Talk:West Lothian question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

[edit] Sewel and Unfairness

This, according to the commentators, makes the current situation unequal, and the premise behind the West Lothian question correct.

Where exactly is the evidence for this? I've never heard anyone use arguments, in fact I've never heard anyone use an argument linking the Sewel convention and the WLQ, delineating the "unfairness of situation". Evidence and clarification is needed before it can be replaced into the article. Unlike the criticism of the premise of the WLQ (which actually exists). I'm not entirely sure how the Sewel convention makes anything unfair, given that English MP's STILL vote on and legislate on areas under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. 81.157.118.75 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as a start there's been several arguments played out here saying that Sewel is linked to WLQ, as well as various places in the press - it's rather central to the West Lothian Question, and appears to have be debated in length here. Please read through the rest of this discussion page before contributing further. Also, the argument you edited was written to present two opposing views - deleting one because it's not what you personally agree with is merely warping this article to a particular point of view. You also deleted the very important point about English MPs not voting on Scottish Parliament matter, because of the Sewel convention. Therefore the changes have been reverted. 82.153.96.100 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

With the last UK General Election highlighting this age old question alongside the need for PR in the UK perhaps a link or paragraph could be included? unsigned comment by 213.146.157.138

Yep. Merger seems to be a good idea. Are the West Lothian Question and the English Question not esentially just the same thing? Unless of course the newer concept called the English Question also has some other factors added in (eg, the addition of the Barnett Formula and the Scottish Raj aspects) or some other historical reference or nuance that has not been made explicit on the English Question entry. As they stand, I cannot see the difference though. The WLQ is a classic of modern British politics, and its answering is going to considerably occupy British electors and politicians during the coming years. Tam Dalyell deserves the full credit for his astuteness. Surely the English Question is just a hijack attempt on Tam's gem.--Mais oui! 19:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reality of the West Lothian Question

The sovereignty issue of the UK Parliament clouds this issue somewhat - that the Parliament of the UK's position has not altered with the establishment of the Scotland Act - that Westminster can legislate about whatever it likes with regard to Scotland - including the Scottish Parliament?

Do English MP's not vote on affairs devolved to the Scottish Parliament as a matter of the Sewel Convention? In essence their position has not changed with regards to this issue. The number of bills passed by the UK Parliament which impinge on the list of devolved responsibilities stands at an average of 11 per year? This surely cannot be seen as anything else than English MP's also voting on responsibilities devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as a kind of de facto balancing out of the West Lothian Question. After all, when Tam Dalyell proposed his question this convention was not established or even proposed. I think it would probably be prudent to add this factor into balance out the realities of this constitutional question. unsigned comment by 195.93.21.69

The Sewel motion means that SMPs can send a particular issue to Westminster for decision (if they decide to) not that Westminster MPs automatically get a right to vote on devolved Scottish issues. There is no obligation to send any issue to Westminster save those on which the SMPs have passed a sewel motion deciding to send it to Westminster. AllanHainey 07:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is, Westminster MP's have absolutely every right to vote on issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament - with or without the passage of a Sewel Motion. Legally or Consititutionally The fact Sewel Motions are passed only augments the fact that English MP's vote, with quite stunning frequency, on issues technically not in their jurisdiction. The West Lothian question, has been taken - inaccurately - by some as means of suggesting that the issue is in some way one-sided that Scottish MP's only vote on England-only issues, and the reverse does not occur - the reverse does occur. unsigned comment by 81.157.247.224

I disagree, the point is that English MPs only legislate on Scottish matters when they are asked to by the SMPs. Scottish MPs have voted through legislation affecting only England (such as top-up fees) when they have actually been opposed by a majority of the English MPs. The way the Sewell motion section is currently worded seems very POV, as is the sentance on reserved matters, which fails to mention that they aren't what the West Lothian question was on about anyway, as everyone gets an equal say on them. 136.2.1.101 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 which states that the legislative powers and functions of the Scottish Parliament "do ...not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland". I also don't think MSP's tell English MP's to vote on Scottish matters, as the link to the Sewel Motion website clearly indicates - they agree to the fact Westminster MP's can vote on Scottish specific matters, to create a common position across the UK. However this position is irrelevant given Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which does actually have a basis in law - I mean I can't see the informal practice of Sewel Motions being alluded to anywhere in the Scotland Act 1998 or any other statute, unlike Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which clearly states the Scottish Parliament is subordinate to the UK one. Globaltraveller 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Scottish specfic acts from the Sewel Convention list (Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004) as having checked the Scottish Executive website [1], these weren't handled under that process - it appears they're reserved matters (not least as the second affects the makeup of the Scottish Parliament itself!)136.2.1.101 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original edits. The point is, and remains that English/Welsh/Ulster MP's can vote on anything with repect to Scotland, with or without the use of the Sewel Convention. I've also removed other blatant bias and NPOV associated with these edits. unsigned comment by 81.157.153.169

No, in practice they can't. It's a constitutional convention - read that article. You play on the other constitutional convention of the Westminster parliament being sovereign, but seem to wish to disregard all realistic UK constitutional practice on this matter. It's just as realistic to claim that the Queen actually rules Scotland personally - technically correct but of no value to the debate at all!

Please expand on your claim of 'blatent bias'? Your total revert of 11 edits by 5 different users was verging on vandalism.

136.2.1.101 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the first sentence on the consitutional convention page reads, and I quote "A constitutional convention is an informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is followed by the institutions of a state." It has no basis in law or constitutionally - unlike Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which has full basis in constitutional law. The Westminster Parliament being sovereign has a basis in English constitutional law (as opposed to Scottish constitutional law). Parliamentary sovereignty is enshrined in the UK Constitution, unlike the de facto practise of Sewel Motions. Globaltraveller 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also very relevant that one of the proposed 'answers' to the West Lothian question is the establishment of a convention that English MPs only vote on English matters, not a law to that regard. The situation is nowhere near equal, as there as several examples of Scottish votes on English issues, whereas the counter-examples were all either UK-wide or were at the request of the Scottish Parliament. Unless of course you can cite a source that says otherwise?

Please also label all your comments in the Talk page.

136.2.1.101 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament has no power to request anything over the UK Parliament - it is a subordinate structure to the UK Parliament, with its principals set out under an act of the Westminster Parliament. Given that we all agree that Westminster or the UK Cabinet can veto or over-ride ANY decision taken by the Scottish Parliament, then I'm afraid stating that the "situation is nowhere near equal" does not make sense. Globaltraveller 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

No objection to the proposed merger, but please make sure that the merged article is called West Lothian question and that English question becomes the redirect, not the other way around. WLQ is the familiar term. --Doric Loon 17:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed a link to the English disambiguation page, since their is already a link to England which is where the link should be disambiguated to. User:Martin.Budden 22:55 27 Sept 2005.

[edit] Historical context

This speech in Hansard - see [2], points out of course that the situation is not unprecedented. Northern Ireland had self-rule, and nobody was talking about the "North Belfast question"...

It should also be noted though that Northern Ireland had 12/13 MPs until 1983 - disproportionately less. Did any pre-Major governments rely (or were felled) by the Northern Ireland vote? Morwen - Talk 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From recollection Churchill's 1951-1955 government majority would have been wiped out in the Ulster Unionists had opposed, whilst both Wilson and Callaghan in 1974-1979 sought Unionist support to shore up their slender majorities. Gerry Fitt cast the crucial vote in the No Confidence debate that led to the 1979 election and both he and Frank Maguire (when the latter actually turned up - in the 1979 vote he famously came to the Commons to abstain in person!) proved crucial at points, as did various Unionists. In his memoirs of his first government Wilson does express his anger that steel nationalisation and some other GB reforms was difficult to pass in the 1964-1966 parliament because of the Northern Irish MPs (all taking the Conservative whip) made things narrow. However in general the "fewer MPs, equal say" rule seems to have kept everyone reasonably happy. Timrollpickering 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England

However, the West Lothian question does have potential to adversely affect legislature for England. It is still difficult to justify why MP's from Scotland can influence all bills that go through Westminster, regardless of wether or not these will affect Scotland in any way. Surely, in the fairest possible system, there would be some arrangement whereby the Scottish MP's would not be allowed to vote on bills in Westminster that, due to devolution to the Scottish Parliament, would only affect England and Wales. Banning Scottish MP's from voting on educational, judicial and other issues, that in Scotland are controlled now by the Scottish Parliament, would prevent bills passing through Westminster to be subject to this unfair influence. This would prevent a situation where Scottish MP's (representing the views of Scottish constituents) pass a bill that the Scottish Parliament (also representing those Scottish constituents views) has rejected, which would not make sense.

