Scottish MPs

Or soon could be according to Channel Four's Gary Gibbon:

If Alex Salmond gets his way, Scotland could have a referendum at the end of this current term in Holyrood and it could result in Scotland going for a heightened form of devolution – “devolution max” or “devo max” as it’s being called.

So many powers would’ve been transferred to Scotland that the case for whipping away powers over English politics from Scottish MPs would be “unarguable”, one senior Labour source worries. What would that mean for Labour’s chances of forming a majority government in Westminster in the future? “Curtains”, was the word used to me.

Back in 2006, the then Lord Chancellor suggested that if Welsh MPs were to stop voting on English matters they would only be at Westminster for half a day a week. Mind you, Charles Falconer is an idiot or a liar, as evidenced by his 2006 claim that there "is no demand at all for devolution to England or the English MPs only being able to vote on English issues", so let's err on the side of caution and say that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would have to be at Westminster one day a week.

Vote to make it English Minster here.

Jon Craig describes how a tearful and dewy-eyed prime minister rallied his troops to help him concrete over England:

Gordon Brown came close to crashing to defeat on a Tory motion calling for a rethink on plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

The arithmetic looks like this: the Government won by 297 votes to 278, its majority of around 60 slashed to just 19. But the story behind the vote is more dramatic and colourful. First, Labour MPs claim a "tearful and dewy eyed" Prime Minister called the Labour waverers into his Commons office one by one and pleaded with them to back the Government. "If we lose this vote it will de-stabilise the Government and de-stabilise the markets," said the embattled Prime Minister, according to one MP who voted with the Tories despite the emotional appeal.

My quick calculations tell me that of the non-English MPs that voted, 72 voted 'No' with the Government and 29 voted 'Aye' against the Government. Basically Gordon Brown mobilised his Scottish and Welsh chums against England, and chucked in the DUP for good measure.

...just hours after a Democratic Unionist MP received a sympathetic response from Gordon Brown at PMQs to a plea to jettison controversial plans to compensate families of terrorists in Northern Ireland as well as their victims, five of the nine DUP MPs voted with the Government. You'll recall that the DUP rescued the PM from defeat in the Commons vote on 42-day detention for terror suspects last year. This time, without those five votes - leader Peter Robinson, ex-leader Ian Paisley, Willie McCrea, David Simpson and Sammy Wilson - the Government's majority would have been in single figures.

And if only English MPs had voted the Government would have lost by 40-odd votes.

UPDATE:

Having now had time to look at the figures.

If only English MPs had voted the Government would have lost by 250 to 230 votes, a margin of 20 votes.

Taking just the votes of non-English constituency MPs, 28 voted with the Government and 67 against.

Therefore 52% of English MPs voted against the Government and 48% voted with the Government.

And 29% of non-English MPs voted against the Government and 71% voted with the Government.

Across the country the general public are opposed to a third runway by a margin of 13%, so English constituency MPs appear to be better reflecting public opinion while non-English constituency MPs are flying in the face of public opinion. Why the disparity? The Constitution Unit at University College London may have the answer. Between May 2005 and June 2007 CU researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons. It revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.

According to the Constitution Unit the "most significant factor" in explaining this phenomenon is that Scots MPs vote through unpopular Government measures that do not apply north of the Border because they face no external pressure from their constituents or local party.

It would be wrong to suggest that Scottish electors do not care about the issues surrounding the Heathrow debate, but the fact is that they elect an MSP to the Scottish Parliament to represent them on Transport, Planning and the Environment. Therefore, a Scottish MP looking to advance his career by voting with the Government can be reasonably sure that his constituents will disregard his voting record on matters that have no direct effect upon Scotland.

Perhaps the most famous case of Scottish MPs overturning the legitimate democratic wishes of England was the controversial 2004 top-up fees vote which the Government won by five votes. What really rankled was not the fact that Scottish MPs had overturned the wishes of English MPs on a matter that concerned England, nor even that New Labour had reneged on their 2001 Manifesto pledge: “We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them”. No, what really rankled was the rank hypocrisy of the Scottish Labour Party which opposed top-up fees in Scotland yet voted for them in England.

