The prospect of more devolution to Scotland has, rightly enough, ignited the debate in England over devolution. The country has been alive with this, and the party seems to me at times a microcosm of this with some pulling in the direction of English Votes on English Laws and others in the direction of a constitutional convention and devolution to the regions of England.
Nick Clegg speaking earlier reasserted the idea that groups of local authorities should have the right to demand powers are devolved to them, while nodding at the McKay commission on English and England-and-Wales votes in the Commons.
There may be a danger here that we, England, fight ourselves to exhaustion over which solution we want to the West Lothian Question (WLQ) and end up with none of them.
Broadly, these are the options:
- English Votes on English Laws (EVEL) This is the least radical option in devolution terms, but does seem to represent a conceptually simple if constitutionally questionable solution to the West Lothian Question. I’ll put to one side the widely uncalled for idea of an English Parliament which does nothing for the England-and-Wales issues.
- Devolution to Regional Assemblies in England Already maps are circulating. Do we want the Euro regions? Cornwall? Danelaw?
- Devolution on demand to groups of local authorities This is the party’s policy. It is admirably bottom-up, but would it ever go far enough and lead to sufficient balance with Scotland that the WLQ would go away?
- A Constitutional Convention Will this lead to one of the above or it is a way of putting the question off?
Before we throw brickbats at our less preferred solution, observe that none of these options are inconsistent with the others. Yes, the Euro regions would cut the Sheffield City Region in half, but would this matter? Wouldn’t they be exercising different powers anyway? There are enough powers held in Whitehall to sustain regions and combined authorities in tandem, without achieving devo-max, and so still leaving room for EVEL.
And while devolution to English Regions may be done best by constitutional convention – to thrash out powers, boundaries and voting systems – we surely don’t need one to build on the existing city regions or to start to implement the well-considered McKay commission proposals.
The danger of EVEL is not that it is a bad idea, but that some (Conservatives) will see it as job done, and resist any actual devolution. This would be an error. English Votes for English Laws does not imply English votes for an English Executive. It is not much consolation being able to legalise fox hunting in England if the Prime Minister is Labour, passing Labour budgets with its UK majority. The example used of it being wrong that Scottish MPs could be decisive in voting through a tax rise on England would not be addressed by EVEL.
The WLQ demands not just EVEL but genuine devolution of executive and tax and spend powers in England. The case for EVEL is, quite separately, also irresistable.
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
David Evans
Paul Holmes
Peter Davies
cim
FS People
41 Comments
The problem I have with the policy proposed in the Manifesto document is not that it permits councils to initiate the process of devolution; it is that it exclusively grants them the initiative on that.
I hope to be proposing an amendment to F30, the manifesto document, which will specifically require that independent, non party political groups are permitted and encouraged to propose devolution for areas.
Please read the proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T1SNuJbhLK1DR4HS9b07WLMhvkaZAvY8hHy6NbOmEz8/edit
I also have a problem with the proposals on “City Regions”. These are poorly defined & frequently undemocratic, technocratic impositions that do not represent how people engage with their local politics, local community or each other. Devolution has to happen in a transparent, open and accessible manner, and the city regions fail every one of those categories.
What we need is a policy that explicitly states our aim as a fully federal UK. The question is not “what powers shall we devolve to states and regions?”; it is “What powers need to be handled in Westminster?”
The truth is that if Westminster did less, it would do it far better.
EVEL is not a bad idea, its a terrible one. How long do we really think EVEL will last if an administration decides it needs non-English votes to push through a majority? How do we plan to enforce EVEL? Can it be? And do we not think that the spectacle of having Scottish and Welsh MPs relegated to second or third tier status might actually increase support for independence?
The only answer to the West Lothian Question is to remove the powers that have been devolved to Scotland entirely from Westminster. That way, no matters that don’t affect certain members are ever discussed in the first place. Whether we then hand those powers back to the English Regions or to an English Parliament and London Assembly is a matter for constitutional convention, although I suspect that the regions are less popular than the one parliament idea.
