The West Lothian Question

[Rat]

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.

Alex Salmond was on Radio 4 this afternoon and basically said that that was what happened with education fees. Or he may have just said that it could happen. I was only listening with one ear. It was around 1715 or 1720, if anyone cares enough to track it down on iPlayer.

 

[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.

Once upon a time I was invited to be in the audience for a Sunday morning political discussion show. London Weekend television I think. 2000, possibly, or maybe late 1999.

It was a bit of a damp squib, because the reason I was invited was that Alex Salmond was supposed to be one of the panellists, but in fact the lineup was changed at the last minute. However, the setup was interesting. I, along with a few other SNP people, was given a named chair, so Dimbleby knew where I was sitting. In contrast a bunch of vocal Londoners up in arms about something to do with the union flag (I think) was told in the green room that they'd be allowed in but would not be called to speak - I gather they'd caused trouble before.

The warmup was the fascinating bit. A TV chappie started a debate about foxhunting, of all things, just for a bit of practice. Well of course that was interesting to me. One of the warmup speakers committed a complete logical howler - he used two mutually contradictory arguments. I stuck my hand up and nailed him, and had a short, articulate rant about the cruelty of hunting. (I think I said I was a vet, and that if I chose to use pursuit and dismemberment by a pack of dogs as a humane method of destruction I'd be struck off so fast I wouldn't know what had hit me, so let's hear no more about how this is a humane method of pest control.)

The real debate was tedious. I've got it on tape because I'd set the VCR, but I never watched it. We didn't get on to the West Lothian bit until very near the end, and I hadn't made any move to speak until then. By this time quite a few people were waving to get a word in, and Dimbleby was ignoring them. Then someone on the panel said how iniquitous it would be if any law was passed that affected England, solely because of Scottish MPs' voting influence.

At this, I put my hand up for the first time. I was gobsmacked by the effect. Dimbleby pretty much cut off the panel member who had started to reply, and waved aside the hands gesticulating from other audience members, and called me in. Unfortunately I only had time to make the main point, that this in reverse was exactly what had happened to Scotland for 18 years, but our protests had fallen on deaf ears, and only now was the issue being raised when people in England thought it might happen to them.

I could see we were nearly out of time though, and Dimbleby wanted to start the wrap-up, and there's nothing worse than an audience member barging on with further points when the chair is trying to move on. So I stopped. I could have gone on a bit more though, pointing out that the disparity in population size is so great that in reality it's very unlikely to affect England at all, and if it does, it will be when English votes are very finely balanced indeed so hardly a riding roughshod over clear majority opinion.

It was a fascinating insight into how these programmes work though. I kind of wish I'd gone when they invited me back for another debate, but getting up early on a Sunday morning to trail into the Big Smoke was never my favourite way to spend a weekend.

Rolfe.

 

[Uzzy]

Sorry to have to intrude with facts, but:

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

So Education isn't one of the devolved powers in Scotland? You have to pay top-up fees in Scotland? Interesting.

Snark aside, I'll quote the BBC article which stated.

Some 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, even though the plans will not apply north of the border. Five voted against and three abstained.

Lets do some maths shall we? 316 - 46 gives us 270, which is less then the 311 votes against. But as you rightly point out, the votes against may have included Scottish MP's. The number of Scottish MP's at the time was 72, which means that a maximum of 26 Scottish MP's voted against the bill. Taking 26 away from 311 gives us..

285.

So the bill would have been defeated by a majority of 15, had Scottish MP's not voted on it.

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.

Ah, now we are getting into politics. The rebellion on top-up fees focused on the second reading, and lost steam after the government won. Had it been defeated at the second reading, that would have been the end of it. Shame that the rebellion didn't continue. I know I'd like to be paying less for my university education!

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.

15 votes isn't a margin?

The situation is simple. Had it not been for Scottish MP's, the Higher Education Bill 2004 would have been defeated at the second reading.

 

[Uzzy]

Unfortunately I only had time to make the main point, that this in reverse was exactly what had happened to Scotland for 18 years, but our protests had fallen on deaf ears, and only now was the issue being raised when people in England thought it might happen to them.

Few points here.

Firstly, if it was unfair then, why isn't it unfair now?

