The West Lothian Question

[commandlinegamer]

First posed by Tam Dalyell in 1977, the West Lothian Question as a term was coined by Enoch Powell.

In a nutshell it pointed out that after devolution a Scottish MP (the example given was for the constituency of West Lothian) would be able to vote on matters pertaining to English voters, but not those in his own constituency due to those matters having being devolved to a Scottish parliament. Nowadays, it is commonly used to refer to the inability of English MPs to affect legislation in Scotland to the same degree that Scots MPs can do so to laws which affect England.

No solution has yet been agreed to this. I would suggest, as others have, that an English-only assembly be created (perhaps even replacing one of the current chambers at Westminster), to introduce legislation which dealt with English-only matters, and that there remain a UK-wide parliament to deal with issues common to Britain and Northern Ireland.

Critics of this suggest it will simply add another layer of bureaucracy and I expect that Westminster might not take too kindly to a potential dilution of its influence.

I'm not convinced by the case for breaking up the Union, but do feel devolution has some way to go; resolving this issue might help.

[funk de fino]

I would support such an assembly if that is what the people wanted.

[Architect]

I think it's a very sensible and appropriate idea.

[Fiona]

The west lothian question makes no sense. Either the english want their own assembly or they don't. If they don't then they have chosen the current situation and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.

[geni]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

No solution has yet been agreed to this. I would suggest, as others have, that an English-only assembly be created (perhaps even replacing one of the current chambers at Westminster), to introduce legislation which dealt with English-only matters, and that there remain a UK-wide parliament to deal with issues common to Britain and Northern Ireland.

Not going to happen. The problem is any such assembly would wield more actual power than the UK wide parliment which is unlikely to result in a long term stable situation.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Fiona

The west lothian question makes no sense. Either the english want their own assembly or they don't. If they don't then they have chosen the current situation and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.

Ohhh bad answer. Consititional there are enough english MPs to chose whatever outcome they wish up and including the abolition of scotland (literaly as in start digging at Dunnet Head and stop when you hit Northumberland there might be a few logistical issues but it would be legal). Missrepresenting the degree of choice "the english" and the cornish have had in the current situation is not a good idea.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by geni

Ohhh bad answer. Consititional there are enough english MPs to chose whatever outcome they wish up and including the abolition of scotland (literaly as in start digging at Dunnet Head and stop when you hit Northumberland there might be a few logistical issues but it would be legal). Missrepresenting the degree of choice "the english" and the cornish have had in the current situation is not a good idea.

I cannot understand this post, sorry

[ddt]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

First posed by Tam Dalyell in 1977, the West Lothian Question as a term was coined by Enoch Powell.

In a nutshell it pointed out that after devolution a Scottish MP (the example given was for the constituency of West Lothian)

Wasn't Dalyell himself the MP for West Lothian?

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

No solution has yet been agreed to this. I would suggest, as others have, that an English-only assembly be created (perhaps even replacing one of the current chambers at Westminster), to introduce legislation which dealt with English-only matters, and that there remain a UK-wide parliament to deal with issues common to Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is the logical solution. After all, powers have been devolved in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by geni

Not going to happen. The problem is any such assembly would wield more actual power than the UK wide parliment which is unlikely to result in a long term stable situation.

How far does devolution go nowadays? There are many other functioning examples of federations: Germany, Switzerland, the US, to name a few, where many powers retain with the states/cantons.

A UK parliament would still retain absolute power on matters of foreign policy and defense, and I'd guess also on raising of the most important taxes (income, corporate, VAT), and deciding on the budget.

[Rolfe]

The attempts haven't been with regard to an English parliament though, but towards several devolved parliaments for the English regions. The English don't seem to like this idea much, and I can see why, I think. The Scots and the Welsh don't like it either because they're offended by their ancient countries being reduced to the same status as an English region.

If there was a single English devolved parliament, then (assuming Stormont kept going) there would be a parliament for each country, requiring only a small-ish assembly to decide things like foreign policy and co-ordinate the issues. This would massively alter the balance of power in the country. Either there would be a true federation, at which point England suddenly has only one voice out of four, or there would be proportionality to population, at which point England would remain the dictator.

You could easily have different parties in power in each of the national parliaments, and the wrangling can perhaps be imagined. I think it's all such a can of worms none of the politicians is going to touch it with a barge pole.

And yes, it's called the "West Lothian Question" because Tam Dalyell was MP for West Lothian at the time. Get your facts right.

Personally, I think all this could be easily settled by having no MPs from Scotland in Westminster at all. An ambassador could do the job perfectly well.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I cannot understand this post, sorry

If you think it is an english choice then the english right to chose includes removing an expesive level of goverment in wales and scotland.

[Fiona]

That makes no sense to me at all.

[geni]

Originally Posted by ddt

How far does devolution go nowadays? There are many other functioning examples of federations: Germany, Switzerland, the US, to name a few, where many powers retain with the states/cantons.

England has about 10 times Scotland's population and GDP. Wales is rather smaller than Scotland. Federations generaly involve situations in which no one part is bigger than than all the other combiened.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Fiona

That makes no sense to me at all.