The Leader of the Labour Group in Scotland is Iain Gray MSP. However, thanks to a quirk of the Labour Party constitution, the Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland is Gordon Brown, who also happens to be the Leader of the UK Party. The interesting thing about Gordon Brown's leadership of both the Scottish and UK Labour parties is that he might well pursue polar opposite social policies for Scotland and England. It's very likely that Gordon Brown will be defeated in a general election, or ousted from power by his own party, before another vote as contentious as the top-up fees vote comes along, but if not he could find himself in the invidious position of proposing progressive policies for Scotland and punitive measures for England.

The rationale for this behaviour is that Scotland should be allowed to pursue policy choices that are different from England, that are right for Scotland, and which command popular support in Scotland. Few people can have any argument with that. But surely England too should be allowed to decide for itself, to decide what is right for England in accordance with our democratic wishes. So why then do Scottish MPs vote on our legislation? No one in Scotland votes for Gordon Brown to represent them in areas like Health and Education because those are matters for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, and no one in England votes for him to represent their interests on those policy areas either. So by what right does he govern and vote on Health and Education in England?

Anyone?

There are those that believe that too much is made of this so-called 'West Lothian Question'. The English can live with the odd piece of legislation going against their democratic wishes every now and then – for the sake of the Union. And perhaps they are right, perhaps we can tolerate it.

But it's not just the odd bit of unwanted legislation that is foisted upon England, it's an entire government. Non-English MPs prop up an unpopular and unwanted government that governs England in its entirety. Votes like top-up fees, foundation hospitals, 42-days detention and the third runway at Heathrow were only won with the aid of non-English MPs. Losing votes like these is what breaks governments. And when you consider that the Conservatives won the plurality of the English vote at the last general election, you begin to see how very undemocratic our system is. Not only is England denied the government of its choosing, the chances of us kicking out the government that we don't want is compromised by the very presence of non-English MPs in the parliament that governs us.

Do we just ban non-English MPs from voting on English legislation, or do we also ban them from the electoral college that selects and sustains our government; English votes, or an English parliament?

Should Scottish MPs be permitted in Cabinet, to govern England now that Scotland has a government of its own; or should there be separate English and UK executives?

And should we also bar Northern Irish MPs on the same basis, and the Welsh too if the Assembly gets legislative power?

These are the stark choices that the national conversation must tackle and I'm sure we all look forward to hearing Ed Milliband's thoughts on the matter. He's tipped as a future leader you know!

The Guardian reports David Cameron's plan to reduce the number of MPs at Westminster by ten per cent:

The Tories would not change the number of Scottish constituencies, which were cut at the behest of English cabinet ministers, such as Jack Straw, as the price of their support for a Scottish parliament. But Cameron would reduce the number of Welsh seats from 40 to around 30 and would cut small inner-city constituencies. These changes would benefit the Tories.

When Scottish constituency boundaries were altered (years after they should have been) the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster was reduced from 72 to 59 to bring Scottish constituency sizes broadly in line with those in England.

Any reduction in the number of English MPs should be accompanied by a proportionate reduction in Scottish MPs, especially as Scotland now has a legislative parliament and national government which have the effect of reducing the caseload of Scottish MPs whilst providing fewer opportunities for them to represent the legitimate interests of their constituents at Westminster (and they will be excluded from Committee and Report Stages under Ken Clarke's scheme).

So why maintain Scottish numbers when the Tories only have one Scottish MP?

1. The Tories do not want to antagonise Scottish nationalists in any way, and they will resist any measure that could lead to them being cast in the role of the anti-Scottish nasty-party.

2. The Tories want to ensure they have at least one Scottish MP, and maintaining Scottish representation at Westminster is the surest way of achieving their goal.

3. Although, in theory, a higher proportion of Scottish MPs increases the likelihood of the West Lothian Question being raised, a reduction in the numbers of inner-city Labour MPs in England reduces the chance of Scottish Labour MPs tipping the balance.

By these means Cameron increases the chances of having at least one Scottish Tory at Westminster, the Scots see him treating Scotland favourably, he reduces Labour's parliamentary numbers, and lessens the propensity for the West Lothian Question to raised when the House divides along party lines (as it invariably does).

As for the Welsh, I think they have reason to feel aggrieved, especially as the Tories are dithering on law-making powers for the Welsh Assembly.

