• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The West Lothian Question

Architect said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would it make any real difference to the question of independence if Scotland didn't have separate educational and legal systems?
Does this mean the proponents of Welsh independence have a weaker position than their Scottish counterparts?
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
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 worldwhere this has been done? I'm not a great history expert, but I can't think of one.
Click to expand...

Couple of things - I do not believe that Scotland's independence should be approved by a referendum of the whole country, what I think should happen is that there needs to be mechanisms agreed by the whole country that allow the likes of Scotland or the Kingdom of Northumberland to become independent from the rest of the UK.

Saying that from where we are now I think if a referendum was held in Scotland tomorrow and a true majority (e.g. a large majority of the population takes part) wanted independence then that should happen.

But it should not be hidden behind spin - what would be happening is that the future of our entire country is being decided by a very small minority of our country. And fundamentally I think not being part of that process is disenfranchising, the 50 odd million people of the UK that will have no say in the future of their country.

As for other examples - I can't think of any countries comparable to the UK that has gone through something like what the SNP wants.

(And am afraid that yet again we have wandered off-topic - this thread was not about Scottish independence but a specific political issue of the UK - and I fear we may be split again.)
 
He. ;)

Hull's in England and the United Kingdom. I consider my birth country to be the United Kingdom.
 
Darat said:
As for other examples - I can't think of any countries comparable to the UK that has gone through something like what the SNP wants.
Click to expand...
Czechoslovakia?

Also a case where a relatively small part in inhabitants and GDP, but relatively large in area, wanted independence.
 
mbp said:
Would it make any real difference to the question of independence if Scotland didn't have separate educational and legal systems?
Does this mean the proponents of Welsh independence have a weaker position than their Scottish counterparts?
Click to expand...

OP compared Scotland to English regions such as Yorkshire; response is that Scotland is one of the home nations and, in comparison to said country, has always had items such as distinct educational and legal systems.
 
Architect said:
OP compared Scotland to English regions such as Yorkshire; response is that Scotland is one of the home nations and, in comparison to said country, has always had items such as distinct educational and legal systems.
Click to expand...
I realise that. Having its own legal system is certainly a significant difference between Scotland and Yorkshire. But it's not a difference between Yorkshire and Wales or Cornwall. Or, to pick a silly example, Mercia.
So that's the basis for my question. Is this particular difference of any significance when it comes to the question of independence? In the hypothetical case (and being Danish I've got no idea how unlikely it is) of a referendum in Wales or Cornwall favouring independence should this matter at all?
 
Uzzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have to intrude with facts, but:

It is untrue to state that the Higher Education Act 2004 does not apply in Scotland.

And no, you are not paying more for your university education because of this vote. This was a second reading. That means the legislation was not final. Go find the results of the vote for the THIRD reading.

Please try and be accurate here as it is important. For example referring only to the Scottish Labour MP's who voted in favour but not mentioning the Labour, SNP and Lib-Dem Scottish MP's who voted against. The 2nd reading was passed because of Scottish MP's votes, but by nothing like the margin you imply. But as I said, it is not the 2nd reading that matters, and of course, the Act DOES apply to Scotland.
 
Last edited:
I'm porting this quote in from a different thread, because it seems relevant here.

Fiona said:
When I first made my decision to change I met a number of curious arguments from that quarter: not least "we cannot abandon the poor english to tory hegemony" (I paraphrase but that is the thrust): I do not find that persuasive, though I would have done before "new labour", perhaps.
Click to expand...


I've also heard that argument from Labour supporters. That it's immoral to work for an independent Scotland because that will leave England with a permanent Tory majority.

This seems to me to represent the culmination of the West Lothian debate, and it is entirely unacceptable. Behind it is the assumption that the Labour party is always right and Labour government undoubtedly in the best interests of any country - even if they don't want it and don't vote for it.

If England (I'll leave Wales and NI out of it because their destiny is also in their own hands) wants a Tory government and votes for a Tory government, then it's entitled to have a Tory government, even if a bunch of pinko Scots would like to save them from themselves.

Rolfe.
 
State of the parties prior to dissolution:

Labour: 345
Tory: 193
Lib Dem: 63

of which

Scots MPs (total 59)

Labour: 39
Lib Dem: 12
SNP: 7
Tory: 1

That may have been a valid argument 25 years ago, hardly so today. If Scots MPs were removed tomorrow, currently Labour would have the most to lose, but still have a working majority of 12 based on those figures.
 
I think you're right. If England votes for a Labour government it gets it, and it's perfectly capable of voting for it if it sees fit.

I'm not sure if there was ever a Labour government in Westminster that wouldn't have existed but for Scottish Labour MPs (I'm sure some wonk will tell me though....). Scottish Labourites of the intelligensia class like to feel they're all that's keeping our Sassenach cousins from the political equivalent of Genghis Khan, though.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I think you're right. If England votes for a Labour government it gets it, and it's perfectly capable of voting for it if it sees fit.

I'm not sure if there was ever a Labour government in Westminster that wouldn't have existed but for Scottish Labour MPs (I'm sure some wonk will tell me though....). Scottish Labourites of the intelligensia class like to feel they're all that's keeping our Sassenach cousins from the political equivalent of Genghis Khan, though.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Callaghan's government presumably would have fallen earlier had it not been for Scottish Labour MP's? Nov 1974 results for Scotland were 41 Labour MP's out of a total of 71. Overall Labour had 319 of 635 seats, so would have been a minority (although still largest party) without Scottish votes.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I thought that would have been about the closest. Despite the Marchmont socialists and their dinner parties, Scotland never has enforced a Labour government on England against its wishes. While I appreciate there have been particular policies that wouldn't have been passed but for the votes of Scottish Labour MPs (and where these have related to English matters post devolution I absolutely deplore this), it's hardly oppressive subjugation.

All the bleating about the "West Lothian Question" really does pale into significance when compared to 1979-97 in Scotland.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I appreciate there have been particular policies that wouldn't have been passed but for the votes of Scottish Labour MPs (and where these have related to English matters post devolution I absolutely deplore this), it's hardly oppressive subjugation.
Click to expand...

Have there? I keep hearing the claim but when I ask for examples it all goes quiet.
 
Someone mentioned something about fees for higher education? I'd be interested if there was no actual example, I'd always assumed it must have happened, the way so many people bleat about it.

Rolfe.
 
It was raised at the time in the English-based press and quietly ignored in our own: I always just assumed it to be true, and (this is terrible to admit) smirked about the poll tax / foot now being on the other foot / some people getting a taste of their own medicine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom