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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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