David Davis gets lost in West Lothian
Regular readers of The Sharpener will remember that back in the spring I dedicated numerous column inches to the arcane issue of the West Lothian question: How can it be justified that Scottish MPs have the right to vote on English issues that do not concern their constituents, while English MPs do not have the same right to vote on Scottish issues?
In my previous posting I argued that, personally, I did not think that the West Lothian question was so big an issue that it required further constitutional change. Very many disagreed with me. Some pointed to an English parliament as a workable (if, in my view, hugely expensive, complex and disruptive) option tied to UK-wide federalism.
A totally unworkable solution, one betraying a deep ignorance of and contempt for the British constitution, was the one chosen by the Tory party at the last general election. This is how I described it then:
The Tories’ proposal at the last election was to formally deprive Scottish MPs of the right to vote on English issues. The best adjective for this is bonkers. That it should issue from a party that describes itself as both ‘unionist’ and ‘conservative’ is beyond parody. At a stroke, this measure could make the UK ungovernable.
Say a Labour government were elected with a good UK majority but without a majority in England (as has happened in the past). Under the Tories’ ideas, that government would not be able to implement any of its health, crime, education, etc, proposals, as it would lack the necessary votes. Only Tory proposals could pass. But given that only the government has access to the Civil Service, Parliamentary draughtsmen, etc, this means that none of these areas could be touched. Of course, you could say that this would be a good thing, but it would transform the nature of the way Britain is governed.
If you did want things done, then you would need two separate governments acting in parallel, with two different prime ministers depending on the subject in question (Labour for defence, pensions and welfare payment, Tory for health, education and crime). It would not be a continental-style coalition, but some curious new animal for which I can think of no precedent around the world. Prime Minister’s Questions would be interesting, with the two party leaders having to run from one side of the dispatch box to the other depending on what the subject matter was.
And if you could solve it in parliament, what about executive decisions? Who would be the bona fide health minister, a Labour or Tory politician? Most laws give sweeping powers to the ‘Secretary of State’. The Secretary of State is appointed by the Prime Minister (in turn appointed by the Queen), ie, Labour in my scenario, or would it be Tory, or both or… It just gets too ludicrous once you start going down that path.
I had rather thought that, once the election was over, the Tories would drop this ridiculous and dangerous proposal having recognised it for the nonsense it so clearly is. But David Davis now seems determined to resurrect it.
Either Davis knows it will not work, which means he is simply being populist in a despicably cynical way, or he thinks it will work, which betrays an ignorance of the way Britain is governed that is frankly staggering in a man wishing to be Prime Minister.
Whichever is the truth, it does precious little to commend David Davis as a future leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
From the Cameron campaign website FAQ page:
So it isn’t just Davis, it’s Cameron as well.
Well, that just makes it worse. The whole thing is such a pig’s ear of an idea that I find it staggering that the Tories should accept it. Who is advising them on this issue? Can they possibly have thought it through?
Your main objection seems to be that the nominally governing party may not have an English majority. All that suggests to me is that if they want to pass legislation in that circumstance, they have to do it with the consent of the other parties. That’s good for democracy, surely?
I agree it is constitutionally challenging, but then so is devolution in different ways.
_if they want to pass legislation in that circumstance, they have to do it with the consent of the other parties_
Sounds suspiciously like coalition government under PR, Andrew. Seen the light at last?
Sounds suspiciously like coalition government under PR, Andrew. Seen the light at last?
Not at all. It would be no different to the 90 day amendment vote the other night. Anyway, the English vote thing is clearly a strategic move to ensure that if Labour continue to dominate Scotland and Wales, there is the potential to stop them in England. Just a way to redress some of the bias in the voting system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What the Tories should do is set up an English Parliament with the same powers that the Scottish parliament now has with defence, foreign policy etc. being reserved to the British government.
They might also pass a rule that all spending by the devolved parliaments has to be paid for by revenue raised in Scotland or England only. This would end the present situation whereby Scotland is subsidised by English Tory taxpayers.
Since England would tend to have a conservative majority this would be a nightmare for Labour. It’s quite clear that New Labour went ahead with devolution without thinking it through.
Labour best chance of escaping Conservative England would be to pre-empt the Tories by establishing the English Parliament themselves but with proportional representation. As in Scotland this would probably lead to Lib-Lab coalitions.
This is not the fault of the Conservatives, it is New Labour who screwed up our country with botched devolution.
I don’t like the idea of this proposal, but what can be done? Labour’s botched devolution must be fixed in some way.