Gordon Brown, The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution (1980):

It is scandalous for the British Treasury to deny that it is capable of devolving any powers to levy tax when so many other countries do it. Most of all, a revised Scotland Act could embody some form of the 'in-and-out' principle. Under such a principle the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating England or Welsh domestic matters. The 'in-and-out' principle ought to be attractive to Conservatives since it would ensure them a semi-permanent majority on most social issues at Westminster - no small prize. Labour remains formally committed to devolution and may be expected to consider a plan along these lines in the future.

Today Gordon Brown neither wants Scotland to levy taxes, or Scottish MPs to be excluded from English domestic affairs.

"English votes for English laws, for example, is a recipe for the executive, that is the government, drawing its authority from two different kinds of Parliament, and that would push the Union apart and make it impossible for Britain to hold together. And I just want to emphasise that the dividing line is increasingly between those of us who are prepared to support shared values of the Union and the shared institutions that we brought about, and those who are prepared to play fast and loose with the Union and are prepared to put the whole future of the Union at risk".

Très convenient! Having played hard and fast with the Union to Scotland's benefit, he now seeks to deny England some of the same, and also wants to keep Scotland tied to England's spending commitments because "Sharing the revenue from taxable resources across the different parts of the Union according to where they are needed is a very tangible sign of the solidarity that binds the different nations of the UK together." The same used to be said for sharing the same parliament, Gordon.

Alfie has a typically entertaining post entitled 'Scottish MPs - what do they actually do?' over at Waking Hereward. Well worth a read.

First stop is to the website of Gavin Strang (Labour, Edinburgh East). We are at Gav’s site first because he has provided a useful ‘MP or MSP’ button on his website. This will presumably stop all those embarrassing episodes at his surgery when he has to tell a constituent that he will have to take up the matter with the MSP Organ Grinder and not with him, the MP oily rag....

According to his site, Strang is responsible for - The Constitution, Defence, Foreign affairs, Electricity, coal, oil & gas, Nuclear energy, Employment, Financial and economic matters, Social security...

As the Ministry of Justice made abundantly clear in their letter to me last week, Scottish MPs are elected on an equal footing to represent their constituents in the UK Parliament, even if their constituents actually elected someone else - a Member of the Scottish Parliament - to another place, and in another election, to represent them on the majority of business that occupies the UK Parliament.

Gordon Brown, the member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, has been elected to represent his constituents and therefore legitimately holds a seat in the UK Parliament.

The question is, in what matters did Brown's constituents actually elect him to represent them?

If one compares the 2005 Labour Party UK Manifesto with the 2005 Scottish Labour Party Manifesto, which were both issued prior to the UK General Eelection, confusion reigns. The Scottish manifesto takes credit for measures that have gone through the Scottish Parliament, and makes promises to Scotland over policy areas that are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive:

• Investing in schools
• Action to reduce long NHS waits
• We have also turned around Scotland’s tourism industry
• We are completing the gaps in the road network and will make major investment to complete the M74,upgrade the A8 and A80,and build the second Kincardine Bridge and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.
• As we continue investment and reform, we will drive for ambitious, excellent secondary schools across Scotland.
• In Scotland, we have abolished up-front tuition fees and introduced access payments of up to £2,000, targeted at students from lower income families, funded by the Graduate Endowment.
• We will deal with the challenge of MRSA.
• In Scotland, pensioners will continue to benefit from our free central heating and home insulation programme.
• Labour has already delivered free local off-peak bus travel for Scottish pensioners.
• We are improving Scotland’s unique Children’s Hearing System.
• In Scotland, Labour aims to improve nursery provision for three-and four-year-olds.
• We are providing the public with more convenient access to much better information about health and health services through the National Waiting Times Database.*
• We will modernise Scotland’s licensing laws. **

* Curiously the National Waiting Times Database is not mentioned in the UK Manifesto.

** Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Basically the manifesto is a load of old bollocks, a confusing mix of devolved boasts and reserved promises. Considering this, given that Gavin Strang was elected on this hybrid Scottish-UK manifesto, if I were his constituent I would absolutely insist that he raised my concerns pertaining to devolved matters in the UK Parliament. After all, they were part of the manifesto on which he was elected.