West Lothian Question

[Duke Malcolm]

A former Tory Home Secretary, Lord Baker, has introduced a Bill seeking to answer the West Lothian Question. The Bill seeks to prevent Scottish and Welsh MPs and Peers from voting on matters devolved to their respective devolved assemblies.

Auntie Provides:
Link to Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4620576.stm)

This is a terrible bill, and will only give the SNP/Plaid Cymru more ammunition for their campaigns for independence. They will say that Scottish and Welsh MPs are second-rate MPs, second to their English counterparts, that this is undervaluing Scots.

In my opinion, there should not be this "half-house" for English matters, either fully devolve the powers to a new English Parliament or take devolution away from Scotland and Wales, restore their equality in Britain.

As for the prevention of Peers to vote on Englsh matters, it is absurd. The Kings of Great Britain between 1602 and 1707 appointed numerous Scottish Lords of Parliament, especially King James VI in his attempts to united Scotland with England. Also, preventing Scottish Peers from voting on English matters is a breach of Article 23 of the Treaty of the Act of Union which guarantees the equal rights of Scottish and English Peers, hence rendering such a ban unconstitutional.

[Tribesman]

The tories want to restrict voting rights for Welsh and Scottish MPs .
hmmmmmm.....could that have anything to do with them being exceptionally bad at getting anyone elected in those provinces ?
Oh hold on , they had really good results last time , they actually managed to get one in Scotland , and an absolutely magnificent three in Wales .:laugh4:

[scotchedpommes]

I find the idea of Scottish MPs voting on matters that only affect England
absurd.

[As for the rest of your post, Malcolm, I can only say that your views seem more
than slightly outdated - so much so as to make any discussion nigh on pointless.]

[Templar Knight]

Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on issues effecting England - period.

[English assassin]

Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on issues effecting England - period.

Ditto, with bells on. Of course the Labour government will never allow it as they could never goven England without the massed ranks of Jimmies. (A little bit of big brother style political balance there just so we don't have to bleep Tribesman out)

The SNP will talk bollocks whatever we do, I don't see why allowing Scottish MPs to impose top up fees in English Universities is a price worth paying as a result. (Oh, and OT but priceless, Scottish students get a better deal in Scottish Universities, as do students who are citizens of any other EU state thanks to EU law on discrimination on the grounds of nationality, but its perfectly legal to charge English students more that Scottish students because being English isn't a nationality :inquisitive: )

[Templar Knight]

I don't see how they can call it discrimination. The top up fee issue was only about Schools in England and Wales if I am not mistaken, it had nothing to do with Scotland so therefore why did we vote? They are giving us a bad name :shame: ~:grouphug:

[InsaneApache]

Perhaps if England declared independence from the UK that would **** them all up as it's us (the English) who pick up the tab.

Another novel idea. If the 'Celtic' fringe want independence let 'em have it, just as long as they are prepared to pay out of their own pockets. (Which they won't)

Still, as we are governed by a Scottish cabal it won't happen, as they would be disbarred from standing for office as they would be 'auslanders'.

The English are badly served by this administration. We don't even have the curtesy to have our own nation recognized by Labour. Shameful. :no: :shame:

[KukriKhan]

But Lord Baker - who served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet - said: "There should be no legislation without representation." -from the linked article.

That seems a reasonable sentiment. Wars have been fought over the concept.

So, a question: Scot MP's vote in the Scottish Paliament AND the UK Parliament? One guy, 2 venues? But English MP's only vote in UK Parliament? (OK, that's 3 questions - but I'm confused). :)

[InsaneApache]

So, a question: Scot MP's vote in the Scottish Paliament AND the UK Parliament? One guy, 2 venues? But English MP's only vote in UK Parliament? (OK, that's 3 questions - but I'm confused). :)

I'll try to explain.

In the UK we have a 'national' Parliament based in Westminster.

As a result of devolution Scotland and Wales (to some extent Northern Ireland) have assembles or parliaments.

The 'national' Parliament decides policies such as health, education, defence and taxation.

The devolved assemblies have policies that appertain to their own 'national' interests.

However the sticking point is this.
In the 'national' parliament all MPs have a vote during the division. Unfortunately that may well involve them (Scottish and Welsh members) making decisions that would not directly impinge on their electorate. A good example of this is the so-called top-up fees that English students have to pay to go to university. Scottish students do not have to pay this as the Scottish parliament rejected the proposal. However the Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster do have a vote on this and other issues. In effect they can make laws for the English without a plebiscite from the English it affects.

[KukriKhan]

OK, I think I've got it. Thanks.

