The fact that the 'West Lothian' question has endured for nearly 30 years tells you it's not the distraction some people claim. Unfortunately Tam Dalyell's prescience in framing the question hasn't been matched by anyone's ingenuity in coming up with a solution. The latest proposal is Malcolm Rifkind's call for an English Grand Committee sitting in Westminster with exclusive rights to vote on matters devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The details of the various proposals aside there are only really four possible outcomes here – the status quo, some sort of procedural change at Westminster, the establishment of separate English Parliament or complete dissolution.
For me the status quo isn't really an option, despite Labour's best efforts to talk down the issue (in the Economist's Bagehot column in July 2006 Derry Irvine said the best answer to the question was 'to stop asking it')! The anomaly of Scottish MPs being able to vote on (or even more controversially carry) issues that have absolutely no impact on their electorate is almost beyond defence and although it's hard to pin point exactly when it happened it's clear the tipping point in this argument has now been reached. Even if Gordon Brown successfully avoids the question until the next election the issue now has enough purchase with the English electorate to do real harm to the Labour vote. Given his enthusiasm for grand constitutional reform one would hope that he would find some way over the next couple of years to actually engage with this issue and stop pretending that it doesn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised to see a further reduction in Scot's MPs (to perhaps around 40) as an attempt to take the sting out of this.
Some sort of procedural change at Westminster is the most likely outcome and that's the essence of Malcolm Rifkind's proposal - an 'English Grand Committee' sitting on devolved issues only. On the face of it this seems like a good solution and discounting the obvious party political objections there really isn't any decent argument against it. The 'two tiers of MPs' line doesn't really hold since in effect that's what we already have – English MPs can vote on all issues affecting their constituents whereas Scots MPs can only vote on retained matters. That's a slightly 'upside down' way of describing the current situation but it's a useful way of demolishing the 'two tier' argument. The main flaws in this solution are operational and I haven't been able to source any detail on Rifkind's plan to see if he's addressed these (if indeed any detail exists). Issues such as how Cabinet would function, the status of Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) ministers, votes of confidence etc. all need careful handling before his plan could be considered a workable solution. The other pretty significant flaw is that longer term this solution may be indistinguishable from an English Parliament (see below).
The last two options can be quite swiftly dealt with, if only because they're fairly stark and similar in outcome. A separate English Parliament would be nothing other than a staging post to dissolution. Although in political terms the non-devolved issues are very meaty (foreign policy, defence etc.), it's hard to conceive of how Westminster would continue to have any relevance as anything other than an umbrella body for the four devolved administrations – with the English Parliament becoming the pre-eminent political body in the UK. In those circumstances the relationship between those bodies and Westminster would be fraught with difficulties and you would, in effect, have the West Lothian question writ large when Westminster acted on behalf of the UK on the world stage. Complete dissolution is, in one sense, straightforward and its proponents at least have the virtue of honest intentions.
Most reports suggest that Cameron is warm to Rifkind's proposal and that come the election this may be official Tory policy. A word of warning on this though – the Tories need to think long & hard about whether what they have here is really a solution in the long-term interests of the UK or just a proposal that allows them to exploit current discomfort among English voters for immediate political gain. I've acknowledged above that the anomaly is real and that something needs to be done to address it but the introduction of a Grand Committee and the inevitable tensions that would create need to be addressed. The 'Conservative & Unionist' party need to have the courage to look at the long-term implications of what they're proposing and whether or not it's consistent with their unionist principles. Although I think it may be the only solution I'm not sure Rifkind's committee is…
For me the status quo isn't really an option, despite Labour's best efforts to talk down the issue (in the Economist's Bagehot column in July 2006 Derry Irvine said the best answer to the question was 'to stop asking it')! The anomaly of Scottish MPs being able to vote on (or even more controversially carry) issues that have absolutely no impact on their electorate is almost beyond defence and although it's hard to pin point exactly when it happened it's clear the tipping point in this argument has now been reached. Even if Gordon Brown successfully avoids the question until the next election the issue now has enough purchase with the English electorate to do real harm to the Labour vote. Given his enthusiasm for grand constitutional reform one would hope that he would find some way over the next couple of years to actually engage with this issue and stop pretending that it doesn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised to see a further reduction in Scot's MPs (to perhaps around 40) as an attempt to take the sting out of this.
