I have just come across an interesting post and discussion on The Sharpener going back to last November about the West Lothian question — why should a Scottish MP speak and vote in the House of Commons on subjects such as education which have be…

What we now have as a result of devolution (active or dormant) in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London is a federal system. The inescapable logic of this is that the national parliament at Westminster has got to become the federal parliament, with powers limited to those subjects not devolved to the regions, or shared with them. The present anomalies discussed in these comments and this post arise from the attempt to make the Westminster parliament function as both a national federal parliament and a parliament for England, simultaneously. This is unsustainable — and will become more obviously so when a Scottish MP, Gordon Brown, representing a constituency in a country with its own devolved parliament, becomes the federal prime minister of the whole of the UK and NI. It can only be a matter of time — probably a long time, given the British preference for muddling through and ignoring anomalies rather than facing up to the logical and imperative need for further change — before we (or our great-grandchildren) bite the bullet, and after extended agonising and obfuscation, draw up a proper written federal constitution, establish one or more parliaments and executives for England, decide on a sensible distribution of powers as between the federal centre and the regions, including some shared powers, and stop fussing about all members of the federal parliament at Westminster (ie the House of Commons and the federal Senate)being entitled to speak and vote on all matters within federal competence. If countries such as Australia, the US, Germany and Canada can make a federal system work either very or tolerably well most of the time, there’s no possible reason why we can’t learn to do so too.

All ‘solutions’ to the West Lothian Question that seek to dodge or ignore this federal reality now actually existing, and its implications, are doomed to get us into an even bigger muddle than we’re in already, as the preceding discussion shows.

It’s all there on a recent post on my blog.

Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif

And Oil fields in the North Sea:

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/chemistry/petroleum/knowl/images/fields.gif

which put about 90% of the UK’s reserves in the Scottish area. The oil that is off the coast of England – actually isn’t it is in international waters. I’m sorry, I wish it were different – but it isn’t. The border move in 1999 had negligable effects on what was in English Waters. Unfortunately we aren’t really able kind of move oil fields to where we want them to be – they are somewhat fixed.

I can’t understand why more English nationalists want independence for England. It would, after the short-run (once they compensate for the loss of oil, defence capability and monetary assets etc) benefit them. They would certainly get a lot of support from Scotland.

“We didn’t vote the Scottish Raj into power in England. 66,000 more people in England voted for Conservatives than for Labour. ”

Well I’m rather afraid you did vote the Labour party into power in England. And England did it all on her own, without help from anyone else. Please stop trying to deny it, you only make yourself look silly. UK elections are fought on the concepts of seats and number of MP’s elected for each party not the aggregate number of votes received. You know, it is funny that before 1997 in Scotland – the governing party didn’t have the highest number of votes (by a long shot), neither did it even have a close approximation to the highest number of seats. Under the same electoral system.

The Anglo-Scottish maritime border was moved. Prior to it being changed, the maritime border followed internation convention and was an extension of the land border. As a consequence, the maritime border extended north on both sides, incorporating large swathes of the oil fields. The border was changed to extend outwards horizontally instead, neatly putting the majority of English oil into Scottish waters.

We didn’t vote the Scottish Raj into power in England. 66,000 more people in England voted for Conservatives than for Labour. It’s got nothing to do with half the government being Scottish – we didn’t vote for them, their loyalties lie north of the border.

I don’t want English independence, I just want England to be on an equal footing with the rest of the country.

You’d better start checking your facts. Queen Anne was on the throne at the time.

“Why should I be discriminated against and punished by the Scottish Raj”

Oh please, the only problem a lot of people in England have with the “Scottish Raj” is that they are Scottish. I certainly am no fan of Messr’s Brown and Blair etc, but it is rather telling that their “Scottishness” is brought up by people when they disapprove of them. The only reason people in England are disenfranchised is because it is one of the most hideously centralised countries in the world – that wouldn’t look out of place in the Eastern bloc – and the UK doesn’t have a proper constitution. It is not because of Scotland or anyone else.

“Tokyo, you are wrong to say the English elected Traitor Blair. Labour won 44 seats more than the Tories because they fudged the electoral boundaries to make it easier for them to win more seats. The Tories took 66,000 votes more than Labour in that rigged election.”

The only place where constituencies were changed was in Scotland, where there was a reduction of MP’s from 72 to 59. The voting system is the same as that has been used since time immemorial, the constituencies in England were the same they were during the last Tory era. England would have quite happily have elected Blair in May 2005 without the help of Scotland or Wales, using the same system that has always been used. In fact Labour’s majority of 44 in England alone is double that of Major’s majority of about 21 (for the whole UK) after the 1992 election. And you know that the Tories still defend the FPTP electoral system that so discriminated them.

I think in this whole debate about England and how she is so discriminated against – the one major attribute that is missing has been a reality check.

“independence you’ll have a fight on your hands over the English oil gifted to the Scots by the British government without our consent.”

Did you fail Geography? Please do believe it though, it is rather amusing. I think the denial shows that England knows not only would it miss the revenue from Scotland’s oil, much more importantly than the revenue, it would miss the macroeconomic stability that Scotland’s Oil brings, in terms of currency and consequently inflation. After all we Scots have been most generous with it. After all, on independence Scotland would be due quite a lot of compensation for our contribution towards UK assets and liabilities. Conservative estimates suggest that runs into tens of billions of pounds alone (even before we count oil). From a share of all UK government investments and real estate at home and abroad, to military hardware to cultural assets to a share of the foreign currency and gold at the Bank of England, it all mounts up. A nice little earner for Scotland to start independent life with, seen as most of this stuff in concentrated in London.

Whatever party has a policy of giving England independence, as a Scot I’d wholeheartedly support them (it would certainly look better for us in Scotland.) But basically it’s irrelevant whether Scotland goes first or not.

At the end of the day it will be good for England – you get what you want, and it will be good for Scotland we’ll get what we want (and what we are entitled to). And then the Scotland-England relationship can maybe get a lot better.

The British government is unrepresentative – the proportion of MP’s by population size is heavily biased in favour of the Scots and, to a smaller extent, the Welsh.

Tokyo, you are wrong to say the English elected Traitor Blair. Labour won 44 seats more than the Tories because they fudged the electoral boundaries to make it easier for them to win more seats. The Tories took 66,000 votes more than Labour in that rigged election.

Dave, how will English Votes on English Matters (which is what you are proposing) help? Scotland can propose its own legislation and pass its own laws. The British Parliament under EVoEM would be originating English laws and it would be up to the Speaker of the British Parliament (who is currently a Scot) to decide on whether it should be treated as an English bill under EVoEM.

I am an English nationalist and a unionist. England comes first. I don’t want the UK to break up but that is what is going to happen while petty Scots control England. If Scotland were to gain independence I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it and if there is an English Parliament when Scotland does eventually gain independence you’ll have a fight on your hands over the English oil gifted to the Scots by the British government without our consent.

There is no way on Earth you can know this. Indeed, if this were true then the Government could solve the constitutional issues in one go by holding a referendum on it, getting a NO answer, and carrying on as normal without all this faffing about with EVoEM. “The English” are not interested they could rightfully claim.

But they won’t because they are scared of the answer.

The obvious answer is a federal solution but we are told that an English parliament will be too expensive/powerful/remote. Fine have it your way and wreck the Union. One way or the other we will have an English parliament and executive – if it has to by the constitutional ruin of the UK then you can blame the Unionists and all those that opposed an English parliament and equal constitutional rights for England.

Don’t say that we didn’t try and warn you again and again and again.