So: the Scots have an assembly, and Wales either has or soon will have an assembly - but England does not, its affairs being legislated by the big GB Parliament (which includes representatives, err...MP's from Scotland and Wales).

The solution seems to be: create an English Assembly.

But: the current GB national majority party (Labour) doesn't want that because they need the Scotland and Wales MP's votes to pass their programs.

Is that about right?

[InsaneApache]

Apart from Wales about to get an assembly (it has had one for a couple of years now) I would say you encapsulated it in a nutshell.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

i was very annoyed when tutition fees were brought in, by scotish votes, thats just not democracy :furious3:

[English assassin]

The solution seems to be: create an English Assembly

No disrespect Kukri but any solution that involves MORE politicians to batten onto us like blowflies on a rotting corpse is no solution IMHO.

Also the position is further complicated by the fact that the Scottish Parliament has wider powers than the Welsh assembly (don't ask) so that, for instance, it is right that welsh MPs could vite on top up fees, but not Scottish MPs.

The lesson of all this is that yunno, trendy 'ittle cool britannia prime ministers ought not to start interferring with things they don't understand. (cf also House of Lords when we are STILL waiting for a proper second chamber which Blair will also not deliver on because, basically he only likes democracy when it means people vote for him)

[InsaneApache]

i was very annoyed when tutition fees were brought in, by scotish votes, thats just not democracy :furious3:

Welcome to Bliars Britain. Just about the most repressive and illiberal regime I've ever had the mis-fortune to live under.

Governments that little Insane has seen....

Harold Macmillan......tory
Alec Douglas hume...tory
Harold Wilson...........old Labour
Ted Heath................tory
Wilson (again)..........old Labour
Jim Callaghan...........old Labour (and a bloody disaster)
Maggie Thatcher.......tory
John Major...............tory (see above under Callaghan)
Tony Bliar................warmongering fascist aka new Labour.

[scotchedpommes]

Being part of what you so lovingly call the Celtic fringe, I think the only
reasonable solution would be to move towards our respective assemblies being
further removed from each other in terms of their operation. I don't see an
English assembly being created while the UK still functions politically as it does
now, because such a move would effectively be separating us even more
radically than any Westminster government would accept.

[Also, while I wouldn't go so far as to address your auslander remarks,
obviously with the number of Scots in high positions in Westminster, they are
bound to be more eager to embrace their own vision of a Union, perhaps renewed,
rather than looking to separate us further. Of course, that's why we are seeing
Brown looking to 'bring us together as Brits', shall we say. I can't see how that
could be viewed as anything other than laughable.]

[Duke Malcolm]

[As for the rest of your post, Malcolm, I can only say that your views seem more
than slightly outdated - so much so as to make any discussion nigh on pointless.]

Assuming you are referring to the equal rights of peers preserved in the Treat of the Act of Union 1707, I don't see why. A case was brought before the Court of Session in 1953 upon the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen, concerning her description as "Elizabeth II" since she is the first Queen Elizabeth of all Great Britain, and the second Queen Elizabeth only of England. The Lord President of the Court of Session said that it was entirely up to Her Majesty to decide how Her Majesy is described, but said that since there is no provision in the Treaty of the Act of Union for the Parliament of Great Britain to be able to amend the afore mentioned act at will, the courts may repeal any act which contravenes the treaty.


i was very annoyed when tutition fees were brought in, by scotish votes, thats just not democracy

Imagine how annoyed the Scots were when it was English votes that passed such acts that prohibited the use of Gaelic in schools, abolished the right of Scots to bear arms, and numerous others...

[King Henry V]

Well you were a bit naughty at the time...twice...

[BDC]

Imagine how annoyed the Scots were when it was English votes that passed such acts that prohibited the use of Gaelic in schools, abolished the right of Scots to bear arms, and numerous others...

Yes well imagine how many English people got killed by rampaging Scots. No point dwelling on the past, not like it can be changed.

[scotchedpommes]

Assuming you are referring to the equal rights of peers preserved in the Treat of the Act of Union 1707,

Was referring in general to your clinging to outdated traditions, and
conservatism, which has thankfully has been removed from the Scottish
parliament, for the most part.


Imagine how annoyed the Scots were when it was English votes that passed such acts that prohibited the use of Gaelic in schools, abolished the right of Scots to bear arms, and numerous others...

I think BDC addressed this perfectly well, simply by saying there's no point
dwelling on the past.

[Rank Bajin]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Sorry, but to be honest, far, far too much is made out about the West Lothian Question. The constant blubbering from English M.P.s about those nasty Scots voting on solely English issues is quite a laugh.

