• 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

Soapy Sam said:
Although born a Scot and though I've lived here all my life, I have worked abroad save for a couple of years, since 1977. I carry a UK passport (these days in homogeneous EC style). While anyone in the tourism business abroad will tell you how much he loves the Scots, I suspect he tells the English much the same. Foreign employers and governments take a different view. They couldn't care less about parochial British subdivisions, any more than the UK Customs and Excise cares whether someone arriving from the USA is a Texan or an Okie.
Nobody outside Britain cares whether I'm Scottish or English. And many people in Britain don't either.
Click to expand...

Thats certainly not my experience. Not by a long way.

As for the ancient nations of Scotland and Wales, while there's certainly much of interest ethno-historically in all that, it's not a can of worms I would touch with a political bargepole. Once we start basing modern geopolitics on thousand year-old speculative history, we must redraw every map in the world and give Palestine back to the descendants of any Canaanites still surviving.
Let's not go there. We have enough problems without getting the bloody claymore out of the thatch.
Click to expand...

Lets just say the Tories lose their seat in Scotland and Cameron gets a majority. How long should that charade go on?
 
funk de fino said:
Thats certainly not my experience. Not by a long way.
Click to expand...


Mine neither, actually.

funk de fino said:
Lets just say the Tories lose their seat in Scotland ....
Click to expand...


I'm torn. That Tory is our MP, and frankly he's a waste of oxygen. This is the party of Rifkind and Lang and Forsyth and Fairbairn - agree with them or not, they had stature and presence. Where did they find Mundell, for God's sake?

I'd dearly love to see him get the kicking he deserves. And I'd dearly love to see none of the rest of that foul brood get in elsewhere. However, Labour don't seem to be trying in this seat, and if Mundell gets beaten it's likely to be by the LibDem candidate. Who can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.

Received wisdom is that if the LibDem wins, she'll be dug in for life. She's likely to go places within the LibDem parliamentary group, and perhaps more so if they end up in a coalition. We'll be stuck with her for 20 or 30 years.

Sigh. I suppose that means I can find a silver lining in whichever cloud we end up with on Friday.

Not really on topic, sorry.

Rolfe.
 
I see some bickering around some boards now saying us Scots should be forced out of the union and stopped from sponging off England while voting for Labour.
 
Right, let's talk about democratic deficit. It looks like we're getting a Tory government, probably in with the Lib-Dems (who have changed their tune a bit about coalitions since the Holyrood elections, eh?), despite the fact that they've got how many seats in Scotland?

One.

Yup, one.

Don't get me wrong, as a Nationalist, I think this is ideal - if there's one thing guaranteed to help the cause of independence it's the English National Conservative Party........
 
Not sure whether to put this in this thread or the coalition one.

The disparity in seats between England and the two smaller nations is very acute. In this table I assume the remaining seat in Yorkshire is going to go Conservative. I'm ignoring the NI seats partly because I don't understand them and partly because they are relatively penny-numbers.

|England|Wales|Scotland
Conservative| 268| 8| 1
Labour| 191| 26| 41
LibDem| 43| 3| 11
Other| 1| 3| 6

As far as England is concerned, there is a perfectly respectable Conservative overall majority. The only way a "progressive alliance" such as Alex Salmond is talking about can possibly arise is by using the Scottish and Welsh Labour majority to overwhelm the Conservative majority in England. I really didn't think this situation was likely to arise, especially since the number of Scottish seats was reduced from 72 to 59. However, it has.

Consider what might happen if the "progressive alliance" (Labour, LibDem, nationalist and possibly Green) actually got into power. Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments, but England does not. Westminster passes the England-only legislation. It is, to a certain extent, the parliament of England.

How are the English likely to react if they, despite giving the Tories a respectable working majority, are forced to accept a Labour-led coalition? Purely on the basis of Scotland having voted Labour? It's not going to go down well at all, let's face it.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
However, let's also consider what's going to happen at Scottish Question Time in the Commons - we face the prospect of the one and only Tory MP (hey, they might field a Liberal) having to be supported by 59 English MPs drafted in....