Part of the problem with “English votes on English laws” is that it imagines legislation is neatly packaged up into bits that obviously apply to one country or another. It ignores the fact that most major legislation has some provisions that apply to all the UK’s countries in the same way, and some that apply differently. The logic of “English votes on English laws” is that all MPs should vote on all UK bits, that Scottish MPs should vote on bits that only apply to Scotland, or apply to Scotland differently, and the same for England, Wales and NI. That doesn’t even take into account bits of legislation where the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence (which the issue is purportedly about). Nor does it take into account that not all MPs vote on all bits of legislation all the time as it progresses through Parliament. When a bill is in committee, a smaller group of MPs, a standing committee looks at it line by line. So you’d need extra England only, Scotland only, Wales only, and NI only standing committees as well, just to look at tiny bits.
They say making law is like making sausages, but “English votes on English laws” would make it a dog’s breakfast . . .
Out of those I prefer number two – regional assemblies. However, I still think an English parliament should be an option. I don’t think regional identity is as strong as Scottish identity, so answering the West Lothian Question with Scottish level of devolution to the regions might not be the right thing to do.
I am a big fan of Regional Assemblies in England. I think this would be a way to balance the power between the regions and the nations. I would then look at a house of lords based on a number of representatives for each region (Using PR). With the house of commons continuing to be based on first past the post local MP’s, (although I would reduce the number of MP’s given much more will be done by devolved assemblies). A proper two house system.
If all EVEL means is a sort of English Grand Commitee, all the English MPs meeting every couple of weeks to have their say, I dont see the problem with that.
Regional Peoples Conventions are a great Idea but will be very slow. The advantage of encouraging Groups of existing Authorities to demand Power is that by involving Politicians who have already been Elected it builds on Power Bases that are already there, it could snowball quickly enough to get ahead of any opposition. We could generate a “Me Too” competition between Local Groups.
The 2 big dangers to any process are Nationalism & Inertia, competition for New Powers from groups of Local Politicians could combat both.
The West Lothian Question is an imaginary problem that’s prompted any number of irrelevant ‘solutions.’ The problem is not one of “Scottish MPs voting on English laws” because, first, there are no Scottish MPs, only UK MPs who happen to be elected from constituencies in Scotland; and second because there are no “English laws,” only UK laws that perhaps don’t apply in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. There’s a reluctance to admit that, when England annexed its neighbouring territories and reinvented itself as “Great Britain” or “The United Kingdom,” that it effaced its own identity; but it’s a fact, and one that can only be changed by creating English governmental institutions that are wholly separate from UK institutions, with an English executive or executives and an English parliament or assemblies, and, eventually, a distinctive body of English law.
And in the House of Lords — does Cameron propose EVEL there as well ???
Will that notorious Lord (whose opinion polls are often quoted in LDV) be prevented from voted on any issue other than those which apply to Belize?
What about all those Tory Lords from Scotland who fly down from their Grouse Moors to impose the bedroom tax on the English Poor– will they have their votes taken away?
And the Dule of Edinburgh what of his reserved seat in The House of Lords ? Will he have to vacate it during the Queens Speech for all the sections applying to England on the grounds that he is Greek of German Heritage who has chosen a Scottish title ?
I think we should be told.
IF “EVEL is not a bad idea, its a terrible one.” then so are:
– Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws
– Welsh Votes for Welsh Laws
…
Which would seem to suggest that the current models of devolution contain major flaws…
@Roland: Your comment suggests that you don’t understand what EVFEL is about. But that’s not your fault — nobody else does either! It’s a blank left to be filled in by a public hopeful that it means whatever they want it to mean.
But yes, if the UK Parliament had proposed that Scotland be governed by a subcommittee consisting of MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, that would indeed be a terrible idea. That is not, however, what devolution does.
The Scottish referendum campaign has been running for two years One likely outcome was more devolution for Scotland. and therefore the issue of EVFEL It is not unreasonable to have expected our party to have its ducks in a row with clear policies.
However that seems to be far from the case.Over the weekend Nick Clegg appeared to support progressing EVFEV alongside extra Scottish devolution.Danny Alexander appears to be,,according to the Guardian ,going to block any attempt to bring in EVFEL until after the GE which is Labour’s approach.Confused?
In my view the logical response to the .extra powers for Scotalnd is to offer the same powers to the Welsh Assembly,Stormont and England-.the England body being the English Mp’s in Westminster with EVFEL.
Such a move could be achieved by the next GE.Effectively that is home rule for the countries of the UK.
Where things get complicated is further English devolution because there are already in place a whole range of local government types and powers .This does call for a lot of thought and should be delayed until after the GE.