Sorry, but this seems to accentuate someone's opinion, rather than the two sides of the case presented in the article, so it has been temporarily removed. What's fair and what isn't fair and all possible outcomes is not what the article is all about, and not what Wikipedia is all about. The West Lothian Question and its critcisms are presented in a balanced way. unsigned comment by 81.152.220.33

[edit] West Lothian question and federalism

The article fails to adress the possibility of a "federalism" solution. This is perhaps an obvious solution for many constitutional lawyers or those with a comparative knowledge of many other countries: USA; Canada et al. It is also far more likely than a wholesale dissolution of the United Kingdom. Federalism would entail sovereign legislatures and executives for the constituent parts of the UK (most likely England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales although regional legislatures and executves are a possibility). An entirely separate federal legislature and executive would exist for the UK. Competence over specific issues would be split between regional and federal governments with no possibility of overlap of competence, thereby eliminating the possibility of any Sewel motion style situations. Federal and regional legislatures would all be soveregin but with respective competences for specific issues consitutionally assigned to be resolved at federal or regional level. This division of sovereignty is the defining characteristic of federalism. Thus federalism can be distingusihed from the present devolution with reserved matters model operating under the Scotland Act 1998. The convention that the Westminster parliament cannot bind its successors may be a potential hurdle. unsigned comment by 81.156.129.124

This 'convention' has been thoroughly kicked into the long grass by any legislation involving the EU, much of which expressly commits the UK to bow to a greater legislative power (the council of ministers) with no ability to rescind any legislation at a future date

Traitor Heath started it, Maggie & Major let it grow like fungus on a damp wall, and Bliar has postively embraced the destruction of this convention chrisboote 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also not emphasised in the article is the greater degree of constitutional crisis caused if Scottish MPs simply adopt a convention of not voting on non-Scottish matters, thereby creating an English legislature by default and possibly contrary to the wishes of the people. This in turn causes questions over competence of UK ministers, relationship between a UK government and ministers to this legislature etc. unsigned comment by 81.156.129.124

"the greater degree of constitutional crisis caused if Scottish MPs simply do not vote on non-Scottish matters" - This already happens to a limited extent: the 6 SNP MPs and sole Tory MP from Scotland abstain on non-Scottish votes at Westminster.--Mais oui! 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the federal solution is that there's very little appetite for it overall. Wales has only a regional assembly and it's doubtful an upgrade to full parliamentary and tax raising powers on the Scottish model would work. Northern Ireland proves as intractable as ever. And England would be massive compared to the others (and likely to conflict with the UK parliament/government), whilst there is very little appetite for English regional assemblies, even ones that are basically super county councils, as shown by the failure of the referendum in what was considered the most fruitful territory.

As for the wishes of the people, opinion polls on both sides of the border indicate a strong majority feel Scottish MPs should not vote on English matters, but this has never been put to the English electorate in the way the Scottish Parliament was. Timrollpickering 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

of course the Scottish Parliament was never put to the English electorate!

unsigned comment by 81.156.129.124

Talk about misreading - I meant the Scottish Parliament was put to the Scottish electorate and so they assented to a change of the weilding of power. But the English electorate have never had their say on the new constitutional arrangements. Timrollpickering 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To GlobalTraveller

Please observe proper Wikipedia conventions:

Label your comments on this discussion page
If only editing a specific section, just use the edit link on that, it makes the edit histories easier to follow
Put an 'edit summary' on your edits
Explain and justify your changes - if you can't fit it in the edit summary then use the discussion page.
Reverting without an explanation/justification is not acceptable.
Edits should be 'neutral point of view' (NPOV) - Note that choosing words to present an opinion as fact is POV.

Thanks.

136.2.1.101 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent edits

Tuition fees directly affected Scottish universities

The relevance of this requires further explaination.

Many commentators point out that...

This is wording an opinion as a fact. It is merely an opinion that the West Lotian question is 'logically inconsistant', not a fact.

Also, who are these commentators, and what justifies the use of the word 'many'? This is not an opinion I've found cited in a multitude of media sources.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

As a reading of the relevant Wikipedia article would have shown, the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty (like the Sewel Convention a constitutional convention rather than a written law) was already shaky under Scottish Law. In particular, see MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. As recently as 2004, Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf was challenging the claim of Westminster to Parliamentary sovereignty, making the claim here that it is a 'fundamental tenant of the UK consitution' extremely weak.

The section giving background to Parliamentary Sovereignty was removed - the key issue for the debate here is that the Westminster Parliament clearly does still have the power to pass legislation for Scotland - as was clearly stated in the Scotland Act and referenced in the article. Interestingly, the question of exactly what the situation would be if both parliaments passed conflicting legislation is considered by some constitutional lawyers to be open - the law didn't say which parliament was supreme, merely that Westminster can still legislate... 136.2.1.101 17:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sewel convention is normally used with the full consent of the Scottish Parliament

Err, no. It's always been used with the full consent of the Scottish Parliament. Please check the Scottish Executive's website if you're in any doubt on this issue.