Remember not long ago Scottish Labour MP’s voted for top-up fees in England when they have voted against that only a few weeks earlier in Scotland, this is outragous.
We no longer live in representative democracy.
I agree with Dave. How does it “not make sense”? The proposal is about votes solely affecting English issues, not general UK issues like foreign policy. The fact is that the UK’s devolution is a strange one anyway, given that devolved government everywhere else in the world takes a federal pattern. Ours doesn’t, because people in England do not want an English parliament, because they see the Westminster parliament as just that.
It’s just not right that a party can make up a majority in the Commons with MPs from Scotland which will not be affected by the result of the vote, while the same can’t happen north of the border. I supported devolution, but the anomlies need to be fixed.
Set up a British parliament in Berwick-on-Tweed, or in the Debatable Lands, and an English parliament in London. Easy, and it’ll keep the pols so busy for so long that they’ll have no time for much other legislation.
We no longer live in representative democracy.
If you accept that logic, you also accept that of the nationalists and pro-devolutionists who have been arguing that in the case of Scotland for years. Seems it’s only an ‘outrage’ when the shoe’s on the other foot, eh? Not that I’m a nationalist, you understand. I rather agree with Mr. Avenue’s take on the subject.
It’s quite clear that New Labour went ahead with devolution without thinking it through.
No, they did think it through – and came to the sensible conclusion that the Scottish vote, which was and is so important to any possible Labour administration, required for its retention a commitment to the devolution that John Smith had effectively made it impossible for them to avoid.
Devolution was the eventual by-product of the drip-drip effect of the nationalist whine, so if you keep whinging about how badly done by England is under the present arrangement, you’ll probably get the English parliament that, um, hardly anyone wants. And you’ll regret it – but it’ll be too late by then.
No because it wasn’t the same the other way around, take for example something like Poll Tax when the Conservatives had almost no MP’s from Scotland, the English MP’s voting for it still had to answer to their own constituents. Scottish MP’s voting on English Education are effectively not answerable to anyone.
One assumption the ‘nationalists’ like to suggest is that all English MP’s could easily out vote anyone else because of numbers, but since when have English MP’s voted as a block, those Labour areas in the North of England are more likely to side with the Scottish than the Southerners.
So the problem was never as big as they suggested anyway.
However its not true to say I/we only complain when its the other way around, I have always felt the high population areas need to show more respect to the rest of the country, we have the same problems with town vs countryside issues, I just don’t feel Labours botched devolution is the answer.
Well I know it isn’t.
If people in power are going to abuse it and ride roughshot then there is always going to be problems regardless of the structure of the government.
Btw: I ideally don’t want an English Parliament, I want the imbalances Labour has created to be fixed one way or another.
One thing it points up is Davis’s shaky logic. This is, after all, the man whose proposed foreign policy consists of holding a national referendum at considerable cost on “whether we should reclaim powers from Brussels”, proceeding to attempt this, and then staging yet another referendum at considerable cost on whether he had been successful.
What earthly function do all these referendums serve? Presumably, before proceeding to referendum number 1 he would have had to get elected. I take it he is in favour of reclaiming powers from Brussels, so presumably it would be part of his manifesto. Therefore he would already have his popular decision – what is the point of the referendum?
The proposed second referendum is even more vacuous – if he succeded, presumably this would be by getting the other 24 EU members to agree on amendments to the treaties. Now, surely there would be no need for a referendum on “whether” – either he had got the amendment and placed it before parliament to be ratified, or he had not.
The only conceivable purpose to all this referending would seem to be a tax-funded jingofest of Europhobia at best, and at worst an effort to circumvent parliament and legitimise executive decisions by plebiscite. I submit Davis is either deeply ignorant about the constitution and just as deeply self-interested in the first case, or very dangerous indeed in the second.
Alex:
Government powers are owned by the people of this country and only given on loan to the government until the next election, no government had any right what so ever to give away those powers to a 3rd party, doing so ‘is’ treachery.
Calling a referendum is a great idea, if Conservatives did win the election it wouldn’t prove that they had won it on an anti-EU ticket, people don’t vote on those specific issues they only basically vote on whether they prefer Labour or Conservatives and often it isn’t much of a choice. So by calling the referendum he would be drawing a line in the sand and the country would be able to say where we stand, and there could be no people trying to claim the result wasn’t what it was.
From what I have seen its almost always pro-EU people who don’t want a referendum, I wonder why this can be?….
Andrew – I think you and others are seriously underestimating the scope of what the Tories are proposing. Quite apart from the astonishing principle of creating two tiers of MPs and undermining the role of the House of Commons as the UK’s national parliament (something Labour, for all their cackhandedness at many constitutional changes, have explicitly written into the devolution legislation), there are huge practical problems.