Some sort of procedural change at Westminster is the most likely outcome and that's the essence of Malcolm Rifkind's proposal - an 'English Grand Committee' sitting on devolved issues only. On the face of it this seems like a good solution and discounting the obvious party political objections there really isn't any decent argument against it. The 'two tiers of MPs' line doesn't really hold since in effect that's what we already have – English MPs can vote on all issues affecting their constituents whereas Scots MPs can only vote on retained matters. That's a slightly 'upside down' way of describing the current situation but it's a useful way of demolishing the 'two tier' argument. The main flaws in this solution are operational and I haven't been able to source any detail on Rifkind's plan to see if he's addressed these (if indeed any detail exists). Issues such as how Cabinet would function, the status of Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) ministers, votes of confidence etc. all need careful handling before his plan could be considered a workable solution. The other pretty significant flaw is that longer term this solution may be indistinguishable from an English Parliament (see below).
The last two options can be quite swiftly dealt with, if only because they're fairly stark and similar in outcome. A separate English Parliament would be nothing other than a staging post to dissolution. Although in political terms the non-devolved issues are very meaty (foreign policy, defence etc.), it's hard to conceive of how Westminster would continue to have any relevance as anything other than an umbrella body for the four devolved administrations – with the English Parliament becoming the pre-eminent political body in the UK. In those circumstances the relationship between those bodies and Westminster would be fraught with difficulties and you would, in effect, have the West Lothian question writ large when Westminster acted on behalf of the UK on the world stage. Complete dissolution is, in one sense, straightforward and its proponents at least have the virtue of honest intentions.
Most reports suggest that Cameron is warm to Rifkind's proposal and that come the election this may be official Tory policy. A word of warning on this though – the Tories need to think long & hard about whether what they have here is really a solution in the long-term interests of the UK or just a proposal that allows them to exploit current discomfort among English voters for immediate political gain. I've acknowledged above that the anomaly is real and that something needs to be done to address it but the introduction of a Grand Committee and the inevitable tensions that would create need to be addressed. The 'Conservative & Unionist' party need to have the courage to look at the long-term implications of what they're proposing and whether or not it's consistent with their unionist principles. Although I think it may be the only solution I'm not sure Rifkind's committee is…
Labels: Politics
1 Comments:
The Conservative Party no longer has much Unionist ‘principle’ which has become an Angel beating its wings in a vacuum .The Scots are not interested .It is a sentiment as anachronistic now as the love of Empire, that persisted well into the 60s .
The problems were there when devolution was agreed. 200 Conservatives rebelled on the vote on principle but that’s along time ago. Labour needed it to save themselves from the SNP and they want to keep the ball implausibly suspended in mid air because they are a minority Party in England and retreating all the time .
Its an interesting position . The only way for the Labour Party to have a future in the richest part of the UK is to respond to the greater affluence. No one who owns a home and works in the private Sector is likely to vote for them and there are not enough immigrants , welfare collectors public sector professional and Guardian readers to counter balance Mr. And Mrs. Average.
Labour have nothing to say to the upper working classes and lower middle classes who they have attacked for the last ten years.This class ,above all ,detest Labour. . If you read the New Statesman and look in on Compass ,as I do ,you will see they know this . There are countless articles hoping to enlist the middling against the super rich. They are not be believed because everyone knows what they said about tax last time and what they then did . So labour are trapped in England and in their own electoral literature they anguish about it . This is what makes the Scottish question so pivotal and the true reason , of course , for all Browns absurd “Britishness‘”…a recently discovered passion!
The problem is not primarily unequal voting rights .It is that Scottish Lobby Fodder may be used to bulwark an entire administration .(N Ireland did not present this problem crucially)
It is the sheer brute fact of Holyrood that cannot be gainsaid .It is childish to blame the Conservative Party for addressing it . They have been exceedingly slow to move on the issue fearing their own Party would not have it but it is like a word that cannot be unsaid , or a weapon tha cannot be un invented.
Could Brown really rule England with no English majority ? It would be an unsustainable .Suppose Brown tried to hike up taxes in England when there was a perceived unfairness on spending and did so with Scottish MPs . Not possible . Could he in fact really enforce any even faintly unpopular measure in England with Scottish MPs when he was in a minority on votes and seats . The inability to govern would itself demand reform
If he is in that spot he knows the game is up . He is emphasising Britain not to justify a phoney administration but in the hope it will not arise
That’s the politics of it ( well the English side Salmon of course is equally aware of these tensions) The Barnett Formula row I am less concerned about .If you count the Oil income , about £10 billion as part of the £30 billion that will go North its not al that dramatic a difference . Alan Cochrane was arguing that the SNP were deliberately making unfunded promises to stir up antagonism. I `m not sure why you should count Oil as a gift though. Why not extract London which exports about £20 billion to the rest of the UK.
I would argue that a further realignment was inevitable as the Scottish Parliament started to govern. It is also part of a Europe wide phenomenon of fractured super states.
Michale Portillo prophesied that faced with the English domesday scenario Labour would offer the Liberals PR, and try on regionlised government again.
Its staggering when you think of it that the English are governed by a man who wishes their country did not exist.He will be doing his best to make that so in Lisbon.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home