The English question

Here's the piece I promised yesterday:

“Not today, not tomorrow, not in any kind of future we can see know.” With these words, Britain’s Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer denounced proposals for an English Parliament, in a speech to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) on March 10.

The vehemence of Falconer’s words was in stark contrast to his claim that support for such a body is languishing at under 20 per cent. His concern is perhaps better justified by other polling evidence, which he did not cite. According to a 2005 study by Yougov, 70 per cent of British voters believe that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on English matters.

Falconer himself believes, with good reason, that such a ban would be tantamount to the creation of a separate English Parliament.

This growing demand for ‘English votes on English laws’ belies his claim that “we have the institutions in place to give voice to the different parts of the United Kingdom.”

In fact, there are deep-seated centrifugal forces at work within the UK. New Labour’s settlement may yet prove as transient as its predecessor. The unitary British state of Margaret Thatcher and John Major contained the seeds of its own destruction. By governing Scotland according to the values and interests of southern England, the Conservatives ensured that devolution would become the settled will of the Scottish people.

On coming to power in 1997, New Labour moved swiftly to give effect to that will. A new Scottish Parliament was created with powers over key areas of domestic policy like health and education.

Scottish MPs at Westminster nevertheless retained their right to vote on all legislation, even that which no longer applied to their constituents. New Labour chose to ignore this anomaly, which has been pointed out by critics of devolution since as far back as the Irish home rule debates of the nineteenth century. 

The issue is generally known as the West Lothian Question, after the constituency of Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP who raised it repeatedly during Labour’s abortive attempt to bring in devolution in the 1970s.

The problem of Scottish votes on English laws was largely quiescent during Labour’s first term after 1997, thanks to the size of the party’s majority and the depth of its’ support throughout Britain. The Government’s attitude at the time was summed up by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, when he said: “Now that we have devolution up and running, I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian question is to stop asking it.”

In any case, Labour though it had a solution, regional devolution within England. The first attempt to implement this came in November 2004, with a referendum in the northeast, where demand for a regional assembly was thought be strongest. In the event, it was not strong enough. The Assembly was rejected by almost 78 per cent of voters, with consequences that were understood well beyond northeast England.

In the aftermath of the vote, Ulster Unionist Steven King wrote that Britain’s constitutional settlement had become “a slow-burning problem.”

“If, before the end of this decade, the English are ruled by a Scottish Prime Minister, relying on the votes of Scottish MPs to implement his policies, the United Kingdom could head towards divorce,” he warned.

By this time, the West Lothian Question had already become practical politics. The support of Scottish MPs proved decisive in defeating Labour rebellions over foundation hospitals in May 2003, and student top-up fees in January 2004, even though neither policy was introduced in Scotland. The ESRC describes England as a "laboratory for policy innovation" compared to its northern neighbour, which chooses to "stick to more traditional policy agendas in health and education.”

Ironically, however, Scottish votes have several times helped to impose the ‘choice agenda’ over the objections of a majority of English MPs. Labour’s reduced majority means that further instances are likely in the current parliament. 

This reality is contentious even within the Labour party itself. It was Labour MPs who took the lead in raising the issue at the House of Commons Liason Committee in February. Alan Williams, the MP for the Welsh constituency of Swansea West told the Prime Minister: “Eventually the English voter won't put up with me coming and telling them what they can do or can't do when I am not accountable for a single England vote."

For Mr Blair, the issue is an unwelcome complication at a time when he is already struggling to win key Commons votes. For his most likely successor, it could prove fateful. Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP sitting for a Scottish constituency. Yet he aspires to lead a British Government whose writ on many of the main areas of the domestic political agenda is limited to England. Could he pursue new Labour reforms in England, while public services in his own constituency are delivered in the traditional way, and at Scotland’s higher spending levels?

Some observers think not. Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell is said to be among them. Powell allegedly told Conservative MP Boris Johnson in 2004 that Brown could not become Prime Minister because of the West Lothian question. According to Johnson, Powell said: "It's a Shakespearean tragedy. Gordon Brown is like the guy who thinks he's going to be king, but never gets it. He's never going to be Prime Minister."

Powell’s metaphor is a good one. There is indeed a tragic irony in the way that Brown’s leadership ambitions and the devolved settlement he helped achieve now threaten to unravel each other. Brown’s speeches have repeatedly stressed the need for British citizens to “feel pride in a British patriotism and patriotic purpose.” The Chancellor has also attempted to position himself as pro-English by calling for England to host the 2018 World Cup, effectively bouncing the FA into making a bid.