....so, let's get back to this "democratic deficit" again.
 
Have you met the "one and only Scottish Tory MP"? Calling him a lightweight would be too kind (especially in view of his rotund bulk).

You could be right, they may well field a Liberal.

Rolfe.
 
And if the Tories lead a government, it'll be a similar scenario for Scotland, having pretty much said no to Conversatism, on any legislation not subject to devolution. I remember the strength of feeling over the poll tax, but the protests north of the border were predominantly peaceful; London had the riots.

My gut feeling is that a Lib-Lab-Others pact is very unlikely given the allocation of seats in England.
 
A Tory/LibDem coalition wouldn't be nearly so toxic though. Scotland has its own parliament, and can do what it likes with domestic legislation to a certain extent. With a "progressive alliance" we'd have exactly the West Lothian scenario - Scottish and Welsh MPs being essential to get votes through on English legislation, while neither they nor the English MPs can vote on the equivalent Scottish or Welsh legislation.

Rolfe.
 
Ah Rolfe, you do the Scottish Tories an injustice. Look how their green credentials are now - they've hired a 2-seater Smartcar for their trips tae Westminster, one seat for the driver, and one for their MP. Compare that with the SNP or Labour ;)
 
Rolfe said:
A Tory/LibDem coalition wouldn't be nearly so toxic though. Scotland has its own parliament, and can do what it likes with domestic legislation to a certain extent. With a "progressive alliance" we'd have exactly the West Lothian scenario - Scottish and Welsh MPs being essential to get votes through on English legislation, while neither they nor the English MPs can vote on the equivalent Scottish or Welsh legislation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Isn't one of the key Tory policies to change how the budget for Scotland is determined - i.e. to cut the amount of money the Scottish parliament gets to decide for itself how to spend?

'Domestic legislation' doesn't cover the fact that things like defence spending, energy policy, immigration and other UK matters can have a disproportionately positive/negative effect on particular regions.

Also, doesn't most UK policy actually affect Scotland anyway in so much as the UK levels of funding for devolved powers reflects how much money is given to Scotland?

WLQ to me is a sideshow compared to the disenfranchisement of millions of people.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Isn't one of the key Tory policies to change how the budget for Scotland is determined - i.e. to cut the amount of money the Scottish parliament gets to decide for itself how to spend?
Click to expand...


That's a very sore point indeed, and hardly likely to lead to good relations between Westminster and Holyrood irrespective of which party is in power. There is a growing tide of opinion in Scotland favouring "full fiscal autonomy", that is giving Scotland the power to raise and spend its own revenue. This is so big a step on the road to independence it's bitterly opposed by the Tories. In addition, it would again raise the question of the North Sea revenues from the Scottish sector - even after the 1999 sea grab, this is still a lot of cash. So I would forsee some big rows ahead.

Last of the Fraggles said:
'Domestic legislation' doesn't cover the fact that things like defence spending, energy policy, immigration and other UK matters can have a disproportionately positive/negative effect on particular regions.

Also, doesn't most UK policy actually affect Scotland anyway in so much as the UK levels of funding for devolved powers reflects how much money is given to Scotland?
Click to expand...


That's what makes the abstention policy tricky. The SNP has in the past studied each bill in detail to see if it has implications for Scotland, even funding implications, and if it has, they vote on it. In practice this means that even with the abstention mandate, nationalist votes still influence areas of legislation which are primarily English domestic affairs.

Again, this could lead to some quite serious rows, if it were perceived that the nationalists were facilitating the passage of English domestic legislation againt the wishes of the English Conservative majority.

Last of the Fraggles said:
WLQ to me is a sideshow compared to the disenfranchisement of millions of people.
Click to expand...