You say it would be no different to the ’90 day problem’ from last week. It would be in many ways worse – but let me accept your assessment. Do you really want England’s health, education and criminal justice system to be administered in that way, with that level of uncertainty and arbitrariness for 5, 10 maybe 15 years? It would not be the case that the government would need opposition support for any proposal, rather the opposition would *be* the government on these issues. And yet it could have no access to the civil service, or to parliamentary draughtsmen.
It’s quite different from a coalition, where the biggest party needs the help of smaller parties to form a majority. There would be majorities – but for different parties on different issues. It would be a constitutional nightmare, and would make Labour’s changes very small fry indeed. Do the Tories really want to preside over the total dismantling of the way Britain is governed?
As I say, an English parliament would solve this (at huge expense and complexity). Trying to cut corners by establishing England-only votes in the existing Commons is totally the wrong answer to the question.
No because it wasn’t the same the other way around, take for example something like Poll Tax when the Conservatives had almost no MP’s from Scotland, the English MP’s voting for it still had to answer to their own constituents. Scottish MP’s voting on English Education are effectively not answerable to anyone.
I see what you’re getting at but I don’t think a) the difference is that significant and b) you’re ignoring a whole raft of measures voted for by English MPs which never applied to England in the same way as they did to Scotland because of, amongst other things, our different legal system.
When, for example, did English MPs ever have to answer for introducing the poll tax a year earlier in Scotland? Never, I’d imagine.
I wish people would decide whether they are nationalists or not. Against the nationalists in Scotland, I simply argue that independence would be a lesser fate. I think the same applies to England – and all this harping on about constitutional imbalance causes imbalance and will weaken a union that has been beneficial to all parties, I’d argue.
Alex: I didn’t ignore the whole raft of measures voted by English MP’s which never applied in Scotland, I agreed it was a problem, but I just don’t think Labours botches devolution is the answer.
Poll tax had to be tried somewhere first, the Tories trying it in Scotland probably was cynical but even so which ever area was first would have complained.
Third Avenue:
We already have to tier MP’s, so trying to stop that from happening is a bit too late.
English MP’s have power over British issues and English issues.
Scottish MP’s have power over British and, English issues (which they are not accountable for)
MSP’s have power over purely Scottish issues.
And the Welsh a different setup.
How can that be right?
How exactly is an English parliament any different to English only votes on English matters in the House of commons? Its effectively the same thing isn’t it except they are in different buildings..
Why exactly is it such a problem to have one party in control of certain issues, and another party in control of other issues?
I personally would love to be able to pick and mix what I considered the best from all political parties.
Yes it would change the way Britain is governed, but so what, we are hardly a democracy anyway, they only ask our opinions every 4-5 years and when labour gets elected they seem to assume that gives them a mandate to do ‘whatever the hell they feel like’, when in reality their victory only ment people prefered them to the Tories and might actually disagree with a huge amount of what they say.
TA: I don’t see that it is any different to a hung parliament under the current system, except in that it would apply solely to England. I find it hard to imagine a situation in which an opposition party had an overall majority in England, but not one in the whole of the UK. In reality, no one party would have a majority. I don’t think this is an ideal way to govern, admittedly, but it might give the people pause for thought before they tick the ballot paper tribally.
under the present balance of power, of course. If the Lib Dems’ support massively subsided, I guess the Tories could have a working majority in England…
There has to be an English Parliament, there’s no way of avoiding it.
1. The rest of the UK has devolved governments, only England doesn’t.
2. England gets legislation forced on it by Scottish and Welsh MP’s who vote in line with the party when the legislation doesn’t affect their own country.
3. Scotland and Wales get a significant amount of benefits and preferential treatment that English people don’t as a result of devolution.
4. The English are paying for the extra benefits the Scots and Welsh get (courtesy of the Barnett Formula making England the only net contributor to the UK) and this is never going to change while England is represented by a British government instead of an English one.
5. There is no appetite for regional assemblies in England. The government know this and they have said as much.
6. There is a desire for an English Parliament in England. How big that desire is I can’t answer. Don’t forget that the Scots only got behind the idea of their own devolved government once the nationalists had got their act together, got funding and took their message to the people. The difference, of course, if that the British government propoganda machine wasn’t coniving to undermine their efforts at every turn.
7. The systematic discrimination of over 80% of the country will result in the end of the United Kingdom.
An English Parliament is the only way forward and it will happen. The British government will eventually realise that no amount of spin, lies and propoganda can cover up the indisputable facts – England is disadvantaged.