Such moves have attracted growing cynicism as they have come to be seen as an attempt to brush aside the West Lothian anomaly. Brown is nevertheless likely to defy Powell’s prediction and succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister, if only because of the Labour Party’s inability to produce a serious rival candidate. Steven King’s nightmare scenario is therefore a realistic possibility.

This is not lost on the two main opposition parties, which are both moving to exploit Labour’s vulnerability on the West Lothian Question. The Liberal Democrats have long favoured a federal Britain. To date, their emphasis on regional devolution has largely chimed with Labour’s plans, but there are signs that might be changing.

Lord Falconer’s dismissal of English votes for English laws was strongly challenged by Lib Dem Constitutional Affairs spokesman Simon Hughes. "The present constitutional arrangements for making English decisions are unacceptable and need to be changed,” Hughes warned. "There may not be massive demand for an entirely separate and new English Parliament, but there is growing resentment at England-only issues being decided by politicians from other parts of the United Kingdom. "This issue will not go away, and the Liberal Democrats are determined to make sure it doesn't."

However, the most dramatic shift in recent years has been the one described by Lord Falconer as a “fundamental, even historic, change of position for the Conservatives.” Hitherto Britain’s most unionist party, the Tories have been forced to accept devolution in the wake of the 1998 referendum in Scotland. There is no doubt, however, that the current settlement puts them at a disadvantage. The fact that the Conservatives won the popular vote in England at the last election counts for little, because England is governed by a British Parliament in which Labour’s strength is augmented by Scottish and Welsh members.

The Scottish Conservative Party is hamstrung by the fact that, while the Holyrood Parliament has a key role in spending decisions, it has less say over taxation, neutralising much of the Tories’ electoral appeal.

The logic of their situation is slowly but relentlessly forcing the Tories to adopt a more radically devolutionist stance than Labour. Scottish Conservatives are increasingly attracted to Lib Dem and SNP demands for fiscal autonomy.

At Westminster, the Conservatives have already fought two elections on a platform of English votes for English laws, and a bill banning Scottish MPs from voting on English issues has been introduced in the current parliament by the Conservative peer Lord Baker. The prospect that such a bill could become law within the next decade is a realistic one.

Labour’s grip on the current House of Commons is already weakened. The Conservative revival under David Cameron means there is a strong possibility that its successor will be the first hung Parliament since the 1970s. In that situation, the West Lothian Question would become more contentious, and the Conservatives would have a strong chance of putting together a majority in favour of English votes for English laws. The chances that the Lib Dems would support a change are growing as a result of the party’s support for increased Scottish autonomy, since tax-raising powers for Scotland would make the status quo in England less tenable. Some rebel Labour MPs might also support a change in the law, given the defeats they have suffered as a result of Scottish votes.

Introducing English votes for English laws would not be straightforward, however. Simply banning Scottish MPs from voting could rob a British Government of its majority on English issues. Addressing this problem would effectively require a separate English Parliament.

Lord Falconer spelt out the consequences of such a momentous decision in his address to the ESRC: “The English Parliament would control the greater part of the economic power of the UK. It would be the dominant political force. Leaving the federal parliament either voting on the back of what the English Parliament has already decided. Or hanging on to its coat tails. “And where would this leave the other partner nations of the UK? No longer partners is the answer. But carried along on England's backdraft. We would end up, I believe, at exactly the point we had set out to avoid - unbalancing the relationship between the nations. How, under such circumstances, would the Union survive?”

Some advocates of greater devolution accept that a federal solution would not work, and argue that Britain must therefore move to confederalism and ‘shift the centre of gravity to the parts rather than the whole' in the words of Scottish philosopher Tom Nairn. That would mean Westminster losing its position as the key centre of power in the United Kingdom to a new English Parliament and its counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. How quickly the UK will move on the path to this outcome is debatable but the trajectory seems inescapable. The first step, Scottish and Welsh devolution, has already been taken, and momentum is building up behind the second, English votes for English laws, a development which, as the British Government itself recognises, leads inexorably on to an English Parliament, and a new confederal union.

Comments

[Mark Beeney]

An English parliament NOW!, and an end to England bankrolling feeble, jealous, bitter and twisted nations such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!.

[Gareth]

A nice piece Tom. Can I tidy up the formatting and put it on the CEP blog?

[Tom Griffin]

By all means, Gareth. Sorry about the formatting. I've had a go at tidying it up myself.