P.S. I'm actually wondering how anyone could think that a motion could be passed - by the Scottish Parliament - without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I think there was a lack of understanding of the Sewel Convention here - there's a great Wikipedia article on it, if for some reason the Scottish Executive webpage (see external links in the article) offends. 136.2.1.101 17:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There most certainly is a lack of understanding on the Sewel Convention, here, given that it is an informal procedural device that is used between both parliaments - and has no basis in anything, given that (a) The Scottish Parliament is subordinate to the UK one and (b) The UK Parliament can make any law regarding Scotland, without the Sewel Convention if it likes. However barring one or two minor disputes I'm fairly happy with the article in the fact it does show that English/Welsh/Ulster MP's vote on devolved Scottish issues regularly and with alacrity - which does underme the West Lothian Question - although that's not my problem - and anyone reading the article fully, can quite easily see that - although the facts have to be presented in a clear way Globaltraveller 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sewel convention impinges on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or on the power of Scottish Ministers.

What is the possible justification for this claim? As pointed out, the Sewel motion is a tool of the Scottish Parliament - they choose to use it to delegate their powers on issues of their choosing.

136.2.1.101 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top-up Fees and Scottish Universities

... a third of the other parts of the bill extended to Scotland ...

The article and the controversy was not about the majority of the bill, but about the specific section introducing top-up fees. That provision was voted on by Scottish MPs, and whatever was in the rest of the bill isn't relevant as to the rights-and-wrongs of Scottish MPs voting in that section that didn't affect their constituents.Mauls 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

However this has generated further calls for reform as the policy directly affected the funding of Scottish universities - through the Barnett consequences that dictate the provision of public expenditure to Scotland - even though these universities are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.

The document that was linked to in that edit does not support that assertion. [3]

It's an argument put forward by the students' union at Aberdeen University.
They are complaining that the introduction of top-up fees does not affect their funding, and they are missing out on the extra funding available to English universities.
They call for their funding from the UK government (central taxation) through a change to the Barnett formula to take into account top-up fee charges as 'public expenditure', rather than requesting that the Scottish Parliament provide additional money through their taxation powers (the 'Tartan tax'). This is despite clear precedent that charges and fees paid, such as different levels of prescription charge, do not change the Barnett consequentials.
Alternatively, if Scottish Universities felt they needed extra funding, they could push for the introduction of Scottish top-up fees, which are within the power of the Scottish Parliament.

So basically, introducing top-up fees did not affect the funding to Scottish universities at all. They are receiving exactly the same as under the previous system. Mauls 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The irrelevance of Scottish Ministers (executive power, not legislative) to this article has already been mentioned earlier on this page. Westminster has no more ability to veto or override Scottish Ministers than they do Westminster ones. The West Lothian question is an issue about legislative (Parliamentary) powers, not executive (minsterial) powers.

The argument that a motion passed by the Scottish Parliament (Sewel motion), using a power held by the Scottish Parliament (delegation to Westminster) is somehow 'impinging' on the Scottish Parliament's 'legislative competence' is very odd. That point was fully explained by someone else further up this discussion page. Please do not revert without providing some justification (e.g. citation) Mauls 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid its not really up for discussion or debate, it is just a simple fact - even look at the article about the Barnett Formula on Wikipedia - Another one here, dated from the time of the vote on the top-up-tuition fees states that Scotland's budget will be directly affected by the introduction of top-up fees[4], therefore directly impacting upon Scotland. The above article also states: "Since the way most of Scotland's block grant funding is based on how much is spent on equivalent English departments and services (calculated through the `Barnett formula') we assert that this provision of up front fee monies amounts to an increase in public spending which should mean that the block grant monies given to Scotland for education should increase as a result." Globaltraveller 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impinge

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, 'impinge' means 'to trespass upon, to have an effect by limiting in some way'. The Sewell Convention does not affect the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they always have the option of not using it. 136.2.1.101 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnett formula etc.

The Barnett formula is merely a convention - the Variable Tutition fees had no direct affect on Scotland (unless you want to make the rather extreme claim that any change in expenditure throughout England, Wales, or Northern Ireland is a Scottish matter as it has Barnett consequentials?).

The Government did not have to count the tutition fee money as expenditure, and it did not have to then apply the Barnett formula (hence the request from Aberdeen University that was linked to earlier, and the questions to the PMOS about the matter). Plus the size of the national education block grant is not a Scottish matter, it is a reserved matter - only the allocation of the funding and the oversight of Scottish Universities is a Scottish Executive matter.

Globaltraveller seems very quick to dismiss a constitutional convention when it is inconvenient to the view being presented, but seems to think that this fiscal convention, often by-passed in specific matters (such as nurses pay recently) is a cornerstone of devolution. Sewell was approved by Parliament (Westminster and Scottish), whereas Barnett never was. Sewell is a constitutional part of devolution, and does constitutionally affect the power of Westminster. Unless you're arguing that there's no difference between 'constitutional' and 'legal'... in which case, why include the extra term?