But please don’t give up the real chance of getting home rule across the UK first.
Taking the issue of English devolution voters are not keen on anything that involves extra cost layers of government.In many cases its seems that t shift in budgetary responsibiilty would suffice A policy I i could not support is devolution on demand which ms a recipe for unfairness and chaos.
>
Joe, “The example used of it being wrong that Scottish MPs could be decisive in voting through a tax rise on England would not be addressed by EVEL”. Surely that depends on which tax you are talking about. If, for example, income tax is devolved to national parliaments, then English income tax does become an English-only matter. The UK Chancellor would not be able to set English Income Tax in his UK budget, just as he would not do so for Scotland.
As for the complexity of dividing legislation, this seems to be based on the current model of drafting legislation. As there is no need to divide UK and English matters in Westminster Bills it isn’t done. But drafting along devolved and reserved powers seems not to be beyond the power of Hollyrood/Westminster when dealing with Scottish affairs and it shouldn’t be in possible for English matters in the future.
As for the creation of different classes of MPs, this is the natural result of devolution and already happens. If you want parity in Westminster then you can either abolish devolved assemblies or create an English Parliament (or its Westminster equivalent).
David-1: UK laws that don’t apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales are, er, English laws.
John Tilley: EVEL for Lords not an issue because: the Lords do not derive their legislative powers from the votes of a geographical constituency; any govt can redress the balance in its favour within a parliament; and/or use the Parliament Act 1945 to pass legislation.
English Votes for English Laws would mean that English MPs would automatically have dual voting rights, i.e. able to vote on both English matters and UK matters. However, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not have dual voting rights because unless Scottish MPs were also automatically deemed MSPs as well, and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs automatically made representatives in their countries’ respective political assemblies, they would not have the same dual voting rights as English MPs and be able to exercise power in both the UK parliament and their own countries’ assemblies. A paradigm example of equals being treated unequally. Therefore, for example, English MPs would be able to vote on the English National Health Service but Scottish, Welsh and N.I. MPs would not be able to vote on the National Health Service in their own countries unless they were automatically members of their own countries’ parliaments. And that would be quite impractical for logistical reasons. The idea that Cameron, Hague, Clegg et al can inflict such an affront to our constitution and the Union without a mandate and a clear majority of their respective parties in the House of Commons before the next general election is an egregious abuse of power. Such a fundamental change to the UK’s constitution requires protracted deliberation and a firm set of workable proposals which should then be decided upon by all the people of these islands in a referendum after the 2015 General Election.
@mack (Not a Lib dem) 22nd Sep ’14 – 7:00pm
To be honest, that all sounded a little desperate.
They would be exactly the same, all Countries would have members elected to look after “local” issues and all would have members elected to look after UK wide issues – the fact that one Country is saving money be recycling their politicians is neither here or there.
@ Chris_sh
“Countries would have members elected to look after “local” issues and all would have members elected to look after UK wide issues –”
That doesn’t address the inequality of UK MPS. And what about the logistical problems of being present in both parliaments, even if they were automatically made members of their own countries’ parliaments? Sorry, I’m not convinced.
@mack (Not a Lib dem) 22nd Sep ’14 – 8:02pm
“That doesn’t address the inequality of UK MPS”
No, because there are no inequalities – English MPs would be voting in an English context just as Welsh AMs (for e.g.) vote in a Welsh context – when a UK matter arises then all MPs would vote (or be equal if you like).
As for the logistics – well that would be for the English to sort out, it’s not that much of an issue at all really.
@David-1 – I was just having a dig at those who’s comments come across as if they think the whole idea of EVfEL is wrong. Yes people have been spouting on about EVfEL as if it is patently obvious what it is all about. However, there is much confusion (deliberate I suspect) about the principle, reality and the various implementation scenarios that have been suggested.
But your other point about how the English parliament at Westminster simply reinvented itself as the parliament of the UK of GB and then of the UK of GBI… is spot on. The challenge with delivering EVfEL other than getting Westminster to vote for it, is disentangling Westminster so that clarity can be achieved.
Roland Wales does not, of course, have its own laws as things stand.
