Conservative and Unionist Party hoisting the union on a Trans Petard

The full name of the party that is in Government in Westminster is the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, today that took a shocking step that may well rock or even split up that union.

It is being announced that the Scottish Secretary will this evening inform the Scottish First Minister that tomorrow he will take the legal steps to invoke a Section 35 which allows Westminster to overturn a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This is something that has never been done in the 25 years of the Socttish Parliament. 

The piece of legislation that it is seeking to overturn is the Gender Recognition Bill that was passed with an overwhelming vote of 67% of MSPs voting in favour. The breakdown by party was

• All 4 Lib Dem MSPs in favour (100%)
• All 7 Green MSPs in favour (100%)
• 21 out of 22 Labour MSPs in favour (95%)
• 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs in favour (84%)
• 2 out of 31 Conservative MSPs in favour (6%)

So as you can see every party in Scotland bar one was overwhelmingly in favour. The fact that the Westminster Conservative Government is now going to block this going to Royal Assent is a political football being played in an increasingly right wing leaning Conservative party. The language that the party has been using on assylum seekers, Trans peoples, workers rights to strike and protest are all now looking more and more authoritarian. 

However, by invoking section 35 for the first time in history this is also piling up gunpowder under the very Union itself in a way which unlike Guy Fawkes may explode the union. It is such a minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of things, but it opens a flood gate and leads to a slippery slope. At a time when those who want another independence referendum are already heated, the act of stopping a Scottish Act gaining Royal Assent just might push many who were agnostic to Scotland's independence into the independence camp.

The worse thing is that the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Bill has no actual impact on UK-wide equality legislation, this was pointed out in the wording of the Bill itself. It is only impacting the right to change your gender on your birth certificate and only impacts those who wish to do so not anyone else. We in the UK do not currently* need to carry our birth certificates around with us. 

The Secretary of State of Scotland also calls for there to be more consideration of this. However, there was already 6 years of public consultion into this bill it was not rushed, what is rushed in the UK Government's response.

Yet this is the petard upon which the Westminster Government is prepared to hoist the Union.

It is laughable that the West Lothian Question which caused Tam Dalyell great ethical quandry over Scottish devolution will pale into comparison to what today has become the Westminster Question. What is a Secretary of State for Scotland opposes the will of a supermajority of the devolved Scottish Parliament.

By saying currently the more right wing, authoritarian and dare I say facist the Conservative Party are becoming me may well start to single out individuals and groups of individuals may not be far off.

 

Why EVEL is not the West Lothian answer?

Being somewhat associated with West Lothian and having stood in the race to replace the poser of the West Lothian Question. Tam Dalyell, I have on occassion written about said question and the potential answers. David Cameron's latest take on this is English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) at Westminster.

Now the problem posed by the West Lothian Question was that devolution would allow certain aspects of law to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and of course the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies) while their MPs were still able to vote on issues at Westminster affecting people in England but that the English MPs would not have the same say on some of these issues in the devolved powers as they legislators there and not the MPs would have the say. The issue was that devolution was bringing up two types of MPs some who could vote on things that wouldn't directly affect their constituents and others who might find they couldn't bring about change for their constituents if the block who didn't have any direct impact in their area voted against was enough with their English colleagues to block it.

Devolution had in effect brought in two tiers of MPs some were backed up by colleagues (occasionally themselves) who would vote on devolved issues, others who were responsible for all decisions. But EVEL does exactly the same in creating two tiers of MPs, only this time the cut off is less well defined. What exactly is an English Law. In truth as things currently stand only a cost neutral law is truly only English as anything with spending or tax ramifications has because of the Barnett formula got a knock on effect to budgets in the devolved powers.

The result of trying to introduce EVEL in the fall out from the Scottish referendum is a knee jerk reaction to the ;promise of more powers for Scotland (and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland). It ignores however the fundamental difference that devolution has brought to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that is denied to the people of England. Certain aspects of their governance are now decided as a local level below that of Westminster and above that of local authorities. The demands of the North East would not be the same as those in the South West. Yet only London and some other cities with elected mayors seem to have any more control over their own affairs than previously.

Having a elected Mayority is not the sole model for greater devolution, but this appears to be the only one that the Conservatives want to contemplate alongside EVEL, but of course it is not the position used in the three nations with devolution. The First Minister in all three of them is not a directly elected President (the possible exception may have been the 2007 SNP list description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" without mentioning the party name) but are the leader of the largest party. Somehow the conservatives have decided that the American style Mayor led system is better than the European model of Federal Government for the regions.

The only true answer to the West Lothian Question is a more Federal Model of governance as the difference in roles would therefore not exist in the National Government. So until those in Westminster realise that we'll be stuck with the evil of difference that plans like evil or directly elected mayors can inflict unto voters.

Who's Debating You? Salmond has Turned One Down

It has been a hot topic of conversation in Scotland over recent months that Alex Salmond has been saying he wants to be involved in debates in Scotland ahead of the general election. He has even threatened legal action if he is not allowed into the Prime Ministerial debates.

Well if looks like he has refused to answer a challenge from the Scottish leaders Labour's Iain Gray, Lib Dem Tavish Scott and Tory Annabel Goldie to a debate. Indeed let's also invite Patrick Harvie of the Greens and if Alex doesn't show empty seat him. I've since the first ramifications said there should be a Scottish wide debate instead or as well as one of the proposed debates. It is not a compromise but a recognition of the devolved nature of politics here in Scotland, an answer to the West Lothian Question as far as the debates issue is concerned. I'm sure a similar thing will occur in Northern Ireland and I'd wish it also happens in Wales. But Alex is letting his ego get the better of him.

He has stated his ambition of getting 20 seats in the General Election, but his super-ego is getting the better of him. He thinks as First Minister of a devolved Parliament he deserves equal billing with the Prime Ministerial contenders and at the same time thinks he above the opposition leaders in that devolved power. He is in the no mans land, not on the same stage as the others and with his one extra seat considers himself better than Grey and the rest.

Turning down this offer of a Scotland debate on terms of parity while seeking to set, control and bully the UK wide agenda (without consideration to other more nationwide parties) for his own self shows that the ego is what is ruling the SNP decisions on the debates issue.

Your Monthly Salmond Bite of the Debate Question

As regular as clockwork at the start of each month (see August and September) Alex Salmond seems to raise his head in the great West Lothian Question of Prime Ministerial televised debates.

The latest take is that Alex Salmond is threatening to sue if he is not included in the debates in the run up to the election. They are also threatening to block any debate that does not include the First Minister. John Swinney has said:

"It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."

I have in my previous posts above already discussed compromises, so I will not repeat them here. The action that Salmond is threatening is also denying the British people who live in Scotland the chance to hear the men who will be those that decide the shape of the next United Kingdom Government. The three men that the broadcasters have invited are those key men. Even if Salmond's army where to get a clean sweep across Scotland he would only have 59 MPs not one of them being Alex Salmond.

The people in Scotland are lucky to have a vote that can count towards the opinion
shakers in Westminster. Having just had my 40th birthday if I hadn't moved elsewhere I would have had 22 years of my adult life where I could never have voted for a party that held sway in the corridors in London (apart from when the UUP held up the slim Major majority). Yet in Northern Ireland we still get to see political discussion from the UK leaders through Question Time and the like, although there is a once monthly opt out for a local QT.

If Salmond had wanted to be at the big boys table he should have brought forward the one key promise he seems intent on keeping since the 2007. If he'd already had his referendum and had his desirous result this would all be a moot point. As it is what he should be doing is sitting down with broadcasters to come up with a compromise. I mean to take his point on board should the English Democrats have a place on the debate that is broadcast to Scotland, or the Cornish Nationalists. Surely supporters of such parties are being denied the full breadth of political choice? How about those that do vote Official Monster Raving Looney?