The West Lothian Question really is a load of b******s, perpetuated only by those who misunderstand how the UK works. The truth is that English MP's actually vote on Scottish issues in bills with quite frightening frequency. Have any of you heard of the Sewel Convention and what it pertains? Nope?

Here is an article I got off Wikipedia that explains the reality of the West Lothian Question. Hope it helps in dispelling the 'crap' that surrounds the whole situation.

West Lothian question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from West Lothian Question)

The West Lothian question is a question posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian during the debate over Scottish devolution in the 1970s, and which is still relevant after the 1999 establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The name was coined in 1977 by Enoch Powell.

The question is twofold:

How can it be right that MPs elected to Westminster from Scottish constituencies have no ability to affect the issues of their constituents which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and;
If power over Scottish affairs is devolved to a Scottish Parliament, how can it be right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will have the power to vote on issues affecting England (including those that don't affect Scotland), but English MPs will not have the power to vote on Scottish issues?

With the creation of the Scottish Parliament, this anomaly has come into existence, though without great protest in England.
While it seems unlikely that Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on English domestic affairs, the number of MPs to which Scotland is entitled (which was previously disproportionately high for its population) was reduced at the United Kingdom general election, 2005, from 72 to 59.
Protests have been growing recently, especially after legislation for the creation of foundation hospitals in England, an extremely controversial policy, was passed due to the votes of Scottish MPs when a majority of English MPs had voted against. A key vote of proposals to introduce university top-up fees, in the Higher Education Act 2004 also passed only due to Scottish MPs voting (even though almost a third of the provisions of the bill directly extended to Scotland), and this has generated further calls for reform, especially as the policy directly affected the funding for Scottish universities, even though they are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.

Contents

1 Reality of the West Lothian Question
2 Proposed solutions
3 See also
4 External links

Reality of the West Lothian Question

Recently, with the new constitutional landscape in the UK questions have arisen over the legitimacy of the West Lothian Question - which was first posed back in the 1970's.

Many commentators point out that the principles of the West Lothian question are logically inconsistent. Fundamental to the UK Constitution is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, that the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster is the sovereign legislature of all nations of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament was formed by statute - the Scotland Act 1998 - and is, thus, a creation of Westminster. The enactment of the Scotland Act 1998 conferred no sovereign status on the Scottish Parliament, and crucially has not changed the status of the UK Parliament as the supreme legislature of Scotland.

As a consequence critics argue that the legal ability of English MPs to vote on Scottish legislation has not been diminished by devolution. Furthermore some argue that it is simply not true that English MPs do not get to vote on issues that are purely within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament - the so-called devolved issues. The use of the Sewel Convention whereby the Scottish Parliament consents to Westminster legislating on issues that are technically devolved to it are an increasingly common feature with an average of a dozen bills per year passed by Westminster impinging on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Some examples of such legislation passed by Westminster include the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004, the Children Act 2004, the Higher Education Act 2004 the Inquiries Act 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005. This is in addition to the many bills passed by Westminster pertaining to the reserved issues which are controlled Westminster for the whole of the United Kingdom, such as defence, national security, foreign affairs and monetary and economic issues.

A situation akin to that presented by the West Lothian Question did exist between 1921 and 1972, when there was a Parliament of Northern Ireland that legislated for Northern Ireland, whilst Northern Ireland continued to send MPs to Westminster, who could vote on matters affecting Great Britain only, although with disproportionately fewer MPs than would be expected from the relative populations. During this era Ulster Unionist Party was closely associated with the Conservative Party.

Proposed solutions

There are calls by some for a Devolved English Parliament. If this (and the existing Welsh Assembly) had full legislative powers, this would resolve the question. But so far there is little sign of this being wanted by the English. Others propose barring Scottish MPs from voting on matters that do not affect Scotland or cutting the number of Scottish MPs even further to about 40 (following the precedent of the creation of the Northern Ireland Parliament when the number of MPs at Westminster was dramatically cut to a number below the standard ratio of electorate to MPs for the rest of the country). They believe that the compromise of a reduced voice for Scotland in exchange for Scottish MPs being able to vote on English matters would be the most acceptable solution.

Another solution might be the dissolution of the United Kingdom leading to the constituent countries - England, Scotland and Wales - regaining their status as independent states (see English independence, Scottish independence, Welsh independence). Whilst this is unlikely, it is not infeasible given the strength of the independence movement - especially in Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales.