@ Chris_Sh
“all Countries would have members elected to look after “local” issues and all would have members elected to look after UK wide issues –”
“No, because there are no inequalities – English MPs would be voting in an English context just as Welsh AMs (for e.g.) vote in a Welsh context – when a UK matter arises then all MPs would vote (or be equal if you like). ”
No. The English MPs would automatically fulfil both functions. The others would not. I am not desperate, simply pointing out a contradiction that exposes a democratic deficit.
@mack (Not a Lib dem)
So are you saying that the English should have to vote twice and that they can not have some one representing them in both the English and UK Parliaments?
@Tim13
“Roland Wales does not, of course, have its own laws as things stand.”
Oh but it does, it has had the authority to create laws on areas within it’s power since 2011. It has also used those powers and created laws. (http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/firstminister/2011/110509lawmaking/?lang=en)
Mack – what you are pointing four is the original Westlothian q: Scottish MPs don’t have the same powers over their constituents than English MPs. Scottish MPs can’t vote in matters of health, education, etc that affect their constituencies. But this anomaly already exists and wouldn’t be deepened by EVEL – if you had an English Parliament things wouldn’t change. EVEL saves the hassle of electing a separate English Parliament and avoids, most of the time, the difficulties of an uneven federation.
@Chris_sh
“So are you saying that the English should have to vote twice and that they can not have some one representing them in both the English and UK Parliaments?”
No, what I am saying is that Welsh MPs will not be able to vote in their devolved assembly; Scottish MPs will not be able to vote in their devolved assembly; Northern Irish MPs will not be able to vote in their devolved assembly; but English MPs WILL be able to vote in their devolved assembly. That’s because they will have a dual role under EVEL. This is a major constitutional change that would make clear distinctions between the representatives elected by the people to the House of Commons which is the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would fundamentally weaken the egalitarian and democratic structure of the Union which we have only just preserved. At the moment all MPs have equal voting rights. All MPs are equal. The coalition has no mandate to change this and impose a major constitutional change on this country as described without being given a mandate to do so in a general election or a referendum. It may be that the people will decide that the change is a good thing, but it is arrogance of the highest order for Cameron and Clegg to assume they can link this to enhanced Scottish devolution and impose it on the country without the people being consulted in a G.E or a referendum.
One further thought: even if only English MPs are allowed to vote on English matters, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish members of the House of Lords will still be able to revise and vote on English legislation, even though they are unelected. Presumably Cameron and Clegg will be suggesting that this is unfair too. Can we therefore expect them to create two tiers of members of the House of Lords as well? Will only English members of the Lords be allowed to revise and vote on English matters? Or will all members of the House of Lords be banned from revising and voting on English matters? This is rapidly turning into the constitutional equivalent of Osborne’s Cornish Pastie fiasco.
@mack (Not a Lib dem)
Perhaps you misread what I wrote or I wasn’t clear, but if some one can only serve in one or the other (ie as an MP or as EMP (for the want of a better term)) then they would be in the same situation as everyone else post 2015.
You see, one of the reasons I think you’re desperately searching for a reason to scupper EVEL is this business about not being allowed to do both, even as a temporary measure. It should be remembered that there are already MPs who also sit as elected members in the devolved governments (I believe it won’t be allowed post 2015), so to use this as a reason to stop EVEL is a tad hypocritical. If the Gov turned around and said it would all start tomorrow, the fact that they are also MPs would not set a new precedent.
I would have more sympathy with the point about a referendum or GE, except of course that a big constitutional change is already going to be be made within the UK without a referendum or GE. However, I think the CP have played a superb game, it looks likely that both the LP and LDP are going to try and kick the thing into the long grass in the hope it goes away, so the CP will go into the GE championing the cause. If I was them I would make it a huge pan UK trust issue, after all if you’re willing to try and deny parity to the largest country in the Union, what would you be willing to do to the smaller nations if they don’t toe the line.
I am with David-1 on this (and mack)
Who has been given the mandate to use the UK Parliament as an ad-hoc English one? Did I miss the consultation, proposal and referendum on this?
My problems are thus:
The UK Parliament is there to be the UK Parliament not an English one
An English Parliament would devolve its powers from the UK one – as it is a constitutional change then it should be subject to a supporting referendum of the English
The separation of powers will be difficult to define without some greatthought- remeber the devolved assemblies were not put together in a couple of months
It will reinforce FPTP
This is also to get away from the other facts. Devolution happened in 97 and nothing much has changed. More powers are transferring but this Government has said nothing about an English Parliament until now – shows how much thought they have put into it!
