WHEN one finds oneself sailing towards choppy seas, it makes sense to drop anchor and take stock of where one is headed.
It would not be wise in such circumstances to then sail full steam ahead, regardless.
We have argued before that in the unchartered waters of English Votes for English Laws, significant dangers loomed over the horizon; it was welcome news, therefore, when the Leader of the House of Commons, Chris Grayling, yesterday announced that the Government's hastily concocted plans would be redrafted, with a vote delayed until September. This manoeuvre has undoubtedly come about for pragmatic rather than principled reasons - nothing loosens a politician's firmly-held conviction faster than the fear of defeat.
As we reported last week, that fear was a very real one. A small but potentially significant number of Conservative backbenchers were ready to rebel; combined with the votes of Labour, SNP, DUP and Liberal Democrats, they would have holed this flagship policy before the waterline.
The reasons behind the Tory MPs' unease involve both realpolitik and real concern for the future of the Union. Some fear that the introduction of second-class politicians - which would be the fate of Scottish members - would see a drift towards independence not in only in Scotland, but also in Wales and Northern Ireland. Others fear that English-only votes, where the Government would have a greater majority, would significantly reduce their power and influence.
The maelstrom whipped up by a determined Opposition also played a significant part in yesterday's announcement. Here, the embattled former Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, deserves a mention in despatches. He may have raised eyebrows when claimed that David Cameron was "now a bigger threat to the Union than Alex Salmond" but his description of the Evel proposals as an "outrage" resounded loudly. We share his relief that ministers "have listened to the concerns of their own backbenchers" if not others.
The profound changes to the constitutional make-up of the United Kingdom that were envisaged in the fast-track proposals to restrict the voting rights of Scottish MPs detailed last week had the potential to do great damage to the stability of the Union, involving as they did the arbitrary creation of an English Parliament.
While we accept that the West Lothian Question still needs to be addressed, the principle of Evel is fundamentally flawed. The fact remains that almost no English-only legislation does not have a budgetary impact on Scotland through Barnett consequentials; besides, newly-released figures show that since 2001, excluding Scottish MPs would have changed the outcome of just 0.7 per cent of Westminster votes.
There is also the major concern that the constitutional balance of the UK could be dramatically altered through the procedural mechanism of altering the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It does not look as if the Government is to change tack here; this is nothing short of reckless.
We are of the opinion that the Government's course needs to be radically altered; but given that Evel II will be launched as early as Monday - there will be two days of debate next week - that might be a forlorn hope. The champagne will be iced only when we see the detail.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article