There are holes in his argument and he needs to be sensible and discuss these rather than bully or cajole.

Least Bad Answer - Says Question Poser

I haven't got around to posting this yet but over 30 years after he initially posed the question the then MP for West Lothian Tam Dalyell has acknoweldged that a recent Conservative proposal is the 'least bad answer' he has seen thus far.

Ken Clarke who has carried out the democracy review and Tam are not natural bedfellows, but the former father of house says that Clarke "grasp of the difficulties of devolution" is greater than anoy of the Labour members during that time from 2001-05. Seeing as for part of that time the man charged by Labour with the task of constitutional reform was his neighbouring MP the late Robin Cook, before he resigned as leader of the house, that may be a bit unfair and Robin did have a fair grasp of a great many constitutional issues. But it may well be true of any of the Labour members then present who still sit in the House of Commons.

West Lothian Answer Revisited

Looks like I published rather than saved as draft earlier than I intended and a number of people have already read only a disjointed opening paragraph. So here is the full version for your consumption.

Iain Dale has thrown his hat into the ring over the West Lothian Question or more to the point the answer to the question. Following the backing of Canon Kenyon Wright for an English Constitutional Convention (ECC), similar to the one he chaired for Scotland it looks like a serious attempt to seek the West Lothian Answer.

The West Lothian Question is not a simple one to answer otherwise there would have been a definitive answer a long time ago. So the ECC may well be a way of finding the enigma that has been circulating since Tam Daylell first raised the issue. The ramifications are far reaching ie there should not be two levels of MPs at Westminster, we already have seen some friction about the two types of MSPs in Holyrood. The issue of who can vote on what issues is largely impacting on plitics both North and South of the border. Also the issue of funding and the Barnett formula is well overdue revisting.

So I would say now is probably a good time to ask for an ECC. Rather than glibbling throwing out policies like banning Scottish MPs for voting on English only matters at Westminster an ECC would look at all the ramifications in detail. It should have a remit to look at the issues that devolution has raised for England and have dialogue between the parties to reach the solutions.

I hope that if Iain Dale and other signatories of today's letter go into an ECC they will do so with open minds seeking the best answers rahter than merely rubberstamping of their own ideas. The letter already rules out options for regional assemblies for England which the ECC would have to look into to meet the fullest remit to see if it is beneficial for local accountability, responsibility over issues or not.

First Liverpool, Then Scotland, Next...

Boris Johnson is at it again. First he insulted the people of a city Liverpool, now he is taking on a country, Scotland.

While his leader Dave Cameron is tring to revive the position of his party north of the border, Boris has stampeded in with a bulldozer that is likely to scupper Scottish Conservatives' slim hope of any breakthroughs next may. Boris Signled out two Lib Dem policies when he spoke at a fringe meeting.

"The Scots should not get free university education subsidised by us in England. They shouldn't get free nursing care."

The thing is Boris the people of Scotland are turning in droves to the party that came up with these policies and away from the party that governed Scotland disastorously through the 80s. Something that Dave had to apologise for recently.

Also Boris despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament has the power to increase taxes, it has yet to do so to meet these obligations and instead is just being prudent with the pursestrings and is providing public services. Considering the Tories actually cut health spending in their last year in government I'd be careful what you bring to the fore Boris.

As for a Scot not being good enough to be Prime Minister the Earl Home and the Earl of Aberdeen must be turning in their graves.

Is World Cup the Catalyst for the West Lothian Answer?

Today's Scotsman raises an interesting point by suggestion that the current World Cup could could intensify pressure on the devolution settlement.

Since Tam Dalyell asked the West Lothian Question it has gone unanswered and after 7 years of devolved power in Scotland it has raised its head above the parapets of Westminster to save Tony Blair's hide on a number of occasions.

The question that is seeking to be answered is:

How can it be right that MPs elected to Westminster from Scottish constituencies have no ability to affect the issues of their constituents which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and

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?