Constitutional conventions make up the majority of the UK constitution, hence the often quoted bit about an 'unwritten constitution'. Constitutional legislation is a bit of a rarity. The position of the Prime Minister, for example, is merely convention (except the salary!). The Sewell Convention has never been flouted, and there is no reason to think it would be, whereas Scottish MPs have voted on English matters without the permission of the English MPs (although there is currently no convention that they should, nor a method to ask for permission). That is an important different, and many of the campaigners wishing to see change on the WLQ would be happy with a constitutional convention, on the model of the Sewell convention, so to so breezily wave it aside is totally unreasonably.

Scottish Ministers may have specific powers created by statute, but like any form of executive power (even local councillors) they can't interfere without passing new legislation. If they did, it would be a reserved matter (powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive) and therefore irrelevant to Sewell motions, the West Lothian question, etc. Furthermore, this is an article about legislative powers, not executive.

Again, the reintroduction of the value term 'crucial' when discussing Parliamentary Sovereignty... why so crucial - no justification has ever been offered. The 'cruciality' of this point is a matter of opinion.

Finally, the onus for additions of information is on the editor to support it, which should be done through this talk page.

136.2.1.101 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

the Variable Tutition fees had no direct affect on Scotland

Not according to PMOS.

Yes, according to PMOS. The legislation had no affect, the Government decided to follow the convention of giving more money.

For goodness sake, it did - just read what he said, and stop trying to pretend otherwise.Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They did in this matter, as PMOS said, and the other sources show.

Yes, they did. But they didn't have to. The legislation didn't cause that, therefore there was no need reason to vote on that point.

How on earth can you possibly justify this statement, given what you wrote above? Of course the legislation caused it, if there was no legislation, we wouldn't be in this situation? Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to consider that case of 'Scottish votes on English issues' (to paraphrase the WLQ) was justified, what about this months other education example, trust schools and admissions policies for English schools? Scottish MPs voted for - why? Mauls 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The sensible answer is that they are elected as members of the United Kingdom Parliament - until that changes, then they have every right to vote on every issue that comes before that parliament. Their status has not changed, after all Scottish MP's voting on English issues since 1707 and I don't remember there being any caveat that it is the English Parliament, I also don't remember any legislation being devolved to England. Until any of that changes then there is no constitutional or legal barrier to them doing so. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The article mentions foundation hospitals too... any argument for that - there wasn't any expenditure issue for Scotland there? Mauls 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed there is controversy here too [5]. Indeed it is quite likely it may have had an effect (in fact it probably did). Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sewell was approved by Parliament (Westminster and Scottish), whereas Barnett never was.

Hmmm, introducing the fact that Sewell was approved by Westminster as well, is something that adds another interesting dimension to the Sewel Debate. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Consolidated Fund Bill? Sewel is just a procedure that is used. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 has supremacy.

The Consolidated Fund Bills do not lay down any formula for calculating the block grant for Scotland, they merely state what the figure is for each respect year. Barnett is not in any Act of Parliament, it is merely a convention.

The Sewel Convention has never been flouted, and there is no reason to think it would be

Complete conjecture. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 has supremacy.

Conjecture? That Sewel has not been flouted is a fact. Likewise, that Scottish MPs have voted on devolved matters at Westminster (which do not affect Scotland) such as education, health, and agriculture is also a fact.

Yes, conjecture - it could be binned tomorrow. After all Jack McConnell has binned the neat and cosy "other" constitutional convention - that the Scottish Executive dare not speaketh out on reserved issues [6] Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any likelihood of the Westminster Parliament ignoring the Sewell convention? All available information (stated Government policy, promises by the Labour Party, the fact that it is a formal constitutional convention debated in Parliament) would indicate otherwise.

Absolutely. It is not enshrined in anything. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish MPs have voted on English matters without the permission of the English MPs (although there is currently no convention that they should, nor a method to ask for permission)

Again POV and conjecture. Constitutionally and LEGALLY there is nothing to stop Scottish MP's on voting on anything before the House of Commons, in fact they currently have every right to, given the fact it is the Parliament of the United Kingdom - and they are United Kingdom Members of Parliament. The fact that England doesn't have a parliament of its own (sorry to intrude on private grief!), is quite irrelevant - Westminster ain't the English Parliament so the need for Scottish MP's to ask anyone's permission is irrelevant, and a complete non-issue - but rather telling that you feel the need to suggest it.

I think your POV is colouring the way you're reading this. This is an article about the West Lothian question, the whole point being that Scottish MPs don't have the permission of the English people or the representatives to intrude on English-only matters. Yes, the situation is as you describe, but that's the whole point of the article. It's not 'irrelevant', it's the central issue of the entire WLQ. Read the first couple of paragraphs of the article, and perhaps a few media articles on the matter!