[Slyspy]

Wales and Scotland were, IMO, only granted their own Assemblies in order that one might be set up in Northern Ireland to help in the peace process there. You could no have the latter without the former either. Although this may have been and admirable and sensible scheme originally I wonder at its long term influence on British politics. I feel that fuels the sense of isolation felt in England and merely adds a further layer of expensive and (especially in the case of Wales) ineffectual beaucracy to Government.

[English assassin]

Lert me try a reply redleg stylee


Fundamental to the UK Constitution is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, that the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster is the sovereign legislature of all nations of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament was formed by statute - the Scotland Act 1998 - and is, thus, a creation of Westminster. The enactment of the Scotland Act 1998 conferred no sovereign status on the Scottish Parliament, and crucially has not changed the status of the UK Parliament as the supreme legislature of Scotland.

As a consequence critics argue that the legal ability of English MPs to vote on Scottish legislation has not been diminished by devolution

Only a constitutional lawyer could be remotely persauded by that argument. Wait, I AM a constitutional lawyer. The argument is bollocks. Its the same point that sometimes excites first year law students when they work out that in strict constitutional theory parliament could revoke the Acts giving independence to New Zealand and start passing laws for New Zealand. To which the only sensible reply is, yeah, you could try... In plain English the argument may be correct as a legal technicality but it has no political reality.


The use of the Sewel Convention whereby the Scottish Parliament consents to Westminster legislating on issues that are technically devolved to it are an increasingly common feature with an average of a dozen bills per year passed by Westminster impinging on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

No, wait. The first argument was that the Scottish Parliament did not take away powers from Westminster. Now its all OK because they do have powers, but give some of the powers back by "convention"? First, if so much as one matter is retained the WLQ is still live. Second, conventions, especially new and unclear ones, can be undone and are not a solid basis for an issue like the democratic representation of the people.

What's more, and I haven't checked them all, the examples given are not impressive. For instance they claim that "almost" third of the Higher Education Act 2004 applies to Scotland. First and pedantically, its 15 out of 55 sections and none of the seven schedules. That's not almost a third even by length. Second, the sections that apply are the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Board (which was so unremarkable I don't think it was even debated), a section dealing with information on student support, and a few technical sections relating to commencement etc. Not exactly controversial compared to the provisions on top up fees and fair access schemes.

Was that it? If that's the best they can do the WLQ is more serious than I thought.


The truth is that English MP's actually vote on Scottish issues in bills with quite frightening frequency

Is there a post 1997 example of English MPs voting on a matter that affected only Scotland?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

why can't we be united with one parliament? then we wouldn't need to pay for all these devolved parliaments and politicians, i don't know why some scots want to seperate from us so much after all it would be their own rightful Queen that they would be seperateing from! it wasn't the English who created Great Britain it was their Scotish monarch! and anyway like many Britains ive got Scotish Irish and Welsh blood in me.

[InsaneApache]

why can't we be united with one parliament? then we wouldn't need to pay for all these devolved parliaments and politicians, i don't know why some scots want to seperate from us so much after all it would be their own rightful Queen that they would be seperateing from! it wasn't the English who created Great Britain it was their Scotish monarch! and anyway like many Britains ive got Scotish Irish and Welsh blood in me.

let's see

Parliament in Westminster = 646 MPs

Parliament in Edinburgh = 129 MSP

Assembly in Cardiff = 60 MWA

European = 732 MEPs
___
Total = 1567

All these representatives and less democracy ~:confused:

Question.

Do any subjects of her Majesty feel more empowered by this proliferation of politicians? Or is it just jobs for the boys?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

let's see

Parliament in Westminster = 646 MPs

Parliament in Edinburgh = 129 MSP

Assembly in Cardiff = 60 MWA

European = 732 MEPs
___
Total = 1567

All these representatives and less democracy ~:confused:

Question.

Do any subjects of her Majesty feel more empowered by this proliferation of politicians? Or is it just jobs for the boys?

when they spend their time apearing on reality tv shows and many have other jobs at the same time?...

it must be the latter

[Rank Bajin]

Only a constitutional lawyer could be remotely persauded by that argument. Wait, I AM a constitutional lawyer. The argument is bollocks. Its the same point that sometimes excites first year law students when they work out that in strict constitutional theory parliament could revoke the Acts giving independence to New Zealand and start passing laws for New Zealand. To which the only sensible reply is, yeah, you could try... In plain English the argument may be correct as a legal technicality but it has no political reality.