According to James Kirkup's article in today's Scotsman there is growing disquiet in England and this might tear assunder the constitutional agreement that was established in 1999. A report is going to be made by the Scottish affairs committee next week that is going to highlight this unease and proposes possible solutions.

The committee sees four possible outcomes the dissolution of the UK; English devolution; fewer Scottish MPs; or English votes on English laws. Can any of these answer the question sucessfully and fully?

Dissolution of the UK

A radical proposal but would it be sustainable. It throws up a number of other questions not least of which is the Northern Ireland question. Could Northern Ireland survive on its own? We are still waiting to see if they can return to governing themselves at present. If they cannot what would become of them on dissolution, would they remain part of England or part of Ireland?

Both the major parties have governed the UK for years as unionist parties standing up against the Nationalists of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would they then take a big u-turn and give in to those calls after all this time.

What would become of North Sea oil and its revenue? those fields are goegraphically Scottish not English could nay government contemplate losing such a highly profitable income earner and put the English in a position of energy debt.

Admittedly dissolution of states has been occuring all over Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, this has usually been initiated by the smaller fragments seeking and gaining their independence from the larger state. The notable exception was the equality of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Not one of these dissolutions has been powered from the largest section of the whole releasing voluntarily the other states.

English devolution

Tony Blair will claim he tried to do this and it failed. The problem with the North East Assembly proposal was that it was not devolution in any meaningful sense. There was to be no real power to that proposed Assembly it has less ability to change anything that the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.

Giving real power to the regions of England and increasing the powers bestowed on Wales and Northern Ireland could have real benefits to everyone. There are differences in provisions of certain services from region to region. Environmental concerns in the South West would be different from the largely urban Midlands. Transport in London is vastly different from those in the North West. Health care provision in the South East commuter belt is different from the heavy industry background of the North East. One shoe doesn't necessarily fit all, one solution created in Westminster is necessarily the best for the regions.

The problem with NuLabour and is they like control from the centre. NuLabour want to control the minituae of the things that fall under Whitehall departments from Whitehall. You just have to look at their proposals to merge Police forces, control of Health Service provision etc to see that bigger equates to better in their eyes. Therefore giving power to regions is probably not on their agenda.

Fewer Scottish MPs

Last May there already was a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs coming down from 72 to 59. Any further reduction would only serve to make many of the largest geographical constituencies in the UK even bigger. Now I know there are bigger constituencies in Canada, the US and Australia but these places also have a different degree of accessibility by-and-large. The wilds of Scotland do not easily allow for small airfields of easy access by superhighways.

Already to accommodate the reduction some constituencies in Scotland straddle two Scottish Parliamentary regions and two or more Scottish Parliamentary seats. Where I stood in Linlithgow and Falkirk East last May the voters were served by two different councils, two regions, two Police Forces, two health boards etc. The constituency had 2 constituency MSPs, 12 list MSPs and that is for a relatively straightforward division. Some Scottish MPs elsewhere have far more other elected representatives to deal with for various parts of their constituency.

So the practical side of having non-coterminous boundaries needs to be properly addressed before any further reduction is even considered also the practicalities of MPs serving large constituencies.

English votes on English laws

The question with this had been what constitutes English laws. Even Tam Dalyell the poser of the original question on occasion since devolution voted in Westminster on what was a devolved issue. In his explanation although the law would only apply to England it would have a knock on effect in Scotland. However, as Tam would no doubt probably agree some of his English former colleagues probably wish they had the same opportunity on some of the decisions that have been made in Scotland. So who is to determine what is truly a devolved issue in that sense?

So what is the best option? I would say English devolution. To what extent? Probably on a regional level but giving real power to the regions and not just forming talking shop. It works for Germany and Spain more or less equal in size to the UK. But until both Labour and the Tories are prepared to let some power leave their grib and let decisions be taken and exercised outwith Whitehall the West Lothian Question will continue to fester.

So while Gordon Brown's new found liking for the three lions on his shirt is the opposite of the majority of his fellow Scots it doesn't look like the West Lothian Answer is any closer to being found.