I've read a great deal on the matter, thankyou - stretching a lot further than the tabloids or their derivatives. Scottish MP's do not require anyone's permission to do anything as things currently stand. The West Lothian Question is as set out in the article. It makes absolutely no reference to the permission of the people of England or their elected representatives. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never argued for an English Parliament in my edits, in fact I added a counter argument which you deleted in your revision of of 00:17 on 15 March 2006, Line 48 [7]. 136.2.1.101 09:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User Globaltraveller - I note your comment above suggesting that it is others who are pro-English devolution, and wished for an English parliament, yet it was you who deleted the argument against an English Parliament [8]. May we enquire as to why? Mauls 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can quite clearly see, I did NOT delete the argument against an English Parliament. The argument that the UK could be turned into a federation is (a) POV and (b) Not compatible with the axioms of devolution. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you clearly DID delete the argument against an English Parliament. Let me repeat the paragraph you deleted here:

"However opponents of this proposal argue that it would simply add another layer of government and an 'expensive talking shop'. Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, has stated that he believes that an English Parliament would 'dwarf all other institutions'. [9]

And that section doesn't mention federation, it mentions an English Parliament and (by implication) English Devolution. How is that incompatible with the 'axioms of devolution'?

And explain how is this POV? Unlike most of the edits you made, it's not presented as a fact, but as a possible course of action. Do you believe that English Devolution is unconstitutional or illegal? Or in some other way impossible? 136.2.1.101 09:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sewel is a constitutional part of devolution, and does constitutionally affect the power of Westminster. Unless you're arguing that there's no difference between 'constitutional' and 'legal'... in which case, why include the extra term?

An odd point, Sewel has nothing to do with anything - it is just a procedure. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 (I'm beginning to relish the fact I added that quote now!) has supremacy over Sewel.

No, Sewel motions are a procedure, but the convention that defined them, drawn up at Westminster, was a formal constitutional convention declared during the passing of the Scotland Act 1998. Although the Scotland Act, as primary legislation, may trump it, but it still exists and is the process in use. Non-Sewel Section 28(7) is not in use.

There is no such thing as a formal constitutional convention! It is a contradiction in terms!!! The more I read about Sewel Motions, and the more we get tied up in knots about it - it usually symbolises a good time to go back to the original WLQ - which states "If power over Scottish affairs is devolved to a Scottish Parliament, how can it be right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will have the power to vote on issues affecting England (including those that don't affect Scotland), but English MPs will not have the power to vote on Scottish issues?" Sewel Motions are irrelevant to the supremacy of Westminster (ascertained - laboriously, above!) Quite clearly the WLQ does not exist on evidence - English MP's do vote on issues under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament - which is the point of the question!!!!! Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As for it being an odd point, you're the one that keeps bringing up 'constitutionally' then trying to ignore constitutional convention.

Mauls 16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes but the point is that legislation passed by the Westminster parliament does affect the powers of Scottish Ministers, directly. Scottish Ministers do not need to pass legislation to implement the powers dictated to them by Westminster - it is done for them (in these instances) by Westminster - which is outwith their hands - therefore it is central to the process of Sewel Motions and the WLQ. And it is central to legislative powers, too - Westminster MP's (English MP's) are legislating on the powers of Scottish Minister, in areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

The powers of Scottish Ministers were, as you said, defined in the Scotland Act. Just like the powers of the Scottish Parliament, they are part of the devolution settlement, and therefore a reserved matter to be handled by the entire UK Parliament. Ipso facto, as they aren't within the devolved competency of the Scottish Parliament in any way, the WLQ, Sewel, etc. are nothing to do with them, and the way they were included in the prior edit was incorrect, just as would be a complaint that Westminster is able to change the areas of devolved powers entirely.

Mauls 16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But the execution of the powers of the Scottish Ministers IS SET OUT by Westminster - but nature of these powers is within the legislative competency of the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Ministers frequently introduce legislation extending or reducing their powers - just as Westminster legislates on extending or reducing the powers of Scottish Ministers. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Globaltraveller 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing opinions

I think there's not going to be an agreement as to where the facts lie on the matters discussed above, and therefore I've included what is (hopefully) a short summary of each side of the argument worded as opinions. I don't think this should be edited much longer, as this counter-argument to WLQ is beginning to dominate the article in a way in which (to judge, for example, by mentions in press articles on WLQ) just isn't warranted.