"Either the english want their own assembly or they don't. If they don't then they have chosen the current situation and have nothing whatsoever to complain about."

Okey firstly there is no such thing as "the english". That asside you are committing the false dilemma logical fallacy.

You are claiming that the only two options are:
1)The current situation
2)An english assembly

You are then claiming that by failing to chose option 2 people are chosing option 1.

However under the british constition there are a range of other options.

3)Abolition of the scottish and welsh assemblies
4)The introduction of an assembly for the Kingdom of Strathclyde
5)Merging the scotish and northern irish assemblies
6)abolishing scotland (one less job creation scheme for lawyers anyway)
7)Redefining scotland as those areas held by Macbeth in 1057
8)changing the powers of scotish MPs
9)Introducting an assembly for the duchy of cornwall
10)Awarding 300 MPs to Akrotiri and Dhekelia and 1 to everyone else.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by geni

England has about 10 times Scotland's population and GDP. Wales is rather smaller than Scotland. Federations generaly involve situations in which no one part is bigger than than all the other combiened.

Point taken. So, viewed from the other side, how does, e.g., Spain cope with its version of the West Lothian Question? They've given wide autonomy to Ctalonia and Basque Country.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Before we spend too long worrying about it, exactly how often has legislation only affecting England been passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of English MP's?

Compared to, say, the number of times legislation only affecting Scotland was passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of Scottish MP's pre devolution?

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

I find it hard to believe that English local politics are affected unduly by Scottish MP's, and I also find it very difficult to conceive that adding yet another layer of bureaucracy will assist with local governance or democracy in any way.

It sounds like yet another excuse to spend the taxpayer's money on something frivolous.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Before we spend too long worrying about it, exactly how often has legislation only affecting England been passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of English MP's?

Compared to, say, the number of times legislation only affecting Scotland was passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of Scottish MP's pre devolution?

Poll Tax anyone?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

The west lothian question makes no sense. Either the english want their own assembly or they don't. If they don't then they have chosen the current situation and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.

As far as I know no party has put forward at a general election a scheme to deal with this so it is not a matter that "the english want" the current situation - it's perhaps that no choices have ever been available. Your argument is like saying that the Scottish residents didn't want a devolved parliament (or independence) until it was created.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Before we spend too long worrying about it, exactly how often has legislation only affecting England been passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of English MP's?

...snip...

Given the parliamentary system wouldn't it be more representative of the situation to also look for times when the votes of MPs representing constituents have been critical to assure a majority for the government (or block it by the opposition)?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Darat

As far as I know no party has put forward at a general election a scheme to deal with this so it is not a matter that "the english want" the current situation - it's perhaps that no choices have ever been available. Your argument is like saying that the Scottish residents didn't want a devolved parliament (or independence) until it was created.

Is there a demand for an english assembly? I was not aware of that

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Darat

Given the parliamentary system wouldn't it be more representative of the situation to also look for times when the votes of MPs representing constituents have been critical to assure a majority for the government (or block it by the opposition)?

Not sure what you mean. All MP's represent constituents, so anytime there is a majority, it inevitably has to be due to MP's representing constituents.

Can you clarify?

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Before we spend too long worrying about it, exactly how often has legislation only affecting England been passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of English MP's?

Compared to, say, the number of times legislation only affecting Scotland was passed through Westminster without the support of a majority of Scottish MP's pre devolution?

Not sure if there was a majority of English MP's against it, but the votes of Scottish MP's was indeed crucial for Labour to pass a bill upping the cost of University. The government had a majority of 5 votes, with 46 Scottish Labour MP's voting for it. The bill doesn't apply north of the border either. Source.

So yeah. I'm paying more for my University education because of this.

[Rolfe]

And yet, if you lived in Scotland, you wouldn't be paying.

Given all of what happened in the Thatcher years, there's a hideous temptation to say, well now you know what it feels like.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet, if you lived in Scotland, you wouldn't be paying.

Given all of what happened in the Thatcher years, there's a hideous temptation to say, well now you know what it feels like.

Rolfe.

You seem to have forgotten that the Poll Tax was also rolled out across England and Wales (I confess to being ignorant of whether it was also rolled out in NI). And in many areas it was rolled out the Thatcher government had next to no MPs representing those constituents.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

Is there a demand for an english assembly? I was not aware of that

There certainly is in some quarters.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Not sure what you mean. All MP's represent constituents, so anytime there is a majority, it inevitably has to be due to MP's representing constituents.

Can you clarify?

Uzzy's post gives an example.

[Lothian]

I am not in favour of a number of new parliaments, which is what would be required. I understand that the powers devolved to Scotland and Wales differ. I presume that the powers given to the Northern Ireland assembly differ too.

If you want a separate governing body for each case where the issue to be decided is only made by a parliiament consiting of the members from the parts of the uk affected you would in theory in addition to the current 3 assemblies need ‘parliaments’ for:

England issues only
England and Wales issues only
England and Scotland issues only
England and N. Ireland issues only
England Wales and Scotland Issues only
England Scotland and N. Ireland Issues only
England N. Ireland and Wales Issues only
The UK

That obviously makes no sense.