Secondly, that's the nature of parliamentary democracy. Laws can affect areas over the wishes of the local MP. Up until recently, I lived in the Beverley and Holderness constituency, which has been Conservative since pretty much ever. For the past thirteen years, laws have affected my former constituency which have been passed solely by the voting influence of MP's outside my constituency. I don't complain about it because that's how democracy works.

Thirdly, if it was unfair then, why isn't it unfair now?

Fourthly, in the 1980's, the UK government governed everything for the whole country. Why shouldn't it's decisions affect the whole country? Should areas which didn't vote for the party in power get to be immune to the government's choices? Maybe Hull should decide to just ignore any future Tory Government, on the basis they didn't vote for any Tory MP's.

Fifthly, the situation now is quite different. Many matters regarding domestic policy in England and Scotland are dealt with in separate legislative bodies and different governments. English MP's are no longer able to vote on matters of health, education etc that solely involve Scotland, yet Scottish MP's are able to vote on issues that solely involve England. That is hardly fair, nor is it a sustainable position.

 

[Architect]

Oh, I think we agree that it's potentially unfair: we're pointing out that we suffered it for year upon year, mostly during Tory rule, and our cousins south of the Border deftly ignored all our protests. Shoe/other foot.

However Rolfe makes a very good point. The Scottish votes are very modest in comparison to the number of English and Welsh MPs, hence it's wholly unfair to suggest that they have any effect other than where the vote is finely balanced. They tip it over the edge, rather than running roughshod over English and Welsh opinions.

Unless you think a nation of only 5m can push around a country of some 55m, of course.

 

[Architect]

Fifthly, the situation now is quite different. Many matters regarding domestic policy in England and Scotland are dealt with in separate legislative bodies and different governments. English MP's are no longer able to vote on matters of health, education etc that solely involve Scotland, yet Scottish MP's are able to vote on issues that solely involve England. That is hardly fair, nor is it a sustainable position.

The first part of the paragraph overlooks the actual arrangements for the governance of Scotland pre-devolution, but never mind. The point is that yes, England should have it's own parliament with Westminster reserved from UK wide issues such as defence and foreign policy. Most of the SNP posters here have said the same thing.

 

[Rolfe]

Few points here.

Firstly, if it was unfair then, why isn't it unfair now?

It's potentially unfair whichever way round it happens.

Just to note, it has always been SNP policy, since devolution, not to vote on any matter in Westminster which does not affect Scotland. (This has allowed the Labour party to accuse the SNP MPs of being slackers, based on their voting record - and they make this accusation quite unblushingly.) Meanwhile the Scottish Labour MPs take the party whip and railroad through anything they're told to.

We merely note the irony that for the 18 years it was happening to Scotland - and actually happening, in spades - no notice was taken of our protests, which included street marches and activist groups (principally "Scotland United"). However, when the boot may be on the other foot, suddenly it's a great scandal and Must Be Stopped. Even though the chances of it actually happening are quite small, and if it happens at all it will only be when the English vote is quite finely balanced.

Secondly, that's the nature of parliamentary democracy. Laws can affect areas over the wishes of the local MP. Up until recently, I lived in the Beverley and Holderness constituency, which has been Conservative since pretty much ever. For the past thirteen years, laws have affected my former constituency which have been passed solely by the voting influence of MP's outside my constituency. I don't complain about it because that's how democracy works.

Yes, that's how the system works. That's why many people in Scotland would prefer to leave the system. If Beverley and Holderness wants to start an independence movement, it's quite free to do so. Good luck with that.

Thirdly, if it was unfair then, why isn't it unfair now?

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.

Fourthly, in the 1980's, the UK government governed everything for the whole country. Why shouldn't it's decisions affect the whole country? Should areas which didn't vote for the party in power get to be immune to the government's choices? Maybe Hull should decide to just ignore any future Tory Government, on the basis they didn't vote for any Tory MP's.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.

Fifthly, the situation now is quite different. Many matters regarding domestic policy in England and Scotland are dealt with in separate legislative bodies and different governments. English MP's are no longer able to vote on matters of health, education etc that solely involve Scotland, yet Scottish MP's are able to vote on issues that solely involve England. That is hardly fair, nor is it a sustainable position.

I'm glad you agree. As I've said several times, I fully support reducing the number of Scottish MPs to zero, and Scotland being entirely governed from Holyrood.