[Della, England]

Good piece, well written. Thank you. I look forward to the day when we are all governing ourselves and the greedy, corrupt politicians in Westminster are crying into their pillows at night, wondering where it all went wrong and why they lost their Empire.
I'm also delighted that it will be within my life-time. My only regret is that my dad didn't live to see the day, but I shall raise a glass to his memory at the Independence Party.

[Gareth]

Thanks Tom, that's a lot easier to read - I'll just direct folks over to your place.

[Phil Hambling]

Great article Tom. I would prefer total independance from the UK. A confederal union may be the way forward but whether it would survive when one component nation has a government pulling in a different direction to another would be something we would have to wait and see. Also, how would you see the Republic of Ireland's relationship with this confederation developing and would it consider membership?

[Tom Griffin]

I don't see any appetite in Ireland for rejoining the union, although I'm sure the relationship with Britain would be an issue in any negotiations on a united Ireland.
Indeed, as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, Ireland is part of the British-Irish Council, which could be seen as a confederal arrangement itself, if you define a confederation as being an arrangement where sovereignty remains with the individual states.
See for example, the Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

[Chris Abbott]

Great article, Tom. In these "enlightened" days, I increasingly question the importance of the UK set-up. People like Lord Falconer always seem to cite its possible destruction as the reason to deny democracy to the people of England. The old Union was always flawed, but this current set up, which habitually discriminates against the majority of UK citizens (the people of England), is crackers.

[Gavin Ayling]

Fantastic article, absolutely fantastic!

[Neil Harding]

The North east rejected a talking shop NOT regional government. If they had been offered real devolved power, they no doubt would have took it!

Devolving power to the regions would solve the West Lothian problem (and I agree, it has to be solved).

It would also prevent the inevitable resentment in the Labour North of England that would result from being governed by the South East Tories. This is the problem an English parliament would highlight and make worse just as Tory South East rule over a disapproving Scotland led to devolution in the first place.

You can't treat England the same as Scotland and Wales just because they are labelled countries. Wales and Scotland have populations of 3m and 5m respectively, we should think of them as regions of Britain. There are massive differences in culture between the regions of England and London does not know what is right for Birmingham and Rotherham etc.

We also need to change an electoral system that causes such rifts between urban/rural, north/south, rich/poor, that ensures the majority of votes are wasted in safe seats and restricts the diversity of opinion in parliament. The sooner we have a referendum on a more proportional electoral system the better.

[Tom Griffin]

I can't see regional government being a solution to the West Lothian question, as I don't see the regions of England being given comparable powers to Scotland and Wales.
Scotland and the North of England may have similar problems, but there is a fundamental difference between a nation and a region, regardless of size.
The relationship between large and small nations has been a problem for the EU, and it is becoming an even bigger one for the UK.
I don't think you can solve it by artifically equating regions and nations. That simply invites the charge that you are trying to divide and rule a historic nation for the benefit of the central institutions.
I'm not against regional government as such, (I live in London and I think the GLA has been a great success), but it can only be discredited by being presented as a solution to the West Lothian question.
I'm not a Tory, and I don't think an English Parliament need by dominated by the Tories, if it were elected by PR. Perhaps there's more chance of that happening if it is implemented by Labour.

[MatGB]

I don't think you can solve it by artifically equating regions and nations.

Why not? The Spanish and Germans have manged it succesfully; Catalunya and Bavaria are both distinct identities and nations, but North Rhine Westphalia and Castille-Leon are both lines drawn dividing up a larger historic area.

That simply invites the charge that you are trying to divide and rule a historic nation for the benefit of the central institutions.

It's an erroneous charge; you're dividing the central institution up for the benefit of better governance of the people. Smaller units of government work better, centralised bureacracies don't work. Take power from the center. An England Parliament is simply another centre, it would only be of any use if we did decide to break up the Union, and even then we'd need to devolve powers to some sort of provincial/regional level for reasons of economic planning and management. Transport links, for example, need to be above County, but Westminster is really messing things up outside of London.

There needs to be an "English" level, but not at the top-down "we need a Parliament" approach, it needs to be bottom up.

[Gareth]

There needs to be an "English" level, but not at the top-down "we need a Parliament" approach, it needs to be bottom up.

You are conceding ground MatGB! Without English nationalism there would be no demand for an English parliament - it would be a pointless construct if there were no nation named England. So the demand for an English level will inevitably come from the "we need a parliament" brigade. Why should English nationalists be any different from Scottish or Welsh nationalists in their approach?

I'm quite happy to discuss ways in which an English parliament can assuage fears about centralism and cost (regional lists or dual mandate MPs) but the bottom line is that there MUST be an English parliament (in spirit if not in bricks and mortar) and there MUST be English government. Anything other that is offered is not acceptable to me and I will turn my attentions to ending the Union.

[Chris Abbott]

Several straw polls carried out in the NE at the time of the regional assembly referendum revealed concerns that the unity of England would be affected by the assembly. Whatever the system of local government in England, it should be decided through an English Parliament.

The "UK" is a Union of nations, and one of those nations should not be kept in the vaults and then airbrushed out of history at the behest of a "UK" government, whilst the others are re-established as distinct entities and granted democratically accountable parliaments and assemblies.

[MatGB]

Gareth; of course I'm conceding some ground, you have persuaded me of the case that the desire of many to be English and have that represented is important. That concession isn't new, it's in my throne of kings post. We need to square the circle, and ensure that localism and England both get something. I suspect some form of confederation of regions would work. The big issues not covered are things such as where England and Wales are one, such as criminal law; Hain's Government of Wales thing must be resisted until a solution to that is found.

[Gareth]

I see. Well I'm glad that I've persuaded you of something.

I see localism and English nationalism as two separate issues. One is about devolution, whilst the other is about righting a constitutional and democratic wrong-doing that was caused by devolution to Scotland and Wales. 'Localism' is about handing power to grass-roots (something that I am entirely at ease with), English nationalism is either about securing England an equal place within the union or to hell with the union.

Recently there have been people touting localism as an alternative to an English parliament. These people are entirely wrong in ways akin to those that say an answer to the West Lothian Question is fewer Scottish MPs. These are people that will kill the Union. Localism will not stop people demanding an English parliament because it fails to answer the fundamental questions that nationalists need addressing.

It is a union of nations (a fact that I never get tired of reiterating) and until England has a seat at the table English nationalism will grow and grow. Everything must be seen to be fair and above board, andc at the moment it is not: the Scots and Welsh see Westminster as an English parliament ruling Britain (devolution has done little to change this perception), and the English increasingly, and correctly, see it as a British parliament ruling England. Fannying around with localism and regionalism will not alter this fact and it will not dissipate English nationalism.

These things are not so important while we have a healthy wealthy economy, but you just wait until there is a recession. Wait until middle-England casts a envious gaze at the spending largesse in Scotland, wait until the Welsh are really up in arms about the Barnett Formula, wait until the Scots face the prospect of having to take their paws out of the honey-jar....It, the union, just won't hold together.

There has to be federalism.

[Tom Griffin]

I think Spain is actually on a similar 'slippery slope' the UK. Today's referendum in Catalonia is perhaps a sign that they don't accept being equated with the other regions of Spain.

[Phil Hambling]

There is a need for proper regional representation but that has to be subordinate to an English parlaiment not a British one. It is also important that the regional map is re-drawn to correspond with our traditional county boundaries, there are far to many counties that are partialy in two or three regions.

[kheng]

I've a few questions/points here and was wondering whether anyone could answer/address them:

1. Why is an MP representing a constituency in the North of England able to vote on legislation which primarily affects the South of England? Isn't this just the same thing as a Scottish MP voting on English issues? No one seems to have a problem with the former, but everyone has a problem with the latter.

2. If you say the issue is about parity (i.e. that Scottish MP's can vote on English issues but not vice versa), then I would say that you don't really understand the fundamental nature of devolution. The Westminster Parliament still has power over the Scottish Parliament. It can veto decisions made by the Scottish Parliament, legislate on Scotland over the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and even vote to abolish the Scottish Parliament. The fact that it generally doesn't is probably to do with the fact that Scottish issues don't affect England that much, and English MP's really can't be arsed to interfere in matters that don't affect them.

3. On the other hand, it could be argued that legislation dealing with England DO affect Scotland (while Scottish legislation hardly affects England), hence it makes sense for Scottish MP's to have a say in English legislation.

4. England is a cultural/ethnic/national entity, not a political one. Will the break-up of England into little Parliaments REALLY adversely destroy the English nation? I think the English nation is much more robust than that.

[kheng]

That being said, I do offer cautious support for an English Parliament, even though I believe that strictly speaking, the status quo is fine. The reason is that although I am OK with the status quo, most English people aren't, and will not accept/like my arguments as to why the status quo is all right. English votes on English legislation will be a constitutional mess. I personally wouldn't mind splitting England up into regions, but most English people would be dead set against it. Therefore, an English Parliament is the 'least bad' alternative to prevent the break-up of the UK and the rise of English nationalism.

[A Brit whose becoming an Englishman]

I think kheng's question about MPs in the north and south of england draws an invalid comparison. For me the key issue is that Scottish MPs legislate on issues that are disposed of in a different institution for their constituents. That is to say there can be a different answer for the same issue for constituents represented by Scottish PMs whereas the same answer is the same for the north and the south if the issue applies to a constituent in the north.

Can Westminster overrule a Scottish parliament decision in practice? Or would that just create the kind of constitutional crisis that the government would hate?

Why would a dissolution of the union be such a bad thing?

[A Brit who is becoming an Englishman]

Of course I should be 'A Brit who is becoming an Englishman' rather than '...whose becoming...'

[Tom Griffin]

Hi Kheng,

On 1 I agree with A British who is becoming an Englishman. The North and South of England are subject to the same laws, whereas the Scots in many areas are not.

2 The doctrine that 'power devolved is power retained', follows from the sovereignty of Parliament, which is not necessarily recognised by Scottish constitutional law.
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCormick_v._Lord_Advocate)
I think if Westminster attempted to abolish Holyrood against the will of the Scottish people, it would provoke something of a constitutional crisis.

3 I can think of plenty of cases where Scottish law would affect English people as much as vice-versa. English students or NHS patients in Scotland, for example.

4 I agree that regional Parliaments would not destroy England. If anything, in the current political context they would probably strengthen nationalism.

[kheng]

Thanks for your responses.

1. I'm not sure whether you understood my example about North and South England. I'm not talking about any old legislation, I'm talking about legislation which has a direct effect on one region, but only affects another region indirectly. For instance, let's say that there is an industry X that is only located in the North of England and which only sells its products in the North of England. Its products have no substitutes so the industry is not in competition with Southern firms. Moreover, all of industry X's inputs come from the North. Let's say that the Parliament of the United Kingdom decides to pass legislation regarding this industry. Now, there could be some indirect effects of this legislation on the South of England but based on what I've described, the bulk of the effect will be on the North of England. Taking all of this into account, how fair is it that an MP from London or Cornwall gets to vote on such an issue? Can you see the parallels with the England/Scotland issue?

(Personally, this is an argument for splitting England up into smaller Parliaments, simply because there is such heterogeneity within England itself. An English Parliament will NOT solve problems of N vs. S, rural vs. urban etc.)

2. As for Parliamentary Sovereignty, you are right to point out that this is a contentious issue. However, the power of Westminster to legislate for Scotland is not something which is merely assumed. It's not a matter of: "Parliamentary Sovereignty exists, ergo Westminster has power to legislate over Holyrood." On the contrary, the power of Westminster to legislate over Holyrood is explicitly stated in the text of the Scotland Act itself.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80046--c.htm#28

28(7) explicitly states that this act does not remove the power of Parliament to legislate for Scotland.

BTW, just to clarify, the present Scottish Parliament is not the successor of the old Scottish Parliament. The old Scottish Parliament was merged with the English Parliament to form the Parliament of Great Britain (Westminster). The present Scottish Parliament is a new animal altogether.

3. Oh, I'm sure you can find individual Scottish issues which affect England, but for each Scottish issue that affects England, you will probably find 10 English issues that affect England. This is by virtue of England's larger size (economically, areawise and populationwise). If England sneezes, Scotland catches a cold. On the other hand, it Scotland has avian flu, England will probably come down with a bit of a runny nose.

[Sarah]

1. How fair is it that an MP/MSP from one part of Scotland can vote on legislation that largely only affects another part. Crofting isn't exactly part of life in inner city Edinburgh and the practical problems of maintaining Gaelic as a community language I suspect isn't something the average inhabitent of Berwickshire faces on a day to day basis.

2. If power was devolved to an English Parliament then Westminster would have the power to overrule it so there would be parity.

3. As said before there are Scottish issues that affect England and if Scots should be allowed to vote on English issues because they might have a knock on effect in Scotland then the English should be extended the same curtesy in the other direction.

4. England WAS a political entity. If it isn't currently it's because it is denied political insitutions. Arguing that England should be denied its own Parliament because it isn't a political entity is a chicken and egg situation.

The objections seem to be adhoc arguments inconsistently applied to England compared with the rest of the UK.