SCOTTISH MPs would still be able to debate and vote on legislation that only affected England under a "double-lock" solution to the West Lothian Question put forward yesterday by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Scottish Secretary.
Speaking on the opening day of the McKay Commission's inquiry, looking into finding a practical solution to the constitutional conundrum, the Conservative MP who now represents Kensington in London, suggested his preferred option would be a second or double majority in the Commons, which would provide a "double lock".
Under this proposal legislation designated by the Speaker as English only, or largely English only, would not only have to get a majority among MPs representing English constituencies but also a majority across all UK MPs.
Sir Malcolm, in his submission to the Commission, had suggested two possible solutions – an English Grand Committee made up exclusively of English constituency MPs and the second majority option.
He said: "I have indicated my preference for the double majority approach because I accept the desirability, if it can be done, for all members of the House of Commons to continue to be able to speak and vote on all issues that come before it."
The backbencher told the Commission he was "profoundly uncomfortable" with an alternative that in practice prevented this, which an English Grand Committee would do.
It was suggested to Sir Malcolm that a Bill might be English only but might still have consequences for Scotland i.e. financial ones through the Barnett Formula.
The ex-minister explained this would be solved because under the double majority proposal Scottish MPs would still be able vote on such issues.
Sir Malcolm explained that the constitutional anomaly known as the West Lothian Question had taken on a higher profile as more powers have been devolved not only to Scotland but also to Wales.
He said there was not a constitutional crisis caused by it but a "growing resentment" in England that post-devolution it was being unfairly treated.
The Tory backbencher referred to tuition fees, which was voted through for England on the back of Scottish votes.
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