What, you mean the millions of people who didn't vote for whatever government we get in the end? Sorry, but it's always like that. Even if you change to a PR system to reduce that number, there will still be millions of people who voted for the party or parties that end up in opposition. Them's the breaks. And strictly speaking, these people are not disenfranchised. They had their vote. You're not disenfranchised just because that vote wasn't cast for the winning party.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
What, you mean the millions of people who didn't vote for whatever government we get in the end? Sorry, but it's always like that. Even if you change to a PR system to reduce that number, there will still be millions of people who voted for the party or parties that end up in opposition. Them's the breaks. And strictly speaking, these people are not disenfranchised. They had their vote. You're not disenfranchised just because that vote wasn't cast for the winning party.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

My 'disenfranchisement' comment related to 2 things:

1. Personal disenfranchisement under the FPTP system - my vote was literally worthless in my constituency. As was my brother's and father's and many other thousands who voted for anyone other than Labour. Under PR my vote would have counted for something. It may not have decided the government but I would have had a degree of representation.

2. A national disenfranchisement that an entire nation clearly expressed an opinion that they do not want Tory rule and yet they are going to get it.

I'm comfortable with the idea that I personally may not always get a government that I want. I am uncomfortable with the idea that there is literally NOTHING I can do to influence the makeup of the government or that an entire country can be ridden roughshod over by a foreign government.
 
Oh, I agree that individual disenfranchisement within the constituency is almost absolute under FPTP. It's not just those who vote for the losing candidates, though - you could argue that every vote about the winning post for the winner is also "wasted".

I spent days slogging round my constituency campaigning for the SNP, even though we had no chance at all of getting that seat. Waste of time? Possibly, but that's what has to be done. However, when I do it again next May, it will certainly not be a waste of time, because that election will be under PR and I know that every vote I pick up for a list member will count. My step will be considerably lighter, I can tell you.

As to the national disenfranchisement, well of course I agree personally, but logically, no. It's perfectly true to say that a majority of Scots voted for parties which support the right of the party which wins in England to govern Scotland. Thus, they should have no complaint about the outcome. The nation is not disenfranchised. There are several parties standing which would support political independence and so the right of Scotland to determine its own government. If people want that right, bloody well vote for it. At the moment it's all "have your cake and eat it" I'm afraid.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
As to the national disenfranchisement, well of course I agree personally, but logically, no. It's perfectly true to say that a majority of Scots voted for parties which support the right of the party which wins in England to govern Scotland. Thus, they should have no complaint about the outcome. The nation is not disenfranchised. There are several parties standing which would support political independence and so the right of Scotland to determine its own government. If people want that right, bloody well vote for it. At the moment it's all "have your cake and eat it" I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying personally but many people don't see it that way. I'm sure there are many Scottish Labour and Lib Dem voters who would like to see independence but for whatever reason don't feel they should or could vote SNP.

I don't think you can interpret the vote for notionally unionist parties as the vote for people who prefer the Union to independence.

In a UK general election the question of Independence is probably never going to be the utmost priority for anyone as in all honesty it is unlikely that in any given election independence would result. People vote on the economy, jobs, benefits, taxes first because they are going to have to live with those policies after the election. If every Labour/Lib voter who preferred an independent Scotland to Tory rule voted SNP then chances are you might have seen a few more Tories in Scotland and more legitimacy for the English Conservative government in the UK

The Indepence question just like PR is something that should be dealt with separately as standalone questions outside of party politics.
 
That is of course absolutely true, and it's a bit of a paradox.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, Labour (and the LibDems) were very coy indeed about their attitude to independence. In my opinion, there was a strong element in both parties' support which favoured devolution of some sort or another, but which, if denied that, would prefer to proceed directly to independence than continue with Westminster rule.

Do you remember the "Lorraine Mann question" in 1995? She asked Salmond and Robertson what their second choice would be, in a preferential vote on the constitutional issue. Salmond said devolution, but Robertson refused to answer. Reading between the lines, he obviously preferred perpetual Westminster rule to independence. However, his reluctance to say so was interesting. There seems to have been a general consensus that this would be a damaging admission.

