LEADER of the House of Commons William Hague has now laid out his plans to limit the right of Scottish MPs to vote on legislation which applies only to England ("Hague warns of Scots MPs holding England to ransom, The Herald, February 4).
Of course that won't affect the Tory vote much, with only one Conservative MP from Scotland (and perhaps even less after the May election).
Of the 59 MPs elected by Scottish constituencies, 41 are Labour, 11 Liberal Democrat, and six SNP (who already have a self-denying ordinance on bills which do not affect Scotland). Mr Hague's political purpose is aimed at the significant Scottish Labour vote and perhaps also the LibDems. Those votes could be decisive for a Labour government with a small majority, or in thwarting a Conservative government from getting its legislation through. Again, of course, that Scottish balance may alter substantially after May, if the current polls are to be believed.
However, two points are being overlooked in this debate. First, only a very small percentage of Acts of Parliament do not have at least some knock-on effect in Scotland. For instance, legislation affecting the NHS or education in England only almost always has some financial implications. These could then have Barnett Formula consequential,. so it follows that Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPS should be entitled to speak and vote on such matters.
Secondly, has it not occurred to anyone that ever since 1707, English MPs, who now make up almost 85 per cent of the House of Commons, have always had the right to vote on bills relating only to Scotland? Over the years these have covered a wide range of issues, from strictly local matters such as the creation of the Glasgow Water Works Scheme and the building of Great Western Road in the 19th century, to major issues of policy like the siting of nuclear missiles in Faslane and Coulport.
The most obvious example in recent years was Mrs Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax in Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the UK. Did her phalanx of Tory MPs voluntarily agree to abstain from voting on that highly contentious matter because it did not apply to England? Of course not. And the notorious 40 per cent rule which caused the 1979 devolution to fail was proposed by a back-bench Labour MP and supported by English MPs of all parties, although it did not affect their constituents.
Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question will not be answered by artificial manipulation of the voting rights of Westminster MPs, effectively creating first class and second class members. Perhaps the riddle will only be solved by the eventual creation of a separate English parliament with similar devolved powers.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
TWO days before the Independence Referendum, the so-called "Vow" declared: " The Scottish Parliament is permanent ".
Last month, the UK Government published Command Paper 8990, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement ", which declared in draft clause 1(1): "A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements."
You report that expert witnesses told a UK Parliamentary Committee that the draft clauses in Command Paper 8990 would not protect the permanence of the current Scottish Parliament ("Powers legislation is 'vacuous'", The Herald, February 3).
The expert witnesses are of course correct. Even if draft Clause 1(1) is enacted by the next Westminster Parliament, there is nothing to stop any subsequent Westminster Parliament from repealing it. Indeed, under the unwritten UK Constitution, the Westminster Parliament can, if it so wishes, completely abolish the Scottish Parliament. The current Scottish Parliament is a creature of Westminster and the so-called Vow or the draft clauses will not transfer one iota of sovereignty from Westminster to the people of Scotland.
Under the proposed constitutional arrangements of Command Paper 8990, the Westminster Parliament will remain the sovereign Parliament and the Scottish Parliament will have no guaranteed protection in the unwritten UK constitution.
It is now clear that draft clause 1(1) of Command Paper 8990 is not worth the paper it is written on and the crafty drafters at Westminster probably knew that all along. Westminster will have an ultimate veto on everything until Scottish independence becomes a reality.
Dennis Canavan,
Sauchieburn,
Bannockburn.
I HAVE more sympathy with Scottish Nationalists who voted for independence on emotional grounds rather than those who did on economic ones. The stark fact is that individual countries are subject to events which are often outwith their control such as the credit crunch and more recently the collapse in the oil price. It seems fairly obvious that such instability is buffered by being part of a bigger economy as we have in the Union.
The electorate had a choice to back independence in September 2014 and it voted fairly decisively. Moreover, we were told that the result would be respected by all sides and the issue would be off the agenda for a generation. Consequently it would be wrong for the SNP to interpret every vote for them in May 2015 as a vote for independence. Many could vote SNP simply because the other parties are regarded as being in disarray and voters feel it is the best way of getting a more left-of-centre government.
Indeed, it is precisely the fact that the independence debate has been held that gives people the confidence to vote SNP in the knowledge that the Union will remain. Perhaps the SNP need to demonstrate to us that they are more than a single-issue party.
Paul Thompson,
Whitecroft, Shandon,
Helensburgh.
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.Â
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.Â
That is invaluable.Â
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