Some of Britain's more bruised politicians, surveying the broadcasting
coverage of Alex Salmond's appearance before his party faithful at Aviemore,
must have wondered what the Scottish First Minister had that they didn't,
for no cloud was permitted by the BBC or anyone else to cross the saltire
sky.
Part of it was novelty, of course; Salmond in power is new, even if the
impulses he represents are as old as any Cairngorm cave. Some of it was the
particular and material appeal that Salmondism possesses for the
journalistic classes, gesturing left while acting right. Who benefits from
dropping all prescription charges and all student fee contributions, given
that the poor were already exempt? What could be nicer than congratulating
yourself on your public virtue while pocketing the state's largesse?
So the man got the benefit of the doubt and not a word did I hear questioning
the constant tone of national chauvinism running through the Aviemore
speeches. Allow me to parse one of them for you. “People,” predicted Mr
Salmond, “will look askance at the budget squeeze on Scotland when this
morning's price of Brent crude is $86 a barrel... and the revenues from
Scotland's North Sea resources flood into the Chancellor's coffers.” So, if
the minority SNP administration finds it cannot afford to subsidise
Scotland's middle classes to the extent it has promised, it will be the
fault of the English who have stolen the oil revenues. Or, as John Swinney,
the SNP finance minister, said, creating an image that politics could have
done without: “Our black gold is filling the Chancellor's self-inflicted
black hole.”
I worry about the SNP because I hate this scapegoating business. “The London
way,” said Mr Swinney, “means taxes on small businesses go up and a squeeze
on Scotland's public services takes an effect.” The London Way. Or, at other
times in other places, the Irish Way, the Jewish Way, the Way of the Other.
It may be that some of our commentators have got it into their heads that the
SNP has given up on all that separatist stuff and is mellowing with
government into something that has the cardinal virtue of being (a) in power
and (b) not Labour. I prefer to take Mr Salmond at his word, however, when
he made it clear that independence is still the goal. I even do him the
courtesy of perceiving how his tactics of constantly blaming his limitations
on Westminster fit in with his longer-term strategy of winning an
independence referendum.
Even so, the full separatist Monty will be uncomfortable act to perform.
Though more than 60 per cent of Scots could envisage one day endorsing
independence, support in Scotland currently runs at less than a quarter. And
it isn't hard to see why. Though polls for the Scottish Parliament put
Labour and the SNP level at 32 per cent each, at the Westminster level
Labour gets 40 per cent compared with the SNP's 31 per cent and Gordon Brown
is given a higher approval rating than Mr Salmond.
This lack of enthusiasm for separation also comes before any real
consideration of how any referendum would be framed or governed. Who will be
allowed to vote? All Scots in England and Wales? Would the English and Welsh
electorates be given the opportunity similarly to vote on any proposed
settlement between their countries and Scotland? The more you think about
it, the worse it gets. It reminds me of the Australian referendum on getting
rid of the Queen, where the majority had originally wanted a different head
of state, but no one could agree who that should be.
But if the Scots could not be relied upon by the SNP to show the necessary
militancy, what might not be achieved if the English, fired by resentment,
were to provoke them? And, as though dispatched by a tartan deity, along
comes the veteran Tory Sir Malcolm Rifkind with proposals that may have that
exact effect.
Sir Malcolm, whom I suspect of possessing a sense of humour, was a Cabinet
Minister and the pro-devolution MP for Edinburgh Pentlands. Swept away in
the Blairite tsunami of 1997, he finally fetched up sodden, far to the south
on the coast of Kensington like something out of Shakespeare, where he
replaced Michael Portillo.
It is this second Rifkind who has rediscovered the venerable West Lothian
Question, which posits the notion that it is terminally unfair for English
MPs not to be able to vote on Scottish matters, while Scots can and do vote
on English ones. “When the House of Commons is purely discussing English
housing or English health or English transport,” asks Sir Malcolm, “then why
should that not just be left to the English Members of Parliament to decide
upon?” Well, the main reason is that such a limitation would mean that it
would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish
constituency ever again to become Prime Minister, party leader, Chancellor
of the Exchequer or to head a big spending ministry. There would be no more
Browns, Ming Campbells, Charlie Kennedys, Alistair Darlings, Alec
Douglas-Homes or Scottish Rifkinds (though London Rifkinds would be
allowed). You could not be a credible candidate for high office if you were
not able to discuss the affairs of that 80 per cent of the UK population
that lives in England.