To the Scots and Welsh who happily sit back and gloat that the English are just getting a taste of their own medicine, I have one thing to say. Two wrongs do not make a right. Actually, make that two things – if the Scots had not insisted on maintaining a separate legal system to the rest of the country, the British government (British, not English, remember) would not have been able to inflict the poll tax on Scotland before England.
It seems to me that a lot of people south of the border are engaging that oft- heard activity of “having your cake and eating it”.
Yes I do think the English are getting a taste of what was put round for so long, and I’m really afraid I have extremely little sympathy and/or patience with them. Why should I? EXACTLY the same arguments are being employed here as were employed in Scotland pre-1999 – except in Scotland we did have a dreadfully unrepresentative government imposed upon us, and yes by England. The “Union” has never been perfect, democratic or representative – it hasn’t just become that way because England is feeling those disadvantages currently.
The Poll Tax is an example there are too many to list – a better one is the Education Act (Scotland) 1996. My wife is a teacher and was absolutely against this piece of legislation, as were her colleagues, as were most MP’s in Scotland. However it was passed on the back of English Tory MP’s with no understanding of Scottish education or anything else. Time and time again that went on.
Also some more home truths whilst we are at it. The current devolution settlement was debated upon, amended and voted on by parliamentarians of English extraction. The people of England voted in the Labour governments in 1997, 2001 and yes, even in 2005 (Labour have a majority of 44 seats in England alone) knowing exactly what the constitutional setup in the dis “United Kingdom” was.
That all sounds extremely unpleasant, but unfortunately it is the raw truth. And it is so amazing how that is just conveniently “forgotten” or “glossed over”.
And yes I believe full fiscal federalism is the only option followed by the inevitable dissolution of the UK, which I think is the only option, at the end of all this nonsense.
And yes, that fiscal freedom should include oil. After all pre-1997 Labour Scotland bankrolled Tory England for an unacceptably long time.
It’s coming.
“if the Scots had not insisted on maintaining a separate legal system to the rest of the country, the British government (British, not English, remember) would not have been able to inflict the poll tax on Scotland before England.”
As it is a “British Government” currently and that the English make up 80% of the “British” does one not think you have invalidated your own argument? I understand that in 1707 many Scots, when they went into the union suggested that the Scottish Parliament remain as part of the union, alongside the English one – ie a federal system – unacceptable to the English Queen and Government at the time of course!
There was no English Queen at that time, a German King who was the closest descendent following on from a tyrannical Scottish Tyranny, that attempted to destroy English Liberty and Tradition.
But don’t let your Caledonian Racism for the English get in the way of that.
The English parliament was never abolished, it just fell into abeyance. English Votes on English Matters will simply be the English Parliament reconvened – it will also be the sovereign parliament of the UK (as opposed to a subordinate devolved parliament) and as such will be superior to the Scottish parliament.
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.
“…because people in England do not want an English parliament”
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.
An English Parliament isn’t needed, all they have to do is say, where there is a specifically devolved issue, MP’s from that area don’t get a vote in the British Parliament. That would solve the problem of areas where England and Wales have common policies but not Scotland, which an English Parliament wouldn’t solve. It would also mean if MP’s from a devolved area wanted more power in Britain they could argue for a change so that certain issues were not longer devolved or perhaps the other way around.
When poll tax was introduced into Scotland I was a small child. When the Education Act (Scotland) 1996 was introduced I was still at school. Why should I be discriminated against and punished by the Scottish Raj for something that I didn’t do and nobody of my generation did?
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 was no English Queen at that time”
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.
Tokyo, have you ever entertained the concept that you might actually be wrong about something?
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.
The Scottish Waters Boundary – the moved border that you refer to (which is the black line extending eastwards).
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.
If the Tories think that English Votes on English Matters is such a good idea and that an English Parliament is such a bad idea then why do they not propose getting rid of the Scottish Parliament and have Scottish Votes on Scottish Matters? With this system, according to Tory logic, when dealing with Scottish matters, Westminster would in effect be a Scottish Parliament. The speaker could certify bills as Scottish etc. etc. The Scottish Parliament/Scottish Executive could then be abolished and a lot of money saved!
The principal, perhaps the only, obstacle to recognising the answer to the West Lothian Question is the extraordinary national blockage about federalism. By the same token, the issue here is not so much what system we should introduce to make sense of West Lothian: it’s understanding what system we have already got, and then making sensible provision accordingly.
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/
Pingback: Ephems of BLB