Also, the big anomaly is the HoL, not Scottish MPs voting on English matters
Saying that the English want this based on polling support of an emotional reaction with no proposals on the table is ridiculous as well – this is a massive change to the way we do things and should be subject to a popular mandate outside an election based on a fully worked up, cross party proposal
Of course the English should have a devolved Parliament but some of the proposals I am seeing are ridiculous
If I am correct Cameron’s timetable is draft legislation and January, to be voted through after the General Election in May. Nobody is suggesting changing the constitution on this issue before the General Election, merely publishing the proposals. 8 months or so should be sufficient to work out some decent proposals.
Will Hutton, always a reliable source, in the Observer this week quoted mySociety which found that of 5000 House of Commons votes only 21 depended on votes of Scottish MPS i.e 0.42%. He also drew attention to the McKay commission which concluded that there can be no second class MPs..
This is all fascinating stuff but how does it address the fact that the food bank in my area is increasingly flooded with demand along with the volunteer debt counselling service. I suspect that Glasgow did not vote yes for nationalistic reasons. It was the prospect (ore even faint opportunity) of a fair society. That is our challenge.
Mack, Nick Clegg is NOT linking English devolution to the decision to devolve more to Scotland. Quite the reverse. he has clearly stated that it is a separate issue . Dislike Clegg as you may, you really mustn’t tell lies about him.
Stephen W
It took years to come up with workable proposals for Scottish and Welsh devolution – I think Scotland’s started work in 1989
Also, Scotland was easier as it was always going to devolve as one block – the questions were around how it would link to the UK and how MSP would be elected
There are a myriad of different options for English devolution – some want a whole England set-up, others want a regional dimension. Then there are questions on what would the function of Westminster be and what the role of the UK Government is. There is then the question of the HoL – how should this be done? PR or FPTP – will the Tories propose PR for the what will be the most powerful Government in the UK (imagine a Tory/UKIP Coalition…..)
You say 8 months is plenty of time – what do you base this on? We have been talking about HoL reform and voting reform for decades so where are we now? The political parties and the populace may be in agreement that England should have devolved powers but that is where the agreement stops
Are the proposals gouing to be genuinely cross-party or is it going to be for the Tories to do themselves – and can you remind me the last time the Tories delivered a reform like this in a fair manner?
What is the mechanism of implementation – a hurried proposal from the Tories, voted on in Parliament, General Election, new Parliament so new proposals then voted on again and followed by a referendum?
Wouldn’t it be easier to set a target for a referendum in 2020ish and do it properly? Or are the Tories hurrying it through on the hope of by-passing/undermining a Labour GE victory?
Chris_sh
What is this big constitutional change without a referendum you are talking about? I hope you are not talking about further devolution to Scotland because if you are then you are making yourself look a bit stupid
Unfortunately, to the Tories this is indeed a game. They are trying to use the referendum and the heat caused about it to by-pass the 2015 GE result, where it looks like a narrow Labour victory is the most likely outcome. By trying to mess with the constitution they are hoping that they will have a majority of MPs in England to be able to continue their race tio the bottom. The Scottish parliament has existed from before 2010 – what proposals has this Government come up with for England since then? If they had started looking at something in 2010 then perhaps we would have a sensible proposal to go to the people with
You may appreciate that but to be honest I do not and look at them with contempt.
I think all parties agree on the need for devolution of powers in England – but some of them understand the complexity, the lack of consensus and the significant change it will have on how we are governed. This is a maturity I would hope to see not the nonsense coming from the Tories
Let the Tories champion their proposals – what are they by the way? How do you know you support them if you have not seen them?
@ Stuart Moran
I concur with all your remarks.
@ BrianD
I totally agree with your substantive point about a fair society but if the Tories succeed in restricting the voice of the people’s representatives in a UK government and create a second class group of UK MPs that fairer society will never come about. That’s why this issue is so important.
“Will Hutton, always a reliable source, in the Observer this week quoted mySociety which found that of 5000 House of Commons votes only 21 depended on votes of Scottish MPS i.e 0.42%. ”
But how many votes depended on Welsh and Northern Irish MPs? Do you know? This is an attempt to stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs having full participation in the House of Commons.