The devolution settlement wasn't the SNP's choice, or its preferred solution. It was dreamed up by Donald Dewar, pretty much on the back of a fag packet, in 1997. The SNP welcomed it as a huge improvement on the previous arrangement, but all your objections are valid.

I know what I think should be done about it, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

And, in all fairness, what quite a lot of our fellow Scots think about it too.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So Education isn't one of the devolved powers in Scotland? You have to pay top-up fees in Scotland? Interesting.

Snark aside, I'll quote the BBC article which stated.

I suggest you read what I wrote. The vote was on the 2nd reading of the Higher Education Bill 2004 which became the Higher Education Act 2004.

The Act DOES apply in Scotland. You choose to reference a BBC report on it, I prefer to refer you to the actual text of the Act itself. This is what it says in the section dealing with extent:

"53
Extent .(1)
Subject to subsections (2) to (4), this Act extends to England and Wales only. .
(2)
The following provisions also extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland— .
(a)
Part 1, .
(b)
section 45, .
(c)
sections 47, 48, 51 and 52, and .
(d)
this section and section 54. .
(3)
Subsections (1), (2) and (5) of section 42 also extend to Northern Ireland. .
(4)
Any amendment or repeal made by this Act has the same extent within the United Kingdom as the enactment to which it relates."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040008_en_6#pt5-pb2-l1g52

You claimed the bill did not apply north of the border. That is untrue, which is what I said.

So you seem to be saying that Scottish MP's should not vote on a bill that does apply in Scotland - funnily enough I disagree.

Now, do you want an argument based on facts or not?

Lets do some maths shall we? 316 - 46 gives us 270, which is less then the 311 votes against. But as you rightly point out, the votes against may have included Scottish MP's. The number of Scottish MP's at the time was 72, which means that a maximum of 26 Scottish MP's voted against the bill. Taking 26 away from 311 gives us..

285.

So the bill would have been defeated by a majority of 15, had Scottish MP's not voted on it.

Which is what I said, so I don't know what you think you are proving here. However if the English MP's were so outraged by this dreadful anti-democratic insult, they could remedy it at the third reading as they have an overwhelming majority to defeat the bill. Of course we both know that, when it came to the third reading the bill passed, and would have passed ignoring Scottish MPs votes. In other words, the English MPs passed the bill.

And of course, as pointed out to you but ignored by you, the Act DOES apply in Scotland so it has difficult to see how you could possibly think that this matches the question I asked, which was about legislation only applying in England being passed based on Scottish votes.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

See previous reply. Lots of noise, lots of bleating, but you will notice that there are a few somewhat important facts missing from all that noise, like the fact the Act involved applies to Scotland. So what they actually object to appears to be Scottish MP's voting on bills that apply to Scotland - perhaps they think we should be treated like a colony?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Fifthly, the situation now is quite different. Many matters regarding domestic policy in England and Scotland are dealt with in separate legislative bodies and different governments. English MP's are no longer able to vote on matters of health, education etc that solely involve Scotland, yet Scottish MP's are able to vote on issues that solely involve England. That is hardly fair, nor is it a sustainable position.

Yet you are unable to come up with a single example of where this has affected the outcome?

Strange.

 

[Debaser]

Is there a demand for an english assembly? I was not aware of that

There was a need created at the precise moment powers were devolved to Scotland, Wales and NIreland to prevent the dog's dinner we have now. Unfortunately, in the style of 'Reform of The Lords', it was half-arsed, when anyone outside Millbank could see where things would eventually lead.

Given all of what happened in the Thatcher years, there's a hideous temptation to say, well now you know what it feels like.
Rolfe.

Yes. I would like to apologise for this on behalf of us northern English. I remember the street parties we held when the pits closed and the steelworks went. Oh, how we laughed at the backwards Scots wanting to retain these relics and preserve the 'communities' that had grown up around them over generations. Didn't you see the brave new world awaiting you? A world of call centres and service 'industries'. We just couldn't wait for it.

I'm sorry, but sometimes it's like reading a Comic Strip/Hollywood-ised version of Braveheart wherein England apparently practiced some form of supra-national droit de seigneur and raped a pure and virginal Scotland, who only had eyes for la belle France and the auld alliance.

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.