The snag is that the idea of fairness suggested by the West Lothian Question
is essentially childish. It was a big, big problem that a House of Commons
in which English MPs outnumbered Scottish ones by eight to one (it is now
ten to one) could decide all domestic policies for Scotland. It is not,
under almost all foreseeable circumstances, a comparably big problem that 59
Scottish MPs might vote on English matters, given that there are 533 English
MPs. The English cannot be outvoted by the Scots, period.
Of course there is an anomaly, and it arises from the very different sizes of
the component nations of the United Kingdom. But we either live with that
anomaly, or else we iron it out and the Union with it. For what Scot would
want to remain in the UK for five minutes if told that the premiership and
the main office-holders would, of constitutional necessity, be English MPs?
Meanwhile, if I were a blackmailer I'd leave the minor royals alone and set up
watch on Alex Salmond's Edinburgh domicile to see if, one chilly dawn, I
couldn't snap a lean Tory Scot exiting with a wicked smile. Really, it's the
only explanation.
David Aaronovich and Gordon Brown both underestimate the resentment of the English over patent unfairness of the current position. It doesn't matter if the Scots MPs votes can't, on their own, overwhelm the English; but the fact that Scottish Labour MP's can be called on to bulldoze unpopular legislation is clearly unacceptable.
Before this half-hearted devolution process was begun, there was no call from the English voters for a say in purely English affairs. The Scots, on the other hand, were convinced that "London" was treating them badly. The English were and still are the only ones who consider themselves British. (Apologies for the generalisation, but the general point is I think valid.)
Malcolm Rifkind's proposals are a reasonable starting point. Simply dismissing the issue, as Brown and the Labour spokespeople have done, will not make it go away..
GB became leader of his party despite 80% of the issues and constituencies being in England. Why is PM different?
James McMeehan Roberts, Petersfield, UK
Surely the problem with devolution in the UK lies with he EU?
Scotland, wales, and Northern Ireland are EU regions, England isn't, so there is no chance of an English Parliament.
Richard Edwards, COVENTRY, England
Some consideration, missing from your article, should surely be given to Northern Ireland.
David Moss, London, UK
Wicked plot? Is not that a little childish? Let the
English have a say in their affairs and back to Scotland with this labour rabble!
Nick, London, UK
The article just side steps the real issue by being smug.
- The Scots can't out vote the English en masse, so there's nothing for the English to worry about. - that's not the point and it is fundamentally dishonest to suggest so.
The point is that one party is able to impose policies on a part of the UK with help of votes that do not have to take responsibility for those policies. A new form of rotten boroughs for the 21st century?
Would it be childish to suggest that if those votes went to the tories rather than labour that the article would have been in favour of a change?
Steve, Brighton, UK
We used to be an unitary state, there lies the problem david, freedom for the kingdom of fife i say.
sean morris, sheffield, UK
Too right, Andrew Marr's interview was more a love-in. No questioning of the rights and wrongs of petty nationalism and breaking up the union over tax calculations
But.. the current system is unfair and Labour needs a better answer than 'there are more English people'
Adrian, London,
Spot on article.The Tories want to Scotland to be independent and go for the Euro Currency.Then Cameron and his right wing Tories can as they have always planned is to leave the EU. Cameron then can be the Leader of the Principality of Little England with the same influence in the World as Monaco and the other minor tax havens.What he forgets is he wont have the revenue from the oil and gas in Scotland to support his Little England population.Cameron please show some vision.
Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall
As a Scot who has been living in, and having been treated very fairly, in England for the last 8 years I would like to indicate that the "ignorance" has been going on far longer than you indicate. Perhaps it will be only a from the advantage of distant hindsight that many people in the 'south' of these islands will realise than many Scots voted for devolution precisely to quell the Nationalists and that with southern support, in principle, it could have been more successful. It should have also allowed the pertinent English debates to have occurred almost a decade earlier.
David, I think you are wrong to liken the 'London Way' to a pejorative approach to other people groups or scapegoat-ism. I am no supporter of SNP but I think they advocate a 'civic nationalism' which is completely unlike BNP and their ilk. 'London' indicates an administrative label, such as 'Brussels' or 'Washington'.
