The West Lothian Question is a red herring: the Parliament of the United Kingdom may choose at any time to enact legislation effective in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland within policy areas currently devolved, and that legislation would prevail over any enacted by a devolved body. It simply chooses not to, just as it chooses not to add to, or subtract from, the devolved policy areas in any of the three cases. But it could, if it wanted to.
However, there is a real constitutional outrage, namely the Barnett Formula. Since we on the Left know and understand welfare and public services to be the entitlements of citizens as such, the Barnett Formula is an unconstitutional denial to the people of England of equal citizenship of the United Kingdom as guaranteed by the Treaties and Acts of Union. It simply has to go.
A very good start would be to restore free undergraduate tuition in England, and to pay for this by deducting the cost from the block grant to the Scottish Parliament.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Right, so Scots have to get their funding (which they pay from their taxes) cut because they make policy decisions for themselves?
ReplyDeleteWhy?
If Scottish and Welsh MP's had not voted through Student Fees in England against the wishes of a majority of English Mp's, then there would be no student fees.
ReplyDeleteDo you still reckon the West Lothian Question is a red herring?
Lobey doser is missing the point.
ReplyDeleteIt is the inequality in funding (per head of population) that allows the Scots to make these policy decisions. Reduce their funding to the level of English funding (the English pay the same taxes but contribute far more to the Exchequer)and they couldn't afford free tuition etc.
Of course, in the name of equality and democracy, the other option is to raise English funding to the same level as the Scots. Would you support that?
Yes , the Barnett Rules are obnoxious .
ReplyDeletehowever ,
The West Lothian Question is very much NOT a red herring . In 1707 the two separate nations of England and Scotland agreed to dissolve their own parliaments and set up a new combined one , The British parliament .
In 1998 , the British parliament gave the NATION of Scotland , as the nation , her own parliament back and yet refused to do the same for the nation of England .
Thus Scotland has achieved self rule and England is deliberately denied it .
This is not a red herring . It is a calculated and nationalist act of discrimination against the English by the British state .
It costs more to deliver public services in Scotland, because we've got 1/12 of the UK population spread over 1/3 of the land mass. 'Equal citizenship', if it means anything, means that people living out in the sticks deserve as far as possible the same standard of public services as those living somewhere like central London.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you could pare Scottish spending back to the 'English average' per capita, but you'd still have yawning great gulfs between the best and the worst funded parts of England:
Identifiable spend per head. Taken from PESA 2006 - HM Treasury
NORTHERN IRELAND - £9,084.
SCOTLAND - £8,265.
LONDON - £8,037.
WALES - £7,666.
North East - £7,689.
North West - £7,368.
Yorks & Humber - £6,829.
East Midlands - £6,248.
West Midlands - £6,676.
Eastern - £5,864.
South East - £5,959.
South West - £6,634.
If you want to resolve wealth and spending inequalities in England, the answer has nothing to do with how little of her own resources Scotland gets back, and everything to do with the current state of affairs between the English regions.
http://premium.thescotsman.scotsman.com/comment.cfm?id=975322007&resource=tssubscrip
http://scotsandindependent.blogspot.com/2007/06/timely-corrective.html
Richard Thompson overlooks the fact that the Barnett Formula wasn't that much of an issue prior to devolution to Scotland.
ReplyDeleteI live in the prosperous south-east of England and I don't mind the south-east 'subsidising' other English regions. What I do object to is England subsidising a nation to the north that uses the extra resources to fund better services than we can have down in England, especially when that nation has tax-raising powers.
There should be equality in social provision and the Barnett Formula is an anathema to that very principle - as Blair recently admitted it is nothing more than a bribe to keep Scotland in the Union.
"the answer has nothing to do with how little of her own resources Scotland gets back"
This is a morally repugnant argument too. Whilst we are a United Kingdom Scotland's resources are everyone's resources. If that's a problem for the Scots then they should leave the Union. Until such time they should not expect spending above and beyond the other nations of the UK.
"Richard Thompson overlooks the fact that the Barnett Formula wasn't that much of an issue prior to devolution to Scotland".
ReplyDeleteEr, it was certainly an issue in Scotland, forming a large part of the case against constitutional change and coming from both sides of the border.
It was always a strange argument. Either a level of funding is appropriate or it isn't. The constitutional arrangements shouldn't come into it. Are people really so petty as to start complaining about Scottish spending just because Scotland voted for its own parliament? If so, the emerging debate would appear to be less about economics or the constitution, and more about a deeply unattractive form of English supremacism.
"What I do object to is England subsidising a nation to the north that uses the extra resources to fund better services than we can have down in England, especially when that nation has tax-raising powers".
No-one subsidises Scotland, since for most of the last 3 decades we've put in considerably more than we've got back out. Services might be different, but they are not always better (you get things on the English NHS that we don't - it works both ways, you know). The silly little 3p up or down tax power is completely irrelevant to this debate.
"There should be equality in social provision and the Barnett Formula is an anathema to that very principle."
If you spent a uniform amount per person, you wouldn't get equality in social provision, since it costs more to deliver public services in rural areas than it does in urban centers.
"Whilst we are a United Kingdom Scotland's resources are everyone's resources".
Indeed they are. But while we're a 'United Kingdom', should not every part of the country be entitled to similar levels of service provision? And if history has resulted in differeing government structures existing, should they not be free to distribute these resources as they see fit? After all, isn't that one of the strongest arguments for an English Parliament?
The SNP lot on here are aware, I take it, that there are poor and/or remote parts of England? The rest of us are certainly aware that there are very rich and well-connected parts of Scotland, and indeed that most SNP voters and almost all SNP activists are upper-middle-class.
ReplyDeleteOn the West Lothian Question, the Parliament of the United Kingdom could still enact any legislation it liked with effect in Scotland, and that would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament. It merely chooses not to do so. But it could. So there really is no West Lothian Question.