Take it up with New Labour, Mr Constitutional Lawyer. As far as I aware Westminster is still the "mother parliament" of Scotland - devolution has not removed its sovereignty or its precedence over Scotland. If they want, Westminster can even abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow.

The funny thing, that is actually very interesting to note, is that London also has devolved power like Scotland and Wales - a fact that many English people tend to forget. I wonder why?


No, wait. The first argument was that the Scottish Parliament did not take away powers from Westminster. Now its all OK because they do have powers, but give some of the powers back by "convention"? First, if so much as one matter is retained the WLQ is still live. Second, conventions, especially new and unclear ones, can be undone and are not a solid basis for an issue like the democratic representation of the people.

What's more, and I haven't checked them all, the examples given are not impressive. For instance they claim that "almost" third of the Higher Education Act 2004 applies to Scotland. First and pedantically, its 15 out of 55 sections and none of the seven schedules. That's not almost a third even by length. Second, the sections that apply are the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Board (which was so unremarkable I don't think it was even debated), a section dealing with information on student support, and a few technical sections relating to commencement etc. Not exactly controversial compared to the provisions on top up fees and fair access schemes.

Was that it? If that's the best they can do the WLQ is more serious than I thought.

O.K. I take your point about the Education Act 2004. Even if that a tiny, tiny portion of the issues of the Education Act 2004 did in fact relate to Scotland, it still did relate to Scotland. The Scottish MPs still voted on an issue that did concern Scotland, small as it may seem.

Why do you discount the other examples of Acts stated? Is it just because in your mind, they are not as 'controversial' as the others? The passed Acts listed above, 'impressive' or not, do stillrelate to Scotland.

And the Acts still needed to be carried through via the votes of English MPs.

Sorry, but my point still stands that English MPs can and do vote on issues that directly relate to Scotland. So what is your point?


Is there a post 1997 example of English MPs voting on a matter that affected only Scotland?

Since you obviously have ignored most the other examples above. I might as well bring up one you missed. By far the most important.

Did you hear of the Scotland Act 1998? (It was mentioned in the top paragraph in the article above, by the way).

When it was passed, over 350 English MP's voted for it. This, in fact, was the Act which gave Scotland Devolution, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.

Yes. It was on backs of English MPs that the Scottish Parliament even exists in the first place. And the point that needs to be stressed is that the Parliament still exists at the pleasure of Westminster, with its overdominance of English MPs.

Here's a thing for you, say tomorrow the devolution acts are repealed. After all this could happen, as the Scottish Parliament is really just an offshoot of the UK one, with no constitutional basis at all.

Like when these devolution acts were passed in the first place - they depended on the votes of English MP's. If they were to be repealed they would once again depend on the votes of English MP's. A little reverse West Lothian Question, there for you.

If you are interested check the link below. I found it very interesting.

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

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes well imagine how many English people got killed by rampaging Scots. No point dwelling on the past, not like it can be changed.

More Scots were killed than English, most of the Government armies that the Jacobites fought against had a majority of Scots... just being a little pedantic perhaps, one of my habits... We had an unionist History teacher when being taught about the '45-'46 rebellion...



Was referring in general to your clinging to outdated traditions, and
conservatism, which has thankfully has been removed from the Scottish
parliament, for the most part.

Firstly, what outdated traditions are these?
Secondly, the Conservatives have not been removed, not in the least. They have, I believe, 17 MSPs, and they gained votes in the latest by-election. Not only that, but the numbers in the Universities' Conservative and Unionist Party Associations have increased more than any other and are also, I think, the largest. They have not been removed, certainly not for the most part.



As far as I aware Westminster is still the "mother parliament" of Scotland - devolution has not removed its sovereignty or its precedence over Scotland. If they want, Westminster can even abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow.

Parliamentary Sovereignty may be fundamental to the English Constitution, but it is the Sovereignty of the Community of the Realm, the People, that is fundamental to Scots Law. This fact was re-iterated in the case I referred to earlier. Since a majority of the Community of the Realm wanted devolution, one could argue that it has the same status as Westminster. No doubt if devolution was removed without a referendum, someone would take the issue up at the Court of Session.

[Rank Bajin]

Parliamentary Sovereignty may be fundamental to the English Constitution, but it is the Sovereignty of the Community of the Realm, the People, that is fundamental to Scots Law. This fact was re-iterated in the case I referred to earlier. Since a majority of the Community of the Realm wanted devolution, one could argue that it has the same status as Westminster. No doubt if devolution was removed without a referendum, someone would take the issue up at the Court of Session.