I know it sounds like a Daily Mail view, but as a 'person of the Left' there is a vein of self-loathing, particularly amongst English socialists (see for example the Guardian's St. George's Day series) that seems to forget we (the English) are as much the heirs of Tom Paine and the Tolpuddle Martyrs as we are of Thatcher. This nonsense of an England 'Forever Tory' is simply a Conservative fantasy.
(Lest we forget, once upon a time it was said that Labour would never get back in and then when Saint Tony was at his peak the same was said of the Tories. The usual newspaper hyperbole).

 

[Uzzy]

Ah, now we are getting into the minutiae of the bill. Excellent. Lets have a look at some of the things that do apply to Scotland. (I'm surprised bits do though.)

Part 1 is all about research into arts and the humanities. Not really too major an issue, is it?

Section 45 relates to the transfer of information held by student support authorities. Slightly related to education, so it's certainly an improvement for your argument.

Section 47 and 48 are these.

47 Orders and regulations

(1) Any power—
(a) of the Secretary of State or the Assembly to make an order or regulations under this Act, or
(b) of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under this Act,
is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) Any statutory instrument containing—
(a) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 18, or
(b) regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act,
is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to—
(a) regulations to which section 26(1) or (2)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii) applies,
(b) regulations to which paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2 applies, or
(c) regulations to which subsection (4) applies.
(4) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 33(2), 34 or 37(3)(c) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) Any order or regulations under this Act may—
(a) make different provision for different cases or different areas,
(b) make provision generally or only in relation to specified cases, and
(c) contain such incidental, supplemental, saving or transitional provisions as the person making the order or regulations thinks fit.
(6) Nothing in this Act is to be regarded as affecting the generality of subsection (5).

48 General interpretation

In this Act—

• “the 1992 Act” means the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13);
• “the 1994 Act” means the Education Act 1994 (c. 30);
• “the 1998 Act” means the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30);
• “the Assembly” means the National Assembly for Wales.

Lots of legalese there. Nothing of substance.

Section 51 is this

51 Financial provisions

(1) There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of this Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums which by virtue of any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
(2) There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund any sums received by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of this Act.

Not much of importance there either.

Section 52 says which provisions will come into force. Too big to quote.

You already linked to Section 53, so to finish off, I'll quote Section 54. This is my favourite.

54 Short title, etc.

(1) This Act may be cited as the Higher Education Act 2004.
(2) This Act is to be included in the list of Education Acts set out in section 578 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56).

So yes, you have managed to pick out some provisions in the Higher Education Act that apply to Scotland. Part 1 relates to the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which replaced the Arts and Humanities Research Board. Section 45 is somewhat related to education. The rest are parliamentary legalese though. None of the provisions relate at all to the main thrust of the bill, which was about top-up fees for university. You do remember all the debate being about that, right? All the protests and petitions?

Some elements apply to Scotland. Certainly not the main elements, and most of your examples are nothing but legalese.

However if the English MP's were so outraged by this dreadful anti-democratic insult, they could remedy it at the third reading as they have an overwhelming majority to defeat the bill. Of course we both know that, when it came to the third reading the bill passed, and would have passed ignoring Scottish MPs votes. In other words, the English MPs passed the bill.

Sure. I was very disappointed that the rebellion fizzled out. But as you should be well aware, it's the second reading of a bill that's the important one. I do wish the rebellion continued, but MP's either lost faith or were bought off. It's a shame that happened.

Yet you are unable to come up with a single example of where this has affected the outcome?

Sure, as long as you ignore the second reading of the Higher Education 2004 bill.

 

[Rolfe]

There was a need created at the precise moment powers were devolved to Scotland, Wales and NIreland to prevent the dog's dinner we have now. Unfortunately, in the style of 'Reform of The Lords', it was half-arsed, when anyone outside Millbank could see where things would eventually lead.

Oh, Millbank could see it too. It was all about John Smith's legacy, which Tony thought it politic to embrace even though he didn't, as it were. Hence the wrecking amendment. We were all supposed to vote against "tax-raising powers" (which might more accurately have been presented as "tax-varying powers" but you get the general drift), so that Scotland could be presented as only half-hearted about self-government and positively hostile to any form of fiscal autonomy.

Didn't happen. The landslide was pretty comprehensive. Even thought these tax-varying powers have never been used and its arguable they can't practically be used, the positive vote to give the Holyrood parliament as much fiscal autonomy as was on offer has legitimised it enormously.

Oops. In my opinion, if Tony Blair could turn the clock back and ditch John Smith's legacy, he'd do it.

Yes. I would like to apologise for this on behalf of us northern English. I remember the street parties we held when the pits closed and the steelworks went. Oh, how we laughed at the backwards Scots wanting to retain these relics and preserve the 'communities' that had grown up around them over generations. Didn't you see the brave new world awaiting you? A world of call centres and service 'industries'. We just couldn't wait for it.

I'm sorry, but sometimes it's like reading a Comic Strip/Hollywood-ised version of Braveheart wherein England apparently practiced some form of supra-national droit de seigneur and raped a pure and virginal Scotland, who only had eyes for la belle France and the auld alliance.

I've been criticised for referring to "Westminster" and "south-east England" in other arguments, but I chose these terms deliberately. The north of England has had it rough too, and nobody is disputing that. However, I'm not in a position to call for independence for the north of England.

I know it sounds like a Daily Mail view, but as a 'person of the Left' there is a vein of self-loathing, particularly amongst English socialists (see for example the Guardian's St. George's Day series) that seems to forget we (the English) are as much the heirs of Tom Paine and the Tolpuddle Martyrs as we are of Thatcher. This nonsense of an England 'Forever Tory' is simply a Conservative fantasy.
(Lest we forget, once upon a time it was said that Labour would never get back in and then when Saint Tony was at his peak the same was said of the Tories. The usual newspaper hyperbole).

This is absolutely true. England also has an honourable socialist legacy, and is perfectly capable of voting for a Labour government (if it can find one) without any need to rely on these commie Scots to swing it for them.

Rolfe.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ah, now we are getting into the minutiae of the bill.

You xlaimed that "The bill doesn't apply north of the border either." - that is either true or not. No half measures.

I have proved, by reference to the Act that your claim is untrue.

So, we have a bill that APPLIES TO SCOTLAND, which you appear to think Scottish MP's should not have a right to vote on. No matter you much you wriggle, obfuscate and lie this is not going to change.

Sure. I was very disappointed that the rebellion fizzled out. But as you should be well aware, it's the second reading of a bill that's the important one. I do wish the rebellion continued, but MP's either lost faith or were bought off. It's a shame that happened.

So you agree that the English MP's could have stopped the bill, but actually in the crucial vote (the one that allows the Bill to progress and become law) they voted for it?

So what is your problem?

Sure, as long as you ignore the second reading of the Higher Education 2004 bill.

The passing of a Bill that applies in Scotland is NOT an issue only affecting England. Why are you continuing to repeat the same lie? Is it because you can't actually find any examples to support your claim but don't want to admit it?

 

[Architect]

I seem to recall an article by Iain McWhirter or one of the other leading lights of reason in the Scottish press (I'm not being sarcastic) regarding the problem, or more pertinently the proposed English responses.

He pointed out that, if Westminster MPs from the devolved home nations weren't allowed to vote on "English" issues then there was very little chance that a sitting MP from these areas could ever be PM - in other words, because they might not be able to vote on a substantial proportion of the legislation, there would be no practical chance that they would make it for selection.

It's an interesting point, showing how an apparently reasonable starting point by the English can actually result in very subtle but nonetheless important discrimination and democratic deficit.

Now of course someone is going to point out the preponderance of Scots in the current and previous Labour governments. This is, however, a different thing - we do, in theory at least, have a level playing field. Moreover it represents the leading lights of a Conservative-dominated period when Scotland was an important part of the Labour movement. I'm willing to bet it'll not happen again in my lifetime (assuming we remain part of the UK).

 

[Debaser]

Hmmm...if we had some form of federalised UK, then I suppose we'd need to weight the votes such that the celtic alliance (won't call you 'the fringe') together could counterbalance the English giant.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Would federalism be such a problem if each country had its own government with responsibility for everything including tax raising and spending with perhaps a combined authority to deal with say border patrols and defence?

 

[Rolfe]

Difficult to know. However, Scotland and/or Wales can't impose federalism on Britain without the consent and co-operation of England, and I think that's unlikely to be achieved.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

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.

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.