Good grief, imagine who would stand for an English Parliament (and yes, I am aware that I might well be eating my words if it were ever actually to be set up), or who would turn out to vote for such a thing!
The latter would be very few in number, but that would only make them all the more dangerous. And the former would be "elected" from party lists. NOOOOO!
Instead, let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go. That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want.
But it cannot be done while the Barnett Formula unconstitutionally deniews the people of Englnad equal citizenship vy denying them equal provision of what we on the Left know to be their entitlements as citizens.
Free tuition should be restored throughout the UK, and the cost deducted from the Scottish block grant. Is that an argument against devolution? Damn right, it is!
On the West Lothian Question, the Parliament of the United Kingdom could still enact any legislation it liked with effect in Scotland, and that would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament.
ReplyDeleteLegally yes, but morally no. In Scotland the people are sovereign and this conflicts with the model of absolute sovereignty at Westminster.
Do you really think Westminster would overturn the sovereign wish of the Scottish people. On what grounds?
Westminster has a theoretical superiority only, it's never going to be tested...to do so would cause revolt. This arrangement was deliberate, done for simplicity and so that idiots like Lord Falconer could use the argument that you just have.
Oh, that old chestnut. In that case, the Scotland Act is void, as is every other piece of legislation applied in Scotland but not passed by ... well, by what, exactly?
ReplyDeleteHow, exactly, is this very recent and fantastical invention of the Nationalist haute bourgeoise (judicial branch), the non-sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament in Scotland, ever supposed to be exercised? By voting in in an election to the Scottish Parliament, regardless of the turnout or the non-Scottishness (however defined) of any given section of the electorate? By voting in a referendum, in which case the same problems arise?
In any case, a referendum can only happen by means of an Act of the allegedly non-sovereign Westminster Parliament (that's why there was never, and is never, going to be an independence referendum, not even if the SNP had won, or did win, every seat at Holyrood), and the Scottish Parliament only exists pursuant, and subject, to such an Act.
If the Westminster Parliament simply decided to pass a Health (Scotland) Act, or an Education (Scotland) Act, or a Transport (Scotland) Act, or whatever, as in former years, then there is no doubt at all that it would prevail over any enactment of a mere devolved body, itself existing only pursuant, and subject, to an Act of the Westminster Parliament. Where is even the "moral" problem? - there are MPs sitting at Westminster for Scottish seats.
The Prime Minister from this coming Wednesday onwards is one such MP, with some interest in health, education and transport in Scotland, and with absolutely no love for the people now running the Scottish Parliament...
If Brown has no love for the people running the scottish parliament, why did he sign the scottish constitutional convention.
ReplyDeleteHe has sworn an oath to put scotland uber alles and is not fit to rule England.
"- - Parliament of the United Kingdom may choose at any time to enact legislation effective in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland within policy areas currently devolved, and that legislation would prevail over any enacted by a devolved body. It simply chooses not to - "
ReplyDeleteOh gawd , trying to convince youself , eh , David .
Reminds me of a confirmed smoker who declares
" I can give this up any time I choose , I simply prefer not to , thats all "
Sure chum . Any time you choose .
Just get youself used to the fact that devolution is a one way process. In the case of Scotland , they have , as a country and via their own parliament , resumed self rule . I really do not think that The British parliament at Westminster should try taking back powers , however much on paper this might be theoretically possible !
You still prate on about the UK as though nothing has changed .
"Instead, let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go. That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want."
Wishful thinking .
This place called Britain is just a geographical area . It is the state of Great Britain that I think you are referring to and it cannot be resurrected as it was .
Within it was always several ancient countries and the largest of them is still constitutionally unrecognised - England .
Without an English parliament and English government and a federal British state , the United Kingdom , already damaged , will collapse .
You can't "take back" what you've never lost. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has not given up any right to legislate in respect of Scotland; it has merely created a body with the right so to legislate in a subordinate capacity.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, devolution always presupposed a Labour Government at Westminster, a Labour-led administration at Holyrood, and a Prime Minister with a non-Scottish seat. As soon as any of these ceased to be the case, and certainly as soon as any two of them did, then devolution would always have become a dead letter.
So, on Wednesday, devolution will become a dead letter.
David
ReplyDelete" The Parliament of the United Kingdom has not given up any right to legislate in respect of Scotland; it has merely created a body with the right so to legislate in a subordinate capacity. "
I think we are going round in circles here . What you say is thechnically correct and deliberately left thus for that
(diminishing number of people) who want to believe it .
The political reality is different though and that is the key point .
You are correct in your observations the context of devolution
"devolution always presupposed a Labour Government at Westminster, a Labour-led administration at Holyrood, and a Prime Minister with a non-Scottish seat. "
an unbelieveably short termist political fix .
Two of those are going/gone
Writers on here who seem to think that the North Sea Oil belongs to Scotland need to be aware that it doesn't. The Continental Shelf Act (or some such name) enacted by the UK Government in the late 1960s tweaked the maritime border between England and Scotland, placing much English oil in Scots waters.
ReplyDeleteFine, whilst we're all "the UK", supposedly enjoying equal benefits, but NOT fine if Scotland and England split.
The maritime border was tweaked by the UK Government without consulting the English and currently goes against international convention. If the UK breaks up, the border will have to be corrected, giving England back its rightful share of the oil.
The Union should be about equality. It is not. Scots' arguments that their country contributes more financially and so deserves more in return are not only inaccurate, they display a complete lack of understanding of the principles of union.
Scotland benefited hugely from the union with England, not least when the English bailed Scotland out of bankrupcy in 1707. If we tally it all up, I'm sure that Scotland would be massively in deficit.
But that isn't how it's supposed to work!