An intriging point. I suppose you are also referring to the articles pertaining to the Scottish Claim of Right of 1689? (Just for the rest of the non-Scottish contingent, this is our version of the English Bill of Rights.)

For your information I am well aware of the constitutional differences of our very own Constitution and the English Constitution and thus I know what you are getting at.

You might as well mention that up to 1707, the English Government really made very little political adjustment to their own constitution. The funny thing is that the absorption of the new Scottish representatives, under the name of England, as implied by the failure to rewrite the constitution, may actually have been in contravention of Article 25 of the Articles of Union, and it actually seems to render null and void the final sovereignty of the English government in favour of a new state. Make of this as you will:

"All laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistant with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective parliaments of the said kingdoms."

As we are aware this never happened; the new British Parliament instead just continued with the English Constitution instead. The Scottish Constitution was thus consigned to history as well as our own Parliament. To our country's shame, our very own countrymen didn't really make much of an outcry to this event. As a result, this 'strange' (to a Scottish point of view) idea of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' still takes precedence to this very day over us all. :no:

[English assassin]

Did you hear of the Scotland Act 1998? (It was mentioned in the top paragraph in the article above, by the way).

When it was passed, over 350 English MP's voted for it. This, in fact, was the Act which gave Scotland Devolution, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive

Umm, come on mate, the fact that the UK parliament (which contains MPs for England but also scotland wales and NI) voted to establish the Scottish Parliament cannot really be used as an example justifying scottish MPs voting on matters relating only to England. Apart from anything else the westminster vote was the only way to establish the Scottish parliament.


Why do you discount the other examples of Acts stated? Is it just because in your mind, they are not as 'controversial' as the others? The passed Acts listed above, 'impressive' or not, do still relate to Scotland.

Because I happened to know about the HE bill as I had to advise on it at the time, and I don't know about the others and haven't got time to look them up. "Relate to" Scotland isn't the point though, it would have to be "relate EXCLUSIVELY" to Scotland. No one is saying the UK parliament legislating for the whole of the UK raises a West Lothian question (or a west Sussex question as I suppose it would be here)


Here's a thing for you, say tomorrow the devolution acts are repealed. After all this could happen, as the Scottish Parliament is really just an offshoot of the UK one, with no constitutional basis at all.

Sure, sure, and by exactly the same argument we could repeal the Statute of Westminster 1931 and start legislating for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland again. I know the argument exists, and I know on one view it is technically correct legally (though there are other views), its just in the real world it won't work. The basic problem with the answer is the WLQ isn't a legal question, its political question.

And now, the pedantry:


The funny thing, that is actually very interesting to note, is that London also has devolved power like Scotland and Wales - a fact that many English people tend to forget. I wonder why?

Because its not true, I'm afraid. The GLA has no legislative power. It doesn't even have much executive power. In effect its a rather puny county council. But if it WAS true I would be perfectly happy to ask the West Hampstead question just the same as we ask the West Lothian question.


Westminster, with its overdominance of English MPs.

59 Scottish MPs, pop 5.078m, 1 MP per 86,000 population

528 English seats, pop 50.1m, 1 MP per 94,900 population.

[Duke Malcolm]

You might as well mention that up to 1707, the English Government really made very little political adjustment to their own constitution. The funny thing is that the absorption of the new Scottish representatives, under the name of England, as implied by the failure to rewrite the constitution, may actually have been in contravention of Article 25 of the Articles of Union, and it actually seems to render null and void the final sovereignty of the English government in favour of a new state. Make of this as you will:

"All laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistant with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective parliaments of the said kingdoms."

As we are aware this never happened; the new British Parliament instead just continued with the English Constitution instead. The Scottish Constitution was thus consigned to history as well as our own Parliament. To our country's shame, our very own countrymen didn't really make much of an outcry to this event. As a result, this 'strange' (to a Scottish point of view) idea of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' still takes precedence to this very day over us all. :no:

The British Parliament continues under the English system, but the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty was neither law nor statute, I believe, but one of those unwritten parts of the constitution. And this principle does not contravene Article 25 -- Parliament has sovereignty over England in accordance with English law, but not over Scotland in accordance with Scots law. The Scots principle of Sovereignty of the Community of the Realm was never repealed, so one can assume it is still in applicable

[scotchedpommes]

Was vaguely amused to see David McLetchie on television last night, agreeing
with Tommy Sheridan on the issue.



Firstly, what outdated traditions are these?

Your views regarding Unionism, loyalty to monarchy, and assumed sense of
Britishness. Such modes of thinking are gradually being swept away, yet
you clearly feel the need to hold onto them. As I would assume you are aware,
it will not be possible for us to agree on this issue.