Compare that with modern rhetoric. Separatism. Tha darker side of nationalism. Destroying the union. Ripping Britain apart. And so on. Labour seems to have no problem now articulating its essential unionism. It seems to me that to some extent the advent of the Scottish parliament has allowed the party to come clean on the subject. It's no longer a question of, well, if we can never have devolution, should we go for it? We have devolution, and at the moment nobody is trying to take that away from us. So it's apparently safer for Labour to articulate its unionism, with the apparent aim of monstering the very idea of independence.

Nevertheless, it's perfectly true that there are many Labour and LibDem supporters who also support independence. Even some Conservatives! But that's of no importance when the unionist parties come to spin the results. They are quite correct to say that a vote for an explicitly unionist party in a general election is a vote in favour of being governed by whichever party wins in England, because that's what it is.

You're pointing out that it may be a tactical vote, or a vote based on other criteria than a desire for independence, and that's quite true. But it dosn't matter. If you put your cross in a box against a party which supports the union, you are explicitly agreeing to the principle of being governed by whichever party wins in England. So don't start complaining after the event unless you intend to change your voting behaviour.

The unionist parties of course know that there's much higher support for independence than for the SNP in Scotland. It's inevitable, because of all the other factors you mention as regards tactical voting and voting on other criteria. It's perfectly possible that an even-handed campaign leading up to an independence referendum would result in a "yes" vote. Which is why they will pull any trick they can muster to prevent such a referendum taking place.

That's the current position. I merely repeat that those who choose (for whatever reason) to cast their vote for a unionist party really can't turn round and complain about the hand the union happens to deal them.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
That is of course absolutely true, and it's a bit of a paradox.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, Labour (and the LibDems) were very coy indeed about their attitude to independence. In my opinion, there was a strong element in both parties' support which favoured devolution of some sort or another, but which, if denied that, would prefer to proceed directly to independence than continue with Westminster rule.

Do you remember the "Lorraine Mann question" in 1995? She asked Salmond and Robertson what their second choice would be, in a preferential vote on the constitutional issue. Salmond said devolution, but Robertson refused to answer. Reading between the lines, he obviously preferred perpetual Westminster rule to independence. However, his reluctance to say so was interesting. There seems to have been a general consensus that this would be a damaging admission.

Compare that with modern rhetoric. Separatism. Tha darker side of nationalism. Destroying the union. Ripping Britain apart. And so on. Labour seems to have no problem now articulating its essential unionism. It seems to me that to some extent the advent of the Scottish parliament has allowed the party to come clean on the subject. It's no longer a question of, well, if we can never have devolution, should we go for it? We have devolution, and at the moment nobody is trying to take that away from us. So it's apparently safer for Labour to articulate its unionism, with the apparent aim of monstering the very idea of independence.

Nevertheless, it's perfectly true that there are many Labour and LibDem supporters who also support independence. Even some Conservatives! But that's of no importance when the unionist parties come to spin the results. They are quite correct to say that a vote for an explicitly unionist party in a general election is a vote in favour of being governed by whichever party wins in England, because that's what it is.

You're pointing out that it may be a tactical vote, or a vote based on other criteria than a desire for independence, and that's quite true. But it dosn't matter. If you put your cross in a box against a party which supports the union, you are explicitly agreeing to the principle of being governed by whichever party wins in England. So don't start complaining after the event unless you intend to change your voting behaviour.

The unionist parties of course know that there's much higher support for independence than for the SNP in Scotland. It's inevitable, because of all the other factors you mention as regards tactical voting and voting on other criteria. It's perfectly possible that an even-handed campaign leading up to an independence referendum would result in a "yes" vote. Which is why they will pull any trick they can muster to prevent such a referendum taking place.

That's the current position. I merely repeat that those who choose (for whatever reason) to cast their vote for a unionist party really can't turn round and complain about the hand the union happens to deal them.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I can't help but think that the 'deserve what you get logic' is neither particularly correct nor particularly useful as a political position. You could equally argue that everyone who voted SNP deserves whatever shafting Cameron decides to give us as they didn't vote Labour to keep him out.

Its seems there is almost no legitimate way that Scotland can vote for independence - even voting the SNP as the largest party in the Scottish government didn't make any progress on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom