that did not apply in England. Funny that.

  2. I can’t speak for others, but at the time, I was in favour of devolution. I still favour the principle, it’s the skewed outcome I object to. Replacing one unfair system with an equally unfair one doesn’t solve anything… 😐

  3. From what I can see, the support for the creation of an English Parliament tends to fall into one of three camps.

    There is the English nationalist strand, which wants an English parliament but is not overly concerned about the Union or its future.

    There is the constitutionalist strand, who would support the creation of English parliament as a part of a new constitutional settlement across the whole of the current union, a strand that includes republicans (like myself) and federalists.

    And then there are (some) Tories, who don’t really support an English parliament but think that stirring up the West Lothian question with unworkable ideas like EVOEM might give them some measure of an electoral advantage.

    Only the first two groups actually have anything worth discussing.

  4. I fall into the second group. I’ve come to this position as a consequence of watching events unfolding. I do, really, want to see the union continue, so an equitable solution such as this seems the only route forward.

  5. Hi there to Pete in Dunbar, you are of course right that it was wrong when English MPs imposed laws only on Scotland, although in truth I do not remember many that were not eventually put on to U.K. law. Scotland was used as a proving ground for government policy, the same as where I used to live the Isle of Wight was. The difference was that your Scottish MPs had a vote in the system and you had the ability to vent your anger at them at the next election.
    Now of course we have Labour MPs in Scotland voting with the party line on say, University top up fees, where without them the legislation would not have been carried through, where they took the opposite view for Scotland.
    How does the English voter have a democratic way of dealing with hypocritical Scottish Labour M.P.s ?
    I am all for Scotland having it’s destiny run by it’s own elected government, I am all for Wales having the same freedoms and also Northern Ireland. Where legislation is needed for the U.K. that should be for all U.K. M.P.s. Whatever areas of government are devolved to those parts of the U.K. should be for the M.Ps of those areas alone,with no say over any other part of the Union. This should also be the case for England.
    As a sentimental Englishman living in France,I think that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are better off in the U.K. than seperated from it.
    Accountable democracy should be a right of all voters, off shore and beyond boundary M.P.s are not democratic.

    Thanks for the post Longrider

  6. “The difference was that your Scottish MPs had a vote in the system and you had the ability to vent your anger at them at the next election.”

    This is true (and indeed in Tam Dalyell’s original phrasing of the West Lothian question, it’s what he considered the main point), but of course you wouldn’t want to voice your anger against the Scottish MPs, but rather against the majority English MPs, about which you could do nothing.

    “How does the English voter have a democratic way of dealing with hypocritical Scottish Labour M.P.s ?”

    Well, I moved to Scotland – though admittedly not just so I could vote against them :-). And of course even without devolution fees for Scottish universities would have required separate legislation, so the Government could still have forced through fees for England while exempting Scotland.

    The whole devolution settlement is broken, really. The Scottish Parliament doesn’t actually have enough to do to justify its full-time existence, but – as politicians are wont to do – energetically tries to find ways of doing more to present the _semblance_ of activity. It is hard to think of any workable alternatives (though making MSPs part-time and cutting back on the juggernaut of St Andrew’s House would be a good start), since England so dominates the union by the size of its population. Regional Parliaments, and reducing the powers of Westminster are all very well, but England _is_ a country, and the regions are artificial constructs with no place in peoples’ hearts – I think of myself as being from Lancashire, not ‘the North West’.

    It seems to me that the best answer is the devolution of much, much more power from Westminster to local government (making it matter again – these days it’s in effect no more than the enforcement arm of the central executive). We do, after all, have a historic ‘federal’ structure already in the UK – it’s called ‘counties’. Yet there is an obsession with so-called ‘economies of scale’ when thinking about local government reform that completely ignores the actual evidence of how staggeringly inefficient and ineffective large local authorities are in practice (yes, Lothian Region, I am looking at you – and the rest of you can stop sniggering, you’re no better). There really are quite substantial diseconomies of scale, and chucking around management-speak about ‘strategic bodies’ and such-like is really only a way of disguising an inability to argue the case in favour on its practical merits.

    Oh well, I’m off to have another blast at Civ IV to help my brain relax.

  7. Why is it supporters of an English Parliament always conveniently fail to mention that 10% of the English have already voted for regional devolution and have successful devolved government (The Greater London Assembly)?

    The only solution that respects the wishes of all English voters is regional government, not an English parliament of 50m that not only disregards the wishes of Londoners but would prove so dominant and powerful it would inevitably cause a break up of the union.