Secondly, the Conservatives have not been removed, not in the least.

Whichever way you attempt to paint it, you cannot deny that Tory support here
has dropped significantly in recent years. I would say so much so as to make
them of lesser importance in Scottish politics, and not yet a viable option for
voters. Would also say that is enough to warrant use of 'for the most part'.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I understand that the Welsh assembly is, at last, supposed to be getting a substantial increase in powers (thanks to the Richards Commission findings, although I have also heard that good old Labour has decided to ignore most of it) so that it's more than a glitzy version of the Welsh Office.

When this happens I'll be fully supportive of Welsh M.P.s no longer voting on English matters (although I believe there are a few who do so already out of principle). It's also the time that Scottish M.P.s must stop voting on purely English matters.

Until then I say let the constitutional craziness reign (after all, the Labour party really needs its hordes of Welsh and Scottish M.P.s right now).


Edit: POST 1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*the happy dance*

[Rank Bajin]

Umm, come on mate, the fact that the UK parliament (which contains MPs for England but also scotland wales and NI) voted to establish the Scottish Parliament cannot really be used as an example justifying scottish MPs voting on matters relating only to England. Apart from anything else the westminster vote was the only way to establish the Scottish parliament.

I'm sorry, but the response was to your question:


Is there a post 1997 example of English MPs voting on a matter that affected only Scotland?

The Act was still passed in 1998 via the backs of English MPs. Maybe it wasn't the best example I could have provided, but what about further Acts passed in Westminster, such as the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004?

These are two further examples of Acts which were passed in Westminster with English MPs voting on them. I suppose that is is alright, then? Just beacause they aren't as controversial as the other bills we might as well, well, ignore it? :inquisitive:


Because I happened to know about the HE bill as I had to advise on it at the time, and I don't know about the others and haven't got time to look them up. "Relate to" Scotland isn't the point though, it would have to be "relate EXCLUSIVELY" to Scotland. No one is saying the UK parliament legislating for the whole of the UK raises a West Lothian question (or a west Sussex question as I suppose it would be here)

Sorry, but what is your point? Are you saying that an Act passed in Westminster shouldn't even be voted on by Scottish MPs at all unless it fully and exclusively relates to Scotland? So if the Act, even if it does relate to Scotland in any small way, they should all just well keep the hell clear of it?

Sorry, but that doesn't really rub. As is just stated, the HE Bill did contain some issues that did relate to Scotland. Even if they were minuscule, they still did relate to Scotland. So the Scottish MPs, legimately still had a stake in it.

Sorry, but your argument would carry much more water if the HE Bill didn't even contain anything about Scotland at all. But it did.


Sure, sure, and by exactly the same argument we could repeal the Statute of Westminster 1931 and start legislating for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland again. I know the argument exists, and I know on one view it is technically correct legally (though there are other views), its just in the real world it won't work. The basic problem with the answer is the WLQ isn't a legal question, its political question.

O.K. I see your point, but who knows what the future may bring. Perhaps if the Tories win the next general election they might consider abolishing it. Who knows?

The legal question, political question, whatever; the Scottish Parliament still exists at the behest and pleasure of Westminster.


And now, the pedantry:

Because its not true, I'm afraid. The GLA has no legislative power. It doesn't even have much executive power. In effect its a rather puny county council. But if it WAS true I would be perfectly happy to ask the West Hampstead question just the same as we ask the West Lothian question.

Sorry, but I am under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that London's Assembly, while not an a regional assembly is a directly elected one under the proportional representation system with a Mayor. It also has a subtle difference to a Regional Assembly in provincial parts of country. It also has power over certain affairs in London, like for instance, Transport, Education and Environment, which were devolved to this directly elected assembly. Like in Scotland and Wales, its powers can be given to, or taken away from this assembly by the UK government.


59 Scottish MPs, pop 5.078m, 1 MP per 86,000 population

528 English seats, pop 50.1m, 1 MP per 94,900 population.

Sorry, but who is being pedantic here?

Your facts while in a sense, strictly true, can also be taken much further.

For the UK there are 646 Westminster constituencies in total. Correct?

In England there are 529 Westminster constituencies in total. Correct?

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make up the rest of the constituencies: A grand total of 117 all together. Correct?

It really doesn't take a mathematian to tell that England takes up the lions share of the constituencies. If you actually total up England's share of constituencies in comparison with the rest of the UK, they actually make up around 82% of the total. O.K?

Strangely enough, if last year's population stats of the UK are correct, England has around 83% of the entire population contained within it.

