The Scottish question(s)
Do you remember Taking Stock? No? It was the Tory exercise in considering options for the governance of Scotland, short of devolution.
As I recall, the phrase 鈥渨e will take stock鈥 was first used by John Major in an interview with my late (and much missed) colleague Kenny MacIntyre.
The then Prime Minister was indicating that, while opposed to devolved self-government, the Conservatives would look at the way Scottish affairs were handled if they were returned to power at the 1992 General Election.
The Tories were duly returned, they duly Took Stock 鈥 and they duly concluded that there was relatively little they could do. (At the time, of course, they didn鈥檛 quite put it that way, preferring to stress the ground-breaking nature of their conclusions.)
The practical outcome was that the Scottish Grand Committee of MPs became a peripatetic affair, a political travelling circus.
Actually, those meetings around Scotland 鈥 with sundry demonstrators in tow 鈥 were rather fun. Didn鈥檛 prevent the Tories from losing every seat and didn鈥檛 pre-empt devolution. But fun while they lasted.
I think there鈥檚 just a whiff of Taking Stock about one challenge facing our new Prime Minister. Gordon Brown, of course, has rather a comprehensive agenda - Iraq, the new EU constitution, his new Cabinet, public spending, the next election.
But lurking in the background is the Scottish Question. Or rather questions.
How can it be right that Scotland gets more money for public services than England? How can it be right that MPs from Scotland (including G. Brown) can vote on exclusively English issues at Westminster?
Mr Brown has already indicated that the constitution is in his in-tray. But, predominantly, he means re-building concepts of popular and Parliamentary sovereignty plus, perhaps, further reform in the House of Lords.
However, he has said that his government, his administration with soul, will pay heed to the interests of the entire UK, not least the 85 per cent of the population who happen to live in England.
I suppose the salience of the Scottish Question depends upon the number of times it is asked by the Conservative opposition.
Tory leaders are pressing for English votes on English issues in the Commons 鈥 but it seems to me they have tended of late to lower the temperature on this issue, aware that it has the potential to challenge the Union which the Tories are intrinsically pledged to support.
Plus, of course, there is another Caledonian matter confronting Team Brown - how to handle the circumstances created by Alex Salmond鈥檚 victory and Labour鈥檚 Scottish electoral defeat.
Still, though, Gordon Brown knows that he must display his British credentials. He knows that whoever he appoints to handle Scottish affairs in his Cabinet must have an eye to the broader Scottish or West Lothian question.
But what can he do? Scottish independence, of course, answers West Lothian but, from Mr Brown鈥檚 perspective, rather defeats the purpose.
There鈥檚 minimal support for full-scale federalism. Ditto limited English regionalism 鈥 which, in any case, doesn鈥檛 answer West Lothian.
Cut the number of Scots at Westminster? Mitigates West Lothian 鈥 but might also cut Labour鈥檚 chances of retaining power. Announce a needs-based review of expenditure?
Ultimately likely but wouldn鈥檛 be quick and doesn鈥檛 address the legislative aspects of West Lothian.
Taking Stock anyone?
I'm 
Comments
"Cut the number of Scots at Westminster?"
We just did that. You have to wonder if these proposals emanating from south of the border are about trying to solve the WLQ at all, or are really just about clipping the wings of uppity Jocks.
In any case, the WLQ is concerned with the fact that any Scottish MPs can vote on English issues at all, not the number of them able to do so.
"Cut the number of Scots at Westminster?"
We just did that. You have to wonder if these proposals emanating from south of the border are about trying to solve the WLQ at all, or are really just about clipping the wings of uppity Jocks.
In any case, the WLQ is concerned with the fact that any Scottish MPs can vote on English issues at all, not the number of them able to do so.
English regional devolution in the form offered at the north-east referendum in 2004 was not the answer the West Lothian Question - but it could have been. The model on offer to the voters was not proper devolution of powers from the centre (unlike in Scotland, Wales and NI). The voters knew this and rejected it. However, if Labour had offered real devolution of powers to the English regions (such as the Welsh Model) - the vote could have been won, and through time, as more powers were devolved to the regions, the West Lothian Question would have been answered. History will record English regional devolution a big missed opportunity to address the WTQ. There are few sustainable alternatives.
Brian,
Do please try and talk the enthusiastic webservices techies into getting the comment turnover rate up a bit.
Please!
Slainte
ed
Brian, you say that there is little support for full scale federalism. Support among whom? Labour party members or the Scottish electorate?
Which begs the question: which group (demos or Labourites) most influences the decision-making process in Westminster?
At the moment 3/4 of the Scottish demos (the politically active citizen body) wish either full-scale federalism or total independence (the accumulated vote for the Liberals, Greens, various independent parties, and the largets single party, the SNP).
I am surprised that not one of the Scottish press corp. has questioned the future PM of th UK on the implications of this (no doubt everyone is still catching their collective breath after the SNP victory).
I happen to agree with the body of opinion in England that disagrees with the Barnett formula. It is unfair, unfair on Scotland that is. It is easily verifiable that the formula will erode Scotland's advantage over time. (see )
It also provides the Anglo-centric commentators south of the border a chance to claim Scotland isn't pulling her weight financially, which is erroneous at best. (see )
I am also sympathetic to the concerns of the English regarding Scottish votes on English issues. There is no way to resolve this whilst keeping the current Westminster system.