Mauls 17:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the recent edits of the article by Mauls, as they present the criticisms of the WLQ, but they do bear a striking resemblence to many of the arguments that were in the initial article, before they were unjustifiably removed and edited - which I presume was for "political-point-making" convenience, rather than what a coherent and two-sided analysis of this problem would dictate. The counter argument to the problem presents itself naturally when the true facts of the matter are laid down - whether people like it or not - English MP's vote on Scottish issues, with stunning frequency - which is the ENTIRE point of the West Lothian question - ie that English MP's have NO ability to vote on Scottish issues. I guess this is the point which perturbs many people, and why there has been conflict. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Anomoly'

Possibly a contentious word, but is used by the Government to describe the current voting situation, hence should be included as fact (i.e. a non-biased source has been cited)

Mauls 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Constitutional Secretary

I've included a quote from the Tory's relevant spokesperson summing up the argument that the WLQ is an actual issue - it sums up this situation without presenting it as settled fact (because it's attributed as the statement of a politician)

Mauls 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plus one from Falconer

Ensuring balance, etc.

Mauls 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it also sums up the argument that Globaltraveller was making too. Hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise. Mauls 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Section

This was taken from the 'principal considerations' bit, as I didn't really see how it fitted in. I felt that it was just a repition of the question, though if someone feels it's key then please suggest why it should be there/how it could read better.

'Those who agree with the concenrns of the West Lothian Quand that one of the often requested 'answers' to the West Lothian question would be a constitutional convention that Scottish MPs not vote on laws for England and Wales when the Scottish equivalent is dealt with by Holyrood.'

Robdurbar 09:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You actually removed:

and that one of the often requested 'answers' to the West Lothian question would be a constitutional convention that Scottish MPs not vote on laws for England and Wales when the Scottish equivalent is dealt with by Holyrood. This, according to the commentators, makes the current situation unequal, and the premise behind the West Lothian question correct.

The first sentence is one of the oft-requested answers to the WLQ (see the English Tory part etc) - although it is more a parliamentary procedure, rather than a constitutional convention- so isn't stating anything controversial. The last sentence (emboldened), however, is absolute nonsense and pure POV. It was removed before (see above) because it is a baseless political opinion, without reference. Globaltraveller 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I just wondered - there has been little discussion on this page. As I don't like leaving pages marked as having their neutrality contested stagnant, I wondered what people feel is un-neutral about this page as it stands, after the various clean ups. If there aren't any objections by the end of the weekend, I'll remvoe the non-neutral tag. Robdurbar 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup the section on the Sewel Convention has been over egged to make a political point, I think. Given that the Sewel Convention is a constitutional irrelevance, given that the Parliament of the UK has supreme sovereignty and can legislate with respect to Scotland, simply and easily, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The point being that English MP's vote on issues under the jurisdiction of the devolved Scottish Parliament - a natural counter-argument to the WLQ and its premises. Globaltraveller 21:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is what the section says isn't it (or at least, thats what i understand when reading it!)?

'These motions allow the full Westminster Parliament, including the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs to vote on issues which are within the legislative competence the Scottish Parliament. This is done with the full consent of the Scottish Parliament in order to create a uniform position across the UK, by consensus (such as the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 or the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). There are roughly a dozen Sewel motions passed each year.'

Are you saying that the section should just explain that the Westminster pariliament has sovereign control over the scottish parliament and that this relationship is reaffirmed by the concept of sewel argeements? Robdurbar 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, but I think I've laboured through that about with another user. The point is (and it won't go away) - Westminster is fully 'supreme' to the Scottish Parliament. It is set down in statute - in other words it is the LAW that Westminster can legislate with respect to Scotland on whatever it wants, whenever it wants irrespective of the wishes of the Scottish Parliament (harsh but true). The Sewel Convention is not set down in such a way - and is a convenient political arrangement drawn up for the Labour Party, by the Labour Party because they are in power in London and in Edinburgh.

Even if the Sewel Convention were some legal convention it still permits English MP's to vote on Scottish issues anyway - the West Lothian Question says English MP's don't get to vote on Scottish issues (see the contradiction?)- the WLQ HAS NEVER mentioned the Sewel Convention - it isn't even a consideration of the WLQ. Globaltraveller 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So this article shouldn't mention it, or it should be at most an aside? Robdurbar 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say it should be an aside, it should probably be touched on, but superceded by Section (whatever it is :-)) of the Scotland Act which states that the Parliament of the UK can legislate on whatever it wants. I'm looking at something from the perspective of it being the law rather than an instrument dreamed up by some political party. If you look on the Scotland article in the politics section on the main page, which goes into the constitutional "inferiority" of the Scottish Parliament in some depth (if I can put it that way with out being perjorative). Globaltraveller 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems strange that this article bangs on about Sewel Conventions, whilst others bairly mention them. I've reduced them to one paragraph in the section... Robdurbar 08:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I amended what you wrote slightly and I removed the final sentence as thats not actually true either, and moreover its not something you can prove unless you go into every clause in every bill to find its territorial extent . Over a dozen "Sewel Motions" (at the request of Westminster), probably more in other years, when the UK Parliament passes about 20 Acts a year (more some years) not mentioning reserved legislation, is actually quite a lot. Bear in mind NO Bills passed by the UK Parliament extend ONLY to England without extending somewhere else as well. But apart from that good job! Globaltraveller 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arithmetic and the BBC