@ Chris_sh
No, I did not misread your comment or fail to understand it. The fact is I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of what is involved in English Votes on English Matters.
“It should be remembered that there are already MPs who also sit as elected members in the devolved governments (I believe it won’t be allowed post 2015), so to use this as a reason to stop EVEL is a tad hypocritical.”
Who are these MPs who already sit as elected members in their own countries’ devolved parliaments? How many are there? If they won’t be allowed post 2015 to sit as elected MPs in their own countries’ assemblies
yet English MPs will be allowed to sit both in the House of Commons and vote on English matters therein lies another unfairness and a greater anomaly.
You don’t seem to be able to accept my point that the interests of the UK Union and its parliament are dependant on all of its MPs having the same fundamental voting rights. I am not being hypocritical because like David Moran I believe that England should have some form of devolved parliament but that the constitutional change is far too fundamental for only one option to be considered and rushed through without a mandate obtained by a general election or a referendum. As England is the largest partner in the Union and its population dwarfs the rest of the member states I believe that the constitution of an English parliament should be based on a tiered structure reflecting regional devolution. But there are hordes of people with different ideas. At any rate English Votes for English Matters surely predicates a separately elected assembly for England similar to the assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but the retention of the House of Commons as the UK Federal Parliament. Giving only English MPs exclusive voting rights is not the solution. Would English MPs be paid more than their Scottish , Welsh and N.I. counterparts because they have two roles? Would an an English Parliament require a shorter term without re-election than the UK parliament? Would it be elected by proportional representation? All of these issues are far to complicated to be reduced to a simplistic formula such as EVEL which will be implemented without reference to the people of these islands. The issue, like any constitutional change requires to be considered at length and not created on the back of a fag packet.
I notice you have not addressed my points about the House of Lords. Too complicated perhaps. Yet you cannot deny that any interference with the processes and procedures of the House of Commons will have ramifications for the House of Lords? The proposal for EVEL makes large numbers of peers in the Lords surely otiose and advances the cause of its abolition and replacement by a Federal Chamber. You do not seem to appreciate how preposterous Cameron’s proposal is. For example, if at Prime Minister’s question time, a Scottish or Welsh MP asks a question about education will the Speaker rule it out of order because it concerns only England? Or will the Prime MInister refuse to answer it? Or restrict him or her self to the purely English aspect of it? And at the present time MPs from Northumberland can vote on matters relating to the people of Oxfordshire, e.g. over HS2. How is that fair? It is fair because we are all part of the United Kingdom and therefore our representatives are entitled to have a say about what happens in all parts of these islands. Without that right we are no longer part of the United Kingdom. Once you start untangling the nexus of interests which are involved in being members of a Union you begin to see what a delicate, mechanism it is and how preposterous, simplistic and arrogant Cameron’s proposal to give English MPs only the right to vote on English matters. . Once the people of the UK are presented with the facts and are given the opportunity to reject such ludicrous proposals the result may turn out to be very different from what the Tories expect.
“However, I think the CP have played a superb game, it looks likely that both the LP and LDP are going to try and kick the thing into the long grass in the hope it goes away, so the CP will go into the GE championing the cause. If I was them I would make it a huge pan UK trust issue, after all if you’re willing to try and deny parity to the largest country in the Union, what would you be willing to do to the smaller nations if they don’t toe the line.”
Your remarks suggest that you are a Tory or at least, a Tory sympathiser. Frankly, I have to tell you that you couldn’t be more wrong. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats know that this is not a constitutional issue that can simply be ignored. Indeed, its consideration and solution is to be welcomed. However, by linking enhanced Scottish Devolution to the West Lothian Question and making it contingent upon the granting of dual powers to only English MPs the Tories have shown the Scottish people and those in the rest of the UK that they are as reliable as a cohort of snake oil salesmen and their word cannot be relied on. Cameron, having failed to secure his boundary changes that would destroy Labour has used the issue of enhanced Scottish devolution to deprive a potential UK Labour government of a significant number of its MPs and therefore its capacity to govern and have its writ running in England. Low politics: that’s what this is really about. Cameron the loser has failed to get a majority in the House of Commons. This is an attempt to stop Labour from doing so. And for such desperate short term advantage Cameron is willing to destroy the very Union which so many of us have spent the past few weeks trying to preserve.