It seems the only way forward for those who wish to preserve the Union is to implement something like the Common Purse Agreement (see ) the UK has with the Isle of Man for each home nation.
Perhaps a two option referendum with this as an alternative to independence?
I should have added in my above post that, because the Tories backed a Scottish constitutional convention (and made very positive noises about fiscal autonomy), 2/3 of the demos voted for parties either advocating federalism, independence, or greater powers (fiscal).
My '3/4 of the people backing more powers' (independence, federalism, fiscal autonomy) perhaps underestimated the support Labour's status quo position received (30%, I think, Labour's share of the vote).
Regardless, I think you get the point.
English votes for English issues could only work if there was an English budget; imagine English MPs choosing merrily to vote costly legislation for England when it is being paid out of a UK budget.
The issue in question is not English only votes, the issue is Conservative majority votes; when the voting strengths of the Westminster Parliament are considered it is clear the issue is not English votes, it is an attempt to negate the voting of Scottish Labour MPs.
England: 529 MPs
Scotland: 59 MPs
Wales: 40 MPs
Northern Ireland: 18 MPs
Which leaves a permanent majority of 412 English MPs; even allowing for a couple of hangovers at our expense there should be enough English MPs to outnumber the remainder of MPs, let alone Scottish MPs.
As for Gordon Brown I could see him being ruthlessly fair with Scottish issues to prove he is truly British; or is he still English from his support of their football team?
He may well wish to distance himself from Scotland to curry favour with the English voters; anybody who thinks Scotland will do well from a real Scottish Prime Minister should think again.
David (posts 1 & 3) is mistaken to draw such inferences from the election result. This was a full-scale Parliamentary election, not a referendum on independence or fiscal autonomy. He needs to prove that these issues were, at the least, uppermost in the minds of every voter if he wishes to use the election result to demonstrate the level of support for 'full scale federalism' that he believes to exist.
Personally I would like to see a version of the Scottish Parliament created within the current set-up at Westminster; an English first minister, chairing a cabinet of the secretaries of state with portfolios that are exclusively English, and answerable to a grand committee within Parliament consisting of exclusively English MPs. There seems little point in going to the massive expense of electing a second set of MPs for England and building them a new parliament to meet in.
That would leave the full UK Parliament and the four great offices of State (including a Home Secretary who helpfully appears to have been relieved of his English Justice responsibilities) to focus on UK issues.
I think that, ultimately, "Full Scale Federalism" (i.e., an English Parliament to go with the Scottish Parliament and Welsh & NI Assemblies) is the only possible answer that doesn't have manifest problems and loopholes.
Scotland needs to become independent, we have a Scottish PM in Westminster who is very keen to appeal to the electorate in England. To do this he is playing down his Scottishness, longer term this will mean that he will wish to appear less favourable to Scotland fearing the backlash from the English electorate.
Scotland is a nation of 5 million people, the rest of the uk accounts for about 60 million. Scotland is the least of their concerns, this has always been the case.
Scotland is more than capable of standing on its own two feet and running its own affairs. What puts people off the idea of independence is the lies that have been perpetuated over the years by the powers that be in Westminster, proof of this can be found in the McCrone Report.
News article below:
Is it fair that an unelected European Parliament, can determine British issues?.
Michael, the European Parliament is not unelected, but even so its power to determine anything is thankfully limited.
Personally I'd still rather it didn't exist. I don't think the EU we now have, with all its expensive trappings of Statehood, is what we signed up for.
I'm not certain where the analogy is heading though? I don't see there being any meaningful comparison with our domestic situation.
My tuppence worth on the Barnett Formula. Yes, it could be viewed as unfair to England since its inception - the original budget gave Scotland an extra 6% more than the 1978 Needs assessment proposed, and that advantage has been locked in since. However, convergence, inflation and stricter application of the formula particularly under Labour since 1997, is eroding this advantage year on year.(Ian Lang in his autobiog said he used the Barnett allocation as a starting point before negotiating extra funds for wonderful things like HCI in Clydebank!).The factor which I think most skews the effect of the formula is the population movements in both countries, which I believe defies offical attempts to measure it. England has more unquantified nett immigration (both from within the UK and from illegal immigrants) placing more pressures on their public finances in certain areas. If Scotland retained and grew its population (not lose it to England), and had the same level of immigration to deal with, we would better merit our share of public money, and relieve the strain on English finances. Just don't ask me how that could be achieved with an Anglo-Centric Britain.
Chris Townsend (6),
An excellent idea which would put the Westminster Parliament (UK) into its proper perspective and go some way towards proper subsidiarity.
Michael McFarlane (9),
The European Parliament IS elected (perhaps you didn't bother to vote), but the Executive isn't.
Slainte
ed
"Scotland needs to become independent."
What about those of us who don't believe this to be the case? Going to ride roughshod over our rights and wishes are you??
16, Poppaea
Straw-man arguments get you no-where. I'm sure in a referendum on independence, merry unionists will be given plentiful opportunity to state their positive case for the union. You can do it now, if you like.