    Those who call for a English parliament do not want equity with Scotland, they want to reassert dominance over it. The English regions would be equivalent size and power to Scotland, would respect regional difference and would not be divisive to the union.

    An English parliament would mean a Labour north of England dominated by a Tory south. This would inevitably lead to resentment in the north, just as 18 years of Tory rule over a socialist voting Scotland led to resentment.

    I suspect the real reason supporters of an English parliament want it is because they want a Tory dominated parliament. Well I have news for you, the Tories only get 35% of the vote in England. If we must have an English parliament, the only way it would be even remotely democratic, is if it was a proportionally elected one (like in Scotland and Wales). PR would allow majority government that represents a range of views, but what is the betting that supporters of an English Parliament also support the undemocratic ‘first past the post’ system?

  8. Neil, Leaving aside, for a moment, the huge assumptions you are making, let’s address some of the valid points:

    So Londoners voted for an elected Mayor and assembly. That does not mean that the rest of us (or even most Londoners) want England carved up into regions. England is a nation state and has been since Saxon times. It would seem that according to today’s news, many – if not most – English people want to keep it that way. So, it is only the current Labour administration that seems to want the carve-up of our country, not the voters. But, then, since when has this government taken the slightest notice of what the voters actually want?

    The current arrangements are iniquitous. What the English parliament campaigners want is an equitable arrangement. Preferably that arrangement should exist within the union – although as Unity pointed out, some may want a breakup of the union. I am not one of them. That an English parliament dealing with English matters would have any effect on Scotland, let alone dominate Scotland is a flight of fantasy. Nowhere have I come across anyone who wants to dominate Scotland.

    As for your assumptions; nowhere have I discussed electoral reform regarding this matter. As it happens, I am no fan of FPTP as it keeps parties in power with a minority share of the vote. Don’t therefore jump to conclusions based upon your own prejudices. Doing so is embarrassing.

    Also, you just can’t resist partisan politics, can you? If An English parliament had a Tory majority, then that would be the outcome of an election; that’s how democracy works. At present, the southern counties put up with a parliament led by Labour despite the Tory predominance down here in the South West. Curiously, I don’t hear you complain about that one…

    One final point; I have never considered myself a nationalist. However, given this government’s desire to remove England from the map, I, like many others, have become more nationalist as a consequence. I am English, I am happy to be English and I will stand by my right to be English – and I damn well want proper representation in this union for my country; England.

  9. Longrider, I was generalising about supporters of an English Parliament not picking out yourself as an individual.

    However, Londoners voted for their own regional government in a referendum, I hate to point this out but without London you cannot have an English Parliament. You would be overiding Londoner’s wishes in this referendum if you set up an English Parliament.

    I quite agree with you that Tory voters in the South are being dominated by Labour voters elsewhere. I have never said any different and that is why I support electoral reform. If you do as well, so much to the good. So from this, can I infer that you would only support a proportionally elected English Parliament?

    If you can not see how an English Parliament covering 85% of the UK population would not dominate a Scottish Parliament covering 10% then I don’t know how else to explain it.

    You say that you are in favour of the union, but an English Parliament would clearly quickly be the end of it.

    Regional government solves the west lothian question better than an English Parliament would.

    Your argument for an English Parliament seems to boil down to history and tradition. This is never a convincing argument for anything. From Edmund Burke to David Cameron, reactionaries have used this so called justification. Just because something has been going on for a long time, doesn’t make it legitimate, it is just a Conservative tactic to maintain the status quo and stop progress.

    I really don’t see how determining someone’s relevance, worth and importance by what piece of ground they happen to stand on is any less irrational than religion and racism. Generally someone’s nationality bears little relation to whether I am going to get on with them. What is so important that you have to divide yourself off from those living in Scotland?

  10. Neil, they are separate countries, England would no more dominate Scotland than Spain dominates Portugal. Separate countries, separate parliaments.

    Londoners have what is, effectively, the old GLC. It is perfectly possible to have an elected national assembly without overriding them any more than Westminster overrides local councils. It’s exactly the same principle.

    My argument does not boil down to tradition – it boils down to equity. We do not have it and we are being denied it by a government that has decided that our country should not exist.

    whether I am going to get on with them. What is so important that you have to divide yourself off from those living in Scotland?

    I don’t – the government has. After all, Scottish MPs decide that top up fees are okay for England, but have no say on the matter in their own constituency. The same applies to such things as prescriptions, drug acceptance et al. I don’t decide these things based upon the country I live in; this government did when it put in place a botched, ill thought through half arsed devolution package.

    Anyway – the people appear to have spoken, haven’t they?

Comments are closed.