Mick Taylor 23rd Sep ’14 – 1:12pm
“Mack, Nick Clegg is NOT linking English devolution to the decision to devolve more to Scotland. Quite the reverse. he has clearly stated that it is a separate issue . Dislike Clegg as you may, you really mustn’t tell lies about him.”
If that is really so I am delighted to hear it and I apologise for doubting him. I hope that he will make his opposition to enhanced Scottish Devolution being contingent on the solving of the West Lothian Question very clear soon. He may have already done so and I missed it. But you can’t blame me for being suspicious given that the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition with the Tories.
Secular Votes for Secular Laws — Boot out the Bishops from our parliament !!!
Stepping back I’m beginning to think that we’re starting from the wrong place, probably because of the way the debate has been framed and dominated by the nationalists and separatists.
Fundamentally, the outcome of the Scottish referendum was an overwhelming vote for “the union”. Yes I say overwhelming because effectively less than 38% of the Scottish electorate voted ‘Yes’. So what exactly is ‘the union’ they voted for and we are part of? is it like how the EU is currently where we have discrete nation states ‘co-operating’ or is it more like a merged enterprise – like GlaxoSmithKline say, where whilst you can readily identify the facilities that once belonged to the various independent companies, any attempts to go any further become highly problematic and as for trying to resurrect one of the independent businesses (eg. Wellcome) you might as well forget it as all you really have now is a name.
Looking at the UK in this way, I ask whether in fact for government purposes we should be dividing the country along nationalist lines in our devolution considerations. If you look at German history, you will see that the current sixteen states bear little resemblance to their historic predecessors…
I rather hope that these matters will be sorted out at a Constitutional convention. I would like to support Stve Hesketh’s suggestion that Lancashire/Cheshire be part of the review. It makes a coherent region being big enough to take on powers similar to Scotland and has the added advantage of ending Southport’s unhappy sojourn in Merseyside . In addition one proposal in the Campbell Review for Scotland was the right of communities to petition to create new Burgh Councils.
@mack (Not a Lib dem) 23rd Sep ’14 – 4:58pm
“Your remarks suggest that you are a Tory or at least, a Tory sympathiser”
I’m a working class boy who lives in Wales, I hold no great opinion of the CP and I am under no illusion as to what may or may not happen regarding my situation. Although I also have to say that over the last couple of years I’ve put the LP and LDP on a par with the CP. My sympathies do lie with my brothers and sisters across the border, they have been ignored for far too long by the political set (e.g. people like yourself and others who have commented on here, plus politicians of all parties). These people are absolutely terrified off letting go, the thought that they may lose power stifles their imagination (if the idea came from their Party, they’d have a solution to all off these matters in 2 seconds flat) and leaves them morally bankrupt.
However, to answer some of those points:
“Who are these MPs who already sit as elected members in their own countries’ devolved parliaments? ”
Northern Ireland MLAs/MPs, funny that you didn’t know that, no clamour over those years about 2nd class MPs. I’m not going to start trawling through Hansard, but I seem to recall the ban was more to do with double dipping (i.e. getting paid twice from the public purse) than some great crusade against second classism. So as long as English MPs are only paid once, they’d be fine.
“You don’t seem to be able to accept my point that the interests of the UK Union and its parliament are dependant on all of its MPs having the same fundamental voting rights.”
Oh no, that is a valid point. But you seem to forget that the a devolved English Gov. would actually meet this requirement. The voting rights in the UK Parliament would be exactly the same for everyone – no one in that Parliament would get to vote on matters that were devolved to Country level.
“As England is the largest partner in the Union and its population dwarfs the rest of the member states I believe that the constitution of an English parliament should be based on a tiered structure reflecting regional devolution.”
I can’t speak for the NI Assembly as I’m not overly familiar with it, but neither the Welsh or Scottish Assemblies are the same as when they started, they have evolved over time and will continue to do so. There is no reason why an English Assembly wouldn’t do the same, these matters could be part of that evolution. However, splitting up England and denying it a national voice just because you’re scared of it is pretty low.
“I notice you have not addressed my points about the House of Lords”
I saw no need to, the HoL currently operates within a framework of devolved Government, why would it need to change if the English were also given devolution and a UK Parliament was kept. There are more than enough reasons why we should do away with the HoL (e.g. it’s full of failed politicians from the old tired parties), but that is a separate issue.