This page currently states that 59 scottish MPs in westminister (down from 72) yet the BBC article givin when refering to the vote on top-up fees states that 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted for the issume, 1 Scottish Conserative abstined, 10 Scottish Lim Dims voted against, as did the 5 SNP Mps. This gives a total of 62 Scottish MPs. I am not sure if this is all the Scottish MPs since the article states '46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government' not that all 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with.

Futhermore, even though the current paragraph seems correct (if we allow English to mean not Scottish):

...was passed only due to Scottish MPs voting in favour of these respective sections. The majority of English MPs voted against

It does not IMHO discribe the issue fully. The story here is that the majority (perhaps all) of the Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, the majority (again this could be all but I can't confirm because the numbers don't add up) of the non-Labour Scottish MPs voted against. As Alex Salmond correctly put it "Top-up fees only went through because of Tony's Tartan lobby fodder of Scots Labour MPs" --OoberMick 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear to most people, that more non-Scottish Labour MP's voted for top-up fees than Scottish Labour MP's did.Globaltraveller 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm pre 2005 there were 72 Scottish MPs. Even if all 26 other Scottish MPs had voted against (and some abstained) the majority amongst Scottish MPs still exceeds the overall majority. It's quite clear the bill would have failed if Scottish MPs had not been allowed to vote on a matter that in Scotland is devolved to Holyrood. Timrollpickering 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Assemblies

The section on English Devolution suggests that the proposed elected regional assemblies would have had legislative powers. There is however no mention of this in the relevant white paper: http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/511/YourRegionYourChoiceRevitalisingtheEnglishRegionsASummary_id1139511.pdf These assemblies would have simply had limited power over economic development and housing. Valueofnothing 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've amended it accordingly. Sceptic 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key Considerations

The key considerations section seems only to apply to legal matters. Yes, Westminster could overrule anything put out by Holyrood, but to do so would quickly propel the nationalists into power. Surely political considerations should be covered as well?--Nydas 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Political considerations are covered quite well in the article. Westminster could overrule Holyrood (it retains the sovereign ability to) and if it did it may or may not propel parties into power which support independence - ie it is hypothetical, and in the grand scheme of things irrelevant in an encyclopaedic article, basically. The point being of course, English MP's still vote on devolved Scottish issues (and they do so frighteningly frequently), which is what the section is trying to elucidate. It may not suit some who claim the WLQ to be the major constitutional problem, that it (quite frankly) isn't, but it is true, accurate and balances an article which is very significantly affected by POV issues. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of creating novel interpretations of the UK's political structure, no matter how 'true' they are or how 'wrong' the other people are. I'm assuming that there are prominent adherents as per WP:NPOV who agree with what you're saying here. --Nydas 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, luckily, it isn't a novel interpretation, it is fact and was introduced to the article because it is so. Globaltraveller 10:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is not a novel interpretation it should be possible to point to commonly accepted reference texts, as per WP:NPOV. --Nydas 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hansard - 14 November 1977

Has anyone got access to the debate of 14 November 1977, as recorded by Hansard or the quality press at the time? It is pretty clear from the material I have managed to Google that some kind of contrast was made between the powers of the respective MPs for West Lothian and West Bromwich, but, somewhat infuriatingly, every single source seems to paraphrase the key section, rather than just giving us the actual quote.

Would someone be able to hunt down the key sentences from the 1977 debate?

Out of interest, in 2000, Dalyell said:

"In the period 1976-9... the proposals were hammered out on the anvil of parliamentary debate... and found wanting. How could it be that the Member of Parliament for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting West Bromwich but not West Lothian? For how long could the MP representing Blackburn, West Lothian, vote on education affecting Blackburn, Lancashire, but not the very same matters in Blackburn, West Lothian? How long could the MP representing Linlithgow, in Scotland, vote on local government in Liverpool, but not in Linlithgow? Twenty-two years have gone by, and the answer has there come, none."

--Mais oui! 06:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Hansard is incorrect. Unfortunatly, the indexs in the 1977 editions of Hansard are also incorrect, but the Prime Minister refered to Dalyell's question in a debate on the 12th of November 1977.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWest_Lothian_question_336e.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics