ENGLISH Votes for English Laws, that seemingly fair-sounding concept, is shaping up to be one of the most dishonest, disruptive, damaging and contentious episodes in British constitutional history.
The notion that something this profound could be dreamed up on the steps of Downing Street at 7am in the morning after the referendum result last September, and be put into effect through Parliamentary procedures rather than full and considered legislation is breathtaking in its implications.
The United Kingdom is in dire need of constitutional reform, from its voting system to its need for a more federal settlement to the absolute essential of Lords reform, and yet we are to have this change, piecemeal yet profound, pushed through via Westminster procedures without any legislative change. This is beyond satire.
Don't take our word for it. Alistair Carmichael, our sole LibDem tribune and with his reputation hardly unscathed from recent events which may yet unseat him, called the proposals "an outrage" and rightly pointed out that they drove a magisterial coach through the rules about the convention about a double majority at the Report stage of passing Westminster law.
The Orkney and Shetland MP went as far as claiming that David Cameron was "now a bigger threat to the continuation of the UK than Alex Salmond."
The SNP called it "a constitutional shambles, staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence" and rightly contrasted this with the rejection of every single amendment to the Scotland Bill. "The Westminster system wants an English veto, but rides roughshod over the democrat rights of the people of Scotland."
Labour's Ian Murray called the plans a "constitutional wrecking ball" gerrymandering UK politics without consideration for the risk posed to the Union.
We stand back from the partisan exchanges, but we believe this is not smart politics by the UK Government. It may be unsurprising given the whole thing was dreamed up during a wave of triumphalism in the early hours of September 19 last year, but this is no way to run a constitution or the vital reform required of it.
Beyond partisan politics, here is Christine McLintock, president of the Law Society of Scotland, who said: "The West Lothian question has existed for almost 40 years, and will not be answered by changing the House of Commons standing orders alone."
Others were making similar points yesterday. The Electoral Reform Society were also in high dudgeon, accusing the Prime Minister of playing fast and loose with the constitution. The society also called it "constitutionally reckless to ram English votes through with only one day of Parliamentary debate."
The ERS rightly points out the degree to which there are profound questions affecting all of these islands. What about the politicisation of the role of Speaker, who will be asked to be arbitrate on which parliamentary business is to be deemed "English only"? This is a hugely politicised, poisoned chalice which the convener of proceedings at Westminster could really do without.
Above all, and here, too credit to the ERS for zeroing in on the crux: "What role do our citizens have in deciding where our democracy goes from here?"
What role indeed. This is profound change, on the hoof, and almost certainly not clever tactics for anyone supporting the Union.
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