“if at Prime Minister’s question time, a Scottish or Welsh MP asks a question about education will the Speaker rule it out of order because it concerns only England?”
At this point in time, if an MP asked a question about Scottish or Welsh education, what would the speaker do? Would he say something along the lines of “nowt to do wiv us guv”? If Education is devolved to England then obviously he would say the same as is currently said when a question is asked on a devolved matter.
“And at the present time MPs from Northumberland can vote on matters relating to the people of Oxfordshire, e.g. over HS2. How is that fair? It is fair because we are all part of the United Kingdom and therefore our representatives are entitled to have a say about what happens in all parts of these islands.”
If, eventually, devolved regions are set up with the power to look after rail infrastructure for their area, then MPs wouldn’t have that power. However, it’s a very strange point to make, after all there is already a pile of stuff that cannot be voted on by MPs and in the near future there will be even more. Scotland has had the power to vary it’s tax rate for a while hasn’t it? I understand that this power will be extended; if they lopped a big chunk off Corp Tax or PAYE wouldn’t that have a knock on effect on other parts of the UK? Will MPs have a say on it – nope.
“Without that right we are no longer part of the United Kingdom.”
They’ve not had that right since the Labour Party created all of those devolved Governments, I must have missed the news item about the UK not existing any more.
“The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats know that this is not a constitutional issue that can simply be ignored. “
Funny that, they seemed to know it could be ignored until fairly recently – or perhaps I missed the announcement from both Parties where they laid out the detailed plans that they had made when not ignoring the issue.
“Cameron, having failed to secure his boundary changes that would destroy Labour has used the issue of enhanced Scottish devolution to deprive a potential UK Labour government of a significant number of its MPs and therefore its capacity to govern and have its writ running in England. “
And at last, we get to the truth about the opposition to the idea. A couple or 3 comments if I may:
Voters are not drones to be marshalled about, I seem to recall that the LP gave itself a self satisfied pat on the back when it designed a voting system that would prevent Nationalists governing alone in Scotland. That worked well didn’t it. The English are just as likely to poke any of the old tired parties in the eye.
It may seem a bit revolutionary, but if Labour think that they aren’t going to appeal to enough voters to gain power in England, perhaps they could introduce policies that broaden their appeal.
Labour have been in power in England before, so (assuming you are a LP supporter) why do you think your Party is now so rubbish that they couldn’t do it again.
@ Chris_sh
As I said, we fundamentally disagree.
I must say if Danny has vetoed EVEL then I think he has done us all a favour. We need a proper solution and I want to say this in the nicest possible way, but in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum when Clegg was talking about creating two classes of MPs and promoting messy devolution I wanted to get him off the airwaves. I know it is party policy, but it’s flawed, so I would stay quiet about it.
Regards
Eddie Sammon
Hi Eddie, on this subject you and I are as one. Not often that I have a good word for Danny Alexander but his opposition to EVEL and what goes with it makes sense.
Whereas Clegg would appear to have been coat-tailing Cameron again without even talking to Danny Alexander, the only other Liberal Democrat in The Quad and as a Westminster MP from Scotland someone who might just have a view on the subject.
Just as well Clegg has actually disappeared from the media since Friday — nothing on his Facebook page and nothing on the Lib Dem website. Is he taking another holiday? It is less than a month since his last one.
@ John Tilley.
Your post has completely confused me about Nick Clegg’s position vis- a- vis his position regarding enhanced devolution to Scotland being contingent upon some form of English Votes for English Laws. Indeed, Mick Taylor (above) ticked me off for misrepresenting Clegg:
“Mick Taylor 23rd Sep ’14 – 1:12pm
Mack, Nick Clegg is NOT linking English devolution to the decision to devolve more to Scotland. Quite the reverse. he has clearly stated that it is a separate issue . Dislike Clegg as you may, you really mustn’t tell lies about him.”
I apologised (above) for doubting Clegg. But now, John, you’re post describes Clegg as “coat-tailing” Cameron. Can someone tell me what’s actually going on? Was I wrong to apologise? Is Clegg actually going to side with Cameron and make enhanced Scottish devolution dependent on EVEL? I must say, I was surprised by Mick Taylor’s post because Clegg has been remarkably silent on the subject and I personally haven’t heard him distance himself from EVEL.