It is far simpler to have a single parliament but have MPs only able to vote on issues that affect their constituents.

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet, if you lived in Scotland, you wouldn't be paying.

Given all of what happened in the Thatcher years, there's a hideous temptation to say, well now you know what it feels like.

Rolfe.

You know, revenge is not a good motive, especially if you're trying to show that you're not prejudiced against the English.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Lothian

I am not in favour of a number of new parliaments, which is what would be required. I understand that the powers devolved to Scotland and Wales differ. I presume that the powers given to the Northern Ireland assembly differ too.

If you want a separate governing body for each case where the issue to be decided is only made by a parliiament consiting of the members from the parts of the uk affected you would in theory in addition to the current 3 assemblies need ‘parliaments’ for:

England issues only
England and Wales issues only
England and Scotland issues only
England and N. Ireland issues only
England Wales and Scotland Issues only
England Scotland and N. Ireland Issues only
England N. Ireland and Wales Issues only
The UK

That obviously makes no sense.

It is far simpler to have a single parliament but have MPs only able to vote on issues that affect their constituents.

Or just have a federal government and regional parliaments:

1) a federal government only dealing with UK wide issues like defense, foreign policy, etc. and all laws it passes applying equally to all areas of the UK.

and

2) regional parliaments that deal with everything else and can pass laws specific to that region/state/province/whatever.

That could easily be done with a Scottish Parliament, an English Parliament, a Welsh Parliament, a Northern Ireland Parliament, and a UK Parliament.

That model (and similar models) are used in many places. Switzerland, Germany, the US, etc.

Whether that model is a good fit for the UK is not really my place to say, but in general, I believe that devolving power as much as possible down to the local level makes for governance and policies that more people approve of.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Darat

You seem to have forgotten that the Poll Tax was also rolled out across England and Wales (I confess to being ignorant of whether it was also rolled out in NI). And in many areas it was rolled out the Thatcher government had next to no MPs representing those constituents.

A year later after being tested on us first. I forgot nothing. I actually got a letter threatening me with court action while serving in Iraq. I lived on camp when in the UK. Paid the same as the guy down the road with the 5 bedroom house and pool.

And then, when they brought it in down south, there were riots.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Not sure if there was a majority of English MP's against it, but the votes of Scottish MP's was indeed crucial for Labour to pass a bill upping the cost of University. The government had a majority of 5 votes, with 46 Scottish Labour MP's voting for it. The bill doesn't apply north of the border either. Source.

So yeah. I'm paying more for my University education because of this.

Vote SNP then.

Quote:

The five SNP MPs and 10 Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the bill, as did former Labour MP George Galloway.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The attempts haven't been with regard to an English parliament though, but towards several devolved parliaments for the English regions. The English don't seem to like this idea much, and I can see why, I think. The Scots and the Welsh don't like it either because they're offended by their ancient countries being reduced to the same status as an English region.

Like the ancient countries that existed in what is now England? This makes it sound as if all Scots speak with a single voice, while, say, Yorkshire is effectively the same as London. It is possible that it's not a step forward to base modern political structures on romantic notions of many centuries ago.

[Architect]

That would be a more compelling argument were it not for the fact that Scotland has maintained many of the usual trappings of nationhood including, for example, entirely separate educational and legal systems. Last time I looked, Yorkshire couldn't make the same claim.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

A year later after being tested on us first. I forgot nothing. I actually got a letter threatening me with court action while serving in Iraq. I lived on camp when in the UK. Paid the same as the guy down the road with the 5 bedroom house and pool.

And then, when they brought it in down south, there were riots.

Which does not detract from what I said - the impression you words gave was that the "poll tax" was only brought into force in Scotland.

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Vote SNP then.

Well, two problems with that. I value the continued existence of my country too much, and secondly, they aren't exactly standing in Hull.

[Rolfe]

That's the difference, really. You see "your" country as including Scotland. I don't see "my" country as including England, not in the same way.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rat

Like the ancient countries that existed in what is now England? This makes it sound as if all Scots speak with a single voice, while, say, Yorkshire is effectively the same as London. It is possible that it's not a step forward to base modern political structures on romantic notions of many centuries ago.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's the difference, really. You see "your" country as including Scotland. I don't see "my" country as including England, not in the same way.

Rolfe.

Don't you mean to say "including the rest of the UK"?

[Rolfe]

Uzzy was speaking from England, hence my reply.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Uzzy was speaking from England, hence my reply.

Rolfe.

His (or her sorry don't know) location is shown as "United Kingdom", the UK minus Scotland does not equal England.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

A question for Darat and others who believe that Scottish independence should be approved by a referendum of the entire UK before it happens. Are there any examples you can think of elsewhwere in the world where this has been done? I'm not a great history expert, but I can't think of one.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

His (or her sorry don't know) location is shown as "United Kingdom", the UK minus Scotland does not equal England.

Last time I looked, Hull was in England.

Rolfe.