Well bugger me!!! Isn't that just amazing? The English are almost fairly represented pro-rata. Imagine that.

So what is your point, again?

*Edit* Opps. Sorry, I just noticed what I wrote in my last post. Instead of 'overdominance' of English MPs, I actually meant to say 'preponderance' of English MPs. My apologies, if that is what you were meaning.

A moot point, where did you get that source with the corresponding English and Scottish constituencies. It's clearly wrong.

The true figures are in the link below.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/geography/westminster.asp

[Duke Malcolm]

Your views regarding Unionism, loyalty to monarchy, and assumed sense of
Britishness. Such modes of thinking are gradually being swept away, yet
you clearly feel the need to hold onto them. As I would assume you are aware,
it will not be possible for us to agree on this issue.

Yes, butthe matter of unionism, the majority of Scots voted for Unionist parties, so most Scots wish the Union to remain.
Most polls of Scotland and of the UK show the people wish to keep the monarchy, and there is little good reason to abolish the monarchy other than the tiring "medieval" slur...
And admittedly, my sense of Britishness is outdated, I prefer the 19th century ideal of Britishness. The ideal which achieved the largest empire ever to have existed. The ideal which gave Scotland our great parks, state buildings, cities, libraries, fame, trade, various social improvements, spread our culture, and numerous other such things.



Whichever way you attempt to paint it, you cannot deny that Tory support here
has dropped significantly in recent years. I would say so much so as to make
them of lesser importance in Scottish politics, and not yet a viable option for
voters. Would also say that is enough to warrant use of 'for the most part'.

Tory support has dropped. That does not mean that it cannot rise again. Their problem is Thatcher and the Poll tax and such. It still rivals the SNP in councils and the Scottish Parliament, however...

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Malcolm:

it's illogical to say that people who vote for unionist parties cannot be nationalists.

2 examples:
eurosceptics, the SNP adore the E.U. almost as much as the Lib Dems but the SNP have significant overlap with other parties on non-constitutional matters: which is more important? independence from the E.U. or from England?

non-lefties, the SNP love government interference and would no doubt like to replace county councils with workers' conferences. where would you go? probably to the Conservatives (heh, or Labour nowadays).

I think both examples apply to the Scottish Socialist Party too (whom I believe also campaign for Scottish independence).

Then I believe there are "nationalist" factions in the unionist parties too.

And so on and so on

[Incongruous]

As someone else said. England should pullout from the union for awhile and see how the Scot's and Welsh get on. If the Scot's can have parliment then it stands to reason that England and Wales should have them as well.

[Duke of Gloucester]

As someone else said. England should pullout from the union for awhile and see how the Scot's and Welsh get on. If the Scot's can have parliment then it stands to reason that England and Wales should have them as well.

One of the problems of the West Lothian question is that it encourages English nationalism, which is bad for England, Scotland and Wales. I am sure that Wiki's attempt to downplay it is wrong. Whether Scotland (or Wales or Pimlico) has devolved government is a matter for the whole of the UK, so all MP's voting on it is justifiable, as well as the UK parliament retaining the right to withdraw the devolved government. Note, I am not saying that I oppose devolution: I don't, but I do believe that, as an Englishman, I am entitled to a view; it is not simply a matter for Scotland (Wales or Pimlico).

The issue is one of symetry. The current constitution of parliaments and assemblies gives Scottish electors more control over what happens in England than English electors have over what happens in Scotland. As EA says, this is a political, rather than a constitutional problem. So long as English people don't think that unpopular policies which a majority of English MP's oppose, are being forced on using the votes of Scottish MP's then the WLQ is not a problem. However, if ever that perception develops, especially if the unpopular measures are not introduced in Scotland, the WLQ will need an answer, and the answer must satisfy people living in England that their representatives have fair voting rights on laws that affect England only.

[Duke Malcolm]

Malcolm:

it's illogical to say that people who vote for unionist parties cannot be nationalists.

I wouldn't say that they are actually nationalist, simply more open to the prospect of an independent Scotland.



Then I believe there are "nationalist" factions in the unionist parties too.

Not quite "factions" just a few rogue members...


Duke of Gloucester: Isn't Pimlico a place in London...?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Duke of Gloucester: Isn't Pimlico a place in London...?

Yes. There is an Ealing comedy called "Passport to Pimlico" where Pimlico sets itself up as an independent country. I used to indicate that the argument is not specific to Scotland or Wales.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes yes, and that is a wonderful movie, especially when they stop the underground trains demanding passports...