David Scott, St Albans, England, UK
I see mr brown has sent you your copy again!. It appears wrongly or rightly to us English that we pay and scotland benifits for things like free education and cancer treatments.let them go and they will soon be back when the bankrupt themselves.
Labour fataly damaged the union and all the excuses wont alter that fact ,osing control politicaly was just ironic.
mitch, wolverhampton, England
Why is it “bye bye Scotland†if Scots MPs can’t vote on English matters?
It didn’t seem to be a problem when Scots MPs were not allowed to vote on Scottish matters! After ten years, they should be getting used to being excluded.
If the Union is threatened, it’s because of Labour’s disastrous partial devolution policies and not by the Tories attempts to give equality to England.
Terry , Aylesbury, England
"(..>) such a limitation would mean that it would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish constituency ever again to become Prime Minister (...)"
Yet the converse is true?
Blair managed being PM without such a say in the lives of 10% of the population - he was scottish though which may have softened the blow.
The US operates in a similar manner many powers being devolved to the states and yet appears to function resonably well.
JonB, Glasgow, UK
Alex Salmond is peddling divisive poison to supporters carefully encouraged into thinking that oil wealth is there simply for the taking.
As Terence Troutmouth, his ideational English counterpart has said, " Considering that England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain within the Union, we see little reason for giving the Scots more than a token slice of Britain's oil taxation, especially when you consider that we have the nukes. However we are agreed that the grabbing Shetlanders should get nothing".
John Scott, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear
What spurious nonsense! By this logic English MP's should be allowed to vote in the Scottish parliament, and indeed stand for the Scottlish leadership. Whilst the article points to the numbers of MP's involved as justification for maintaining the status quo, it hides from the central issue here - it's grossly unfair!! Oh, and let's not pretend that the 'sprinkling' of Scottish (Labour) MP's haven't had everything to do with sustaining the government's thin mandate to govern over the 80% that have no say in Scottish affairs...and the architects of all this? A Scottish PM and 10 years of a Scottish stuffed cabinet.
Ex-pat, Chicago, USA
All your Scottish posters "how can 59 Scots outvote....." etc might like to be reminded how a minor country can have a very unfair influence on the Kingdom.
Were it not for the Celtic vote, the ONLY labour government we would ever have had prior to 1997 was the postwar one (1944) - and still they whinge!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
David Aaronovitch is talking naive rubbish and completely misses the moral point.
How can it be right for scottish MPs to vote down the wages of English nurses knowing that this does not affect their constituents who vote for them, and also having no authority to legislate for the same in their own constituencies.
Devolution was created on nationalistic lines - not regional. The correct answer is to think in terms of nations and thus England and not regions of England. Later it might be for English people to determine their own regionalism, but as things stand if this were voted on in parliament scottish MPS would have a say.
English votes on English matters is self evidently fair, I cannot understand why anybody in scotland should be opposed to it, perhaps they can explain. far from breaking it - it seems the best way of preserving it.
TrevorH, OXON,
The logic here is so flawed you wonder who David is in cahoots with.
If English MPs outnumber Scots by 553 to 59, is it any wonder that Scots MPs would rarely be PM or Chancellor? However, given the party system, there is no reason at all why they could not be.
Yes, English MPs voted for policies that affected all the UK including Scotland, but I am not aware of them voting for policies that exclusively concerned Scotland and no-one else. The whole point is that Devolution has created the possibility of policies applying in England and not Scotland, and vice versa, and therefore raises for the first time the question of who should vote on them.
Anthony, London, UK
Rubbish .There is a real problem problem in devolution caused by Labour's absurd scheme for introducing it.As it stands it is like a practice run for full Scottish independence.Sooner or later there will be a resolution-either an English Assembly with the same powers as Scotland's,or the break-up of theUnion.
COLIN , Hong Kong,
"Well, the main reason is that such a limitation would mean that it would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish constituency ever again to become Prime Minister, party leader, Chancellor of the Exchequer or to head a big spending ministry. There would be no more Browns, Ming Campbells, Charlie Kennedys, Alistair Darlings, Alec Douglas-Homes or Scottish Rifkinds (though London Rifkinds would be allowed)."
Bring on English devolution!!!
Bill, Madrid,
Those 59 Scottish MPs have a vote on matters for which they hold no democratic accountability, and they represent a large amount of the Labour majority that enables the pushing through of legislation that negatively affects English consistuents but does not affect the Scots ones. Without this undemocratic majority, Labour would struggle in continuing to force England to do its bidding. If the Labour party no longer believes in democracy then it needs to state this clearly and justify why.
Helen, northants,
So, when Scottish MP's vote to raise the student tuition fee in England to £5000 it won't effect Aaronovitch's children. Small change to him. And when Scottish MP's vote on the new diploma for England his children will be taking the IB at an Independent school.
james c, reading,
There is no reason why constitutional reform cannot take place, whilst preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom. This stoked up spectre of English nationalism only serves to render more harm than good for the Union - to the great detriment of England. England, like Scotland, is best served through the Union. It gives us more clout in the EU and at the UN.
It has only been through our unity that our diversity has prospered - Scot or English, we only truly know ourselves when we define ourselves in opposition to the other. But what is stopping us from remaining united? Blind nationalist chauvinism, and some irrational belief that we are better off without each other, serves no good end to either.
What ever would stop the Union from continuing if we were federated? Federation works well in Australia, Canada, America, Germany etc etc. Provided we find a solution to our own peculiar requirements, what is to say it would not work for Britain, too?
Take care with what we wish for.
Tim Palmer, Leicester, UK
Some people on here seem to beleive that all of England's identity problems will be solved if only there is an English Parliament. On the contrary an English Parliament would cause the English to face up to their own discontents. Some of these are: many northern English regions will find that culturally they are closer to Scotland; some in the south west feel little loyalty to London. London itself now acts as a world city and has lost the loyalty of its hinterland. When Thatcher and Blair destroyed English local government they took the wrong turn. Local government allowed the regions to express theiri individual personalities while remaining, overall, loyal English British citizens. Add to this the cultural and economic stress of mass immigration and the fact that there is no political party which could command anything approaching 50% of the vote.
Carol, UK,
It is preposterous to pretend that the UK is a single country. The Scots have a different political culture. It is statist, sectarian and communitarian and far to the left of the more Liberal and individualistic outlook in England. The Scots put themselves first and, as a consequence, are treated much better than the English within the UK - receiving far more than could be rationally justified. Joel Barnett says so! It only takes place because some very powerful interests wish to preserve the contrivance which is the 'United' Kingdom. Left to their own devices Scotland would have it's larger and interfering state and England would be happier (and probably more successful) with a leaner government. Let them go....
william clouston, Corbridge, Northumberland
Who are these people that claim to be the majority? As an engishman by birth but British by nature I for one do not want to see the Sots leave he union. I'm a yorkshireman born and bred but I feel much more affinity with the Scots than I ever will with the good people from the south of this island of ours.
derek , east yorkshire,
you're wrong - it does make a BIG difference. Most voting English MPs opposed foundation hospitals and university top-up fees but the Scottish MPs made up the deficit and ensured these became law in England.
mungo, london, UK
I was never aware until oil was found in the north sea how much the Scots disliked the English - when the English had nothing but good will towards the Scots, and were happy to support them in all sorts of ways - then they became sick with greed because for the first time ever they thought they can get on better without us (but still seem to want our handouts) - now could be a good time to dump them - who needs to be associated with such people - home rule for England.
Marty, London, England
Childish? If anyone in any Western liberal democracy outside the UK was to suggest something similar they would be ridiculed out of existence. Can you imagine what Queensland voters might say if it was suggested that NSW state MPs would be sitting in the Queensland State Parliament and voting on Queensland matters. Or if members of the Virginia State legislature were given the opportunity to attend and vote at meetings of the Maryland General Assembly.
Nothing more demonstrates Britain's ramshackle constitution than the current situation and the idea that it's 'childish' to object. OK Scots MPs won't outvote English MPs - but they can convert a minority to a majority and to that extent play a wholly anti-democratic role. It has been said that Britain was constitutionally illiterate - this is proof of that fact.
And what is infuriating is that Labour created this mess for party advantage and Labour and its friends resist correcting that mess for the same reason.
H, London,
"The snag is that the idea of fairness suggested by the West Lothian Question is essentially childish" - what a load of garbage. Just another media lefty luvvy trying to defend the indefensible. Fairness is a principle and you cannot choose what you want to be fair about. But then in new labour speak fairness means unfairness. The MP voting issue is a scandal - just like the differential treatment of university tuition fees, social care etc. The author's friends in labour were the ones who created this problem but rather than own up and criticise just how unfair this situation is he's desperate to avoid labour getting thrashed in Scotland and losing power in England.
But it is your labour lot Mr. A who will be responsible - because even an electorate as tolerant as the English will eventually baulk at this rip-off. How does the inequity between English and Scottish fit with equal rights for EU citizens? You cant have it both ways.
Pete, Newbury,
If this happens it will mean more work for MSPs. At the moment many laws are pushed through on 'the nod' or deferred to Westminster, despite being devolved issues. This is why the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic (Scotland) Act are the same (and there are many other examples). The SNP are basing all of their calculations on the tax take from oil. What happens when the price of oil drops again or it runs out, where is the SNP to get its money from then? The SNP live in cloud cuckoo land and prove, time and again, that put in charge they would bring Scotland to its knees in next to no time.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Problems that are willfully ignored in this article include the fact that the vast majority of Scottish Westminster MP's hold the labour whip, thus creating the situation whereby an unpopular piece of legislation in England is passed through parliament by MP's whose constituents won't be affected (tuition fees, etc). Also the notion that it would be a bad thing if this were to happen, as there may never be a Scottish Prime Minister governing England again(barring 'expats'), is a bit disingenuous. This is precisely the situation that has now occurred in Scotland, whereby an English person is never likely ever again to be the Scottish First Minister or indeed a Scottish MP. The English were banned from Scottish affairs a long time ago, maybe it is time that logic applied south of the border.
Chris Taylor, Fowey, England
On the question of the free prescriptions only the benefitting the rich - on the contrary, there is then no need for the red tape associated with exemptions, removing bureaucracy and benefitting us all.
Michael Brooks, Manchester, UK
I read all of this article in the vain hope of finding one well made point. Unfortunately I didn't. Why? Beacause the whole premis of the article is flawed. The simple fact of the matter is this: It is totally unfair for scotish MP's to vote on English matters when English MP's do not get a vote on Scottish matters. Period.
Andrew, London,
I've got news for you - the English already want the Scots to leave the union. It's high time the Scots started to vomit in their own gutters and learnt how to urinate in their own shop doorways. Who knows we may be able to get on a late-night bus without a drunken Scotsman trying to pick a fight.
Scottish independence would be like getting off a mattress - the rest of the country would rebound into shape.
We'll build a big flashing neon sign on the border. . . . 'good riddence to bad rubbish'.
Handbags, Bristol,
"When the House of Commons is purely discussing English housing or English health or English transport,†asks Sir Malcolm, “then why should that not just be left to the English Members of Parliament to decide upon?†Well, the main reason is that such a limitation would mean that it would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish constituency ever again to become Prime Minister, party leader, Chancellor of the Exchequer or to head a big spending ministry"
Well why not follow the logic of your argument and say that in the current circumstances manufactured by your beloved New Labour it is impossible for an English MP to be leader, Chancellor or head of a big spending ministry in the Scottish Parliament? is this any more fair or desirable?
The relevance of the West Lothian question and the injustice of the current position are obvious to any intelligent person (yourself included) and to be in favour must mean one is either unintelligent or one's motives are malign.
Roger, Huddersfield,
Lets be honest. The majority of British people would love to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom.
We would all be better off in England, Wales and NI and not having to pay for them!
Scotland has a negative impact on the propsperity and wealth of the UK, not a positive one. So why would anyone in England. Wales or NI want to keep them?
Lets just have a referendum in the rest of the UK as to whether to force Scotland to leave instead of leaving it up to the Scottish to decide. Of course we wont have a referendum because politicians know what the result would be. We would vote Scotland out!
Francis, Birmingham, England
I simply don't understand why Sir Malcolm is promoting this idea. It's a non-starter constitutionally and would throw up all kinds of anomalies. For example, would tax income to the Exchequer from Scotland be ring-fenced so it would only be spent on Scotland-only or UK-only legislation? A lot of legislation that is purportedly England-only is adopted in Scotland with changes to suit our legal system. How would that be fair if we could not have a direct say? Maybe David is right and Sir Malcolm is really a closet nationalist! There are only two options to resolving the so-called 'West Lothian Question'. Full independance for England and Scotland or a fully federated state. My preference is for the latter, simply because we are half-way there already. Scotland's relationship with England has been quasi-federal since 1707; Northern Ireland (with hiccups) since 1921. Each state looks after its own affairs with a small assembly for UK issues. Problem sorted and we can all be friends again.
Bob H, Glasgow, UK
The simple fact is, the English people want an English Parliament.
The English people don't much care what the likes of Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, David Cameron or David Aaronovitch say is good for the "United" Kingdom. They see with their own eyes the antipathy, if not downright hatred, the Scots and virtually all of our politicians (and David Aaronovitch?) have for England and the English.
All polls show that the English want their own parliament, not "regions" or some blasted "Grand Committee".
Now, if democracy is good enough for Bush, Blair and Brown to bomb into Iraq, then it's good enough for the English.
So, at the very least, the English should be offered a referendum offering an English Parliament.
Stephen Gash, Carlisle, England
if subsidiarity were properly practiced, this wouldn't be an issue. if there is any area where it is deemed reasonable for the laws and systems in scotland to depart from a uk-wide norm, then those are areas over which no scottish mp should vote when it comes to what happens in england. the fact that scottish mps have managed to get measures through which only affect england and to which the majority of english mps are opposed is a disgrace. and it's not a disgrace in theory; it is a disgrace in practice (as evidenced by earlier correspondents).
there's not really much justification for interference by national government other than in a small range of matters. being lumbered with the scottish party for the last 10 years, with their grubby fingers in every pie, should have been cause for revolt.
jem, london, uk
What a rubbish argument! If it was true that only English MP's could politically speaking hold the big offices of state, then surely a talented Scot would simply take a seat in England.
To have the Queen or not? Oh such big Issues to stand in the way of independence! Could Scots in England vote? Oh we'll have to rethink the whole thing, its all too complicated.
You don't want independence for Scotland because the inbuilt labour tranche of 40 odd labour MP's would vanish forever. If you want to talk about separation, get onto the substantive issues of why it would be better or worse for each of the parties involved.
Kierqn, London, UK
I'm afraid that Mr Aaronovitch's attempt to support the botched devolution for Scotland bill in its present form just won't wash. The real objection to any change either from him or other Nu-Labour apologists is the possibility that the plan for a permanent Labour gulag will be fatally weakened if the English decided on a little self-determination. My personal preference now would be for total independence for England to rid us of the socialist instincts that appear to govern the Scottish, but I would settle for less provided there was some fairness in the arrangement. Mr Aaronovitch might be happy to allow virtual strangers to govern every aspect of his life but I feel that most of us like our rulers to come from nearer home.
Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England
Methinks Mr. Aaronovitch doth confuse "discuss" and "vote." I've nothing against any Scots, Welsh or Irish MP putting his point of view on any matter whatsoever in a British and NI House of Commons. I do have a problem with anyone voting on an issue that does not affect them, be it Irish MP's voting on Scotland-only issues or English MP's voting on Wales-only issues. The basic rule should be that once a subject has been ceded to a regional Parliament, MP's from that region should be banned from voting on such matters in the national Parliament.
Mark, Bedford,
"Well, the main reason is that such a limitation would mean that it would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish constituency ever again to become Prime Minister, party leader, Chancellor of the Exchequer or to head a big spending ministry."
This is precisely the attitude that makes Scots wary of the English. You firmly believe that minor English affairs are what matters, and that Scottish and Welsh affairs are an afterthought. That is the whole problem. You are not helping.
Dough, london, uk
Although I have lived all my adult life in the UK and I am a British citizien, I was born and grew up in my native Portugal.
That means that, not being as emotionally involved with the Union as those who were born here, I think I can take a more detatched and, possibly more constructive view of this sensitive matter.
I have long been of the opinion that as nationalist feelings have grown in Wales and especially in Scotland, that the best answer for keeping the Union, would be for the United Kingdom to become, instead, a Federal Kingdom.
Each nation with its own National Parliament/Assembly, with power devolved between the National and Federal Westminster Parliaments.
Too much Goverment? Well, why not dispense with County Councils who are remote and largely faceless, while devolving their powers to the National Parliaments and PROPER accountable Local Councils.
F Ribeiro, Cambridge
Francisco Ribeiro, Cambridge,
"This is just plain wrong. England voted for a Conservative Govt in 2005."
Indeed, but England got an absolute majority of Labour MPs becase of the English first-past-post-sytem. Nothing to do with Scots at all.
If English people want free prescriptions, etc then elect a government with a mandate to do so, that of course puts the resposibility on you to do something rather than whinge and scapegoat.
H Scott, Edinburgh,
I do not see why the grand committee idea would prevent a Scottish PM or Chancellor.
It would prevent a Scottish Education Secretary, or Health Minister etc. But for issues that concern both nations, such as Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minstership itself this should be open to both parties
chris, london, uk
All this has come about because of New Labour stupidity in setting up devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales. I could not see anything wrong in the United Kingdom as it was before this disastrous New Labour experiment.
Thomas Ralphs, Leigh, Lancashire
Aaron apparently needs a lesson in voting - it is not that the Scots would "outnumber" the English, but that they can swing a majority from one to the other. Labour is now howling that preventing Scottish MPs from voting in English-only matters will lead to the dissolution of the Union - well they should have thought of that before creating the Scottish Parliament... and Welsh Assembley!
And I'm a Scot!
Dominic Graham de Montrose, London,
1) A separate English parliament is unnecessary. But to have only English MPs voting on English legislation is an excellent idea. It's called democracy.
2) The Labour party (naturally) says this would be inconvenient. They should have thought through the effects of devolution long ago.
3) It would not prevent Scottish MPs becoming ministers, or Prime Minister. It would simply mean that they could not legislate on solely English matters unless they had the support of a majority of English MPs for the proposed measure.
4) Generally speaking, the more devolution the better. But successive governments have tightened central control. We have probably the most centralized government in the western world. A lot of our problems stem from this.
5) The above suggestion would not lead to the break-up of the Union; it might well be the only means of saving it.
6) A final thought for the Tories: in 1955 they held half the Scottish seats.They should ponder why this is no longer so.
Dave, Wrexham,
Are you really that dim to expect us not to realise that all the most contentious legislation was pushed through with Scottish votes?
Of course the Scots can outvote the English , every time it is close their votes make the difference
How can it be fair that the taxpayers of SE England are forced to pay for the Scots without a vote on how the money is spent
Roll on Scottish independence and while we are at it let's say goodbye to the Welsh and N Irish as well
We English would be so much richer without them
john sheppard, Bristol, England
Essentially, this article demonstrates a tranny of the minority; Scottish MP's will help shore up Labour votes for unpopular measures in England.
It is clear to me that at the moment we have a semi-union, neither one with Scotland nor completely separate. A choice has to be made, Labour cannot have it both ways - let England govern English matters. Anyone who can't see the neccessity of this simple measure needs a lesson in allowing citizens the right of self-determination. And give us a vote on the EU while your at it.
Charlie Thompson, London,
Time to get rid of the scots and set England free. Thats the point David. Democracy needs fairness and justice. The West Lothian question is unfair and unjust. English votes on English matters. If that leads to the end of the Union so be it.
Rob Champion, Lima, Peru
59 Scottish MPs thats all folks and the SNP does NOT vote on ENGLISH only issues.
I see no reason why the other Scottish MPs could'nt adopt this attitude towards English only issues.
Now,we in Scotland have had many years of English MPs deciding our fate,so stop moaning,get on to your local MP and demand that they follow your wishes in education,health and transport because these are the issues devolved to Scotland!
The rest are reserved matters,like which country the UK will invade next to give them democracy,or where we should plonk our WMDs!
Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow, Scotland
Scottish MPS...59
English MPs...533
May I have an explanation as to how 59 can outvote 533?
Come on you fair-minded English...produce a fair answer!
Patrick Campbell, Southampton,
Brown, Campbell, Kennedy, Darling and...
Blair. (born in Edinburgh)
Andy, Glasgow, Scotland
A scot (it is complicated since I was born in the US) who spent his working life in England I was wholly opposed to devolution but of course (?/ why not), I never had a vote; a Yorkshire cousin by marriage living in Scotland did have a vote.
Scottish devolution as expected has produced problems like 'the West Lothian queastion'. It seems a solution such as Rifkind's is a reasonable idea, together with reform of the Barnet formula.I hope the Tories go for it; Labour will try to prevent it for obvious self-interest.
Dr j Findlater, Carnforth,
This is just plain wrong. England voted for a Conservative Govt in 2005. A majority of English MP's voted against tuition fees. So iy is simply untrue that Scottish votes never impose policies on England that the English haven't voted for.
Bill, London, London
Yes David,time to ask the Question.
Things brewing over the boarder could put the sudo-socialists in bit of a mess and this needs to addressed by serious comment and commentators.
Then again who gives a stuff ?
The Labour majority reduced in Parliment for want of Scotish seats? Good! Let's have an English chamber for English affairs.
English,England, it's almost like swearing !!
With Mr Aaronovitch on board I always look for where the argument really lies.This one lies in fear.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
If, to get democratic equality for the English nation, it means bye-bye to Scotland then so be it. New Labour were at best lacking in foresight ,over the devolution issue, at worst, they were down right incompetent, The solution is simple and ensures the continuation of the Union. The HOL is due for reform, 100 "senators" are elected to that august institution and re-named The ....................... , each of the 4 countries has a dedicated Parliament housed in the existing governmental buildings - job done. There is no extra expenditure, no more tiers of politicians or bureaucrats and each Parliament would have to bring a watertight case to The..................... for fair and equal funding. Whatever, the existing state of affairs cannot continue.
Patrick Harris, Portsmouth, England
As Scottish MPs seem unaware that it is morally wrong for them to vote on non-Scottish matters, it seems we need laws to force acceptable behaviour.
Just another sign of Brown's moral bankruptcy
Paul, Exeter, UK
Jingoistic Tories & Scottish Nationalists: two sides of the same coin. They fail to understand you don't have to be parochial to be patriotic and that our ills aren't always the fault of others.
Ross, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Many countries operate a federal system of governance where power is devolved down to provinces or states. Typically this is in relation to local matters (i.e. health, education) and the federal goverment deals with national issues like the armed forces and foreign affairs.
There is no reason why creating an English Parliament or Regional Assemblies for England would harm the union. What we want is a fair system that gives people in the UK the best representation possible. In my view, that means devolution in England plus better devolution in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Ben, Sheffield,
After the next election we will most likely have a Scottish prime minister, for a scottish seat relying on the votes of scottish MPs to win every single vote and keep his govenment viable.
His government will continue to fleece the south of england to send money to scotland to provide benefits not available to the english voters who pay for them.
No other country in the world would tolerate this.
mat g, london, uk
So there we have it. In around 1000 words, most of them superfluous, the alibi of the non-democratic left. Anyone who asks the West Lothian Question is a mischievous (English) child who must be silenced before their irresponsibility destroys the Union.
No Mr Aaronovitch. The childishness was in the belief that the half-baked constitutional changes which brought about Scottish and Welsh devolution would reduce nationalism rather than feed it. If the Union ends because the English want their electoral equality restored, that will be where responsibility lies.
James Matthews, London,
The plot runs deeper than mere Scottish Nationalism. Scotland is one of the regions of the UK through which the EU plans to govern the UK when the Westminster government has become redundant; it is now by many estimates. The Tories spy a wheeze to wrong foot Labour but once England is more separate it will be so much bigger than the other regions it will need to be regionalized. It seems to me that neither the Tories nor Labour want to govern an independent UK. Thatcher gave the EU more power than any of her successors, and Major's concessions in Maastricht were the biggest of the lot. It is after all much easier to govern without the hassle of democracy. It looks as if we are about to pass the point of no return. The Tories know that Brown will not allow a referendum on the Treaty and they have not promised one when they in power. Labour will not be promising one so the Tories will not need to do anything to make themselves look different. It looks as if it is all over for the UK.
R Mason, London, UK
Seriously, devolution opened up a series of anomalies that together, not separately, create a problem. The combined effect is one that might one day, when the going is a lot tougher than today economically, create a lasting division at the Scots border.
Complete independence for England, or less devolution for Scotland. Those are the only lasting options.
Ole, Bergen, Norway
During all this debate David Cameron has very skillfully hidden his Scottish roots which go back hundreds of years on his fathers side. Although born in England, he obviously feels very Scottish(he doesn`t want an English parliament) otherwise why did he in a speech in Scotland on 15 Sept. 2006 call us, the English "SOUR LITTLE ENGLANDERS" and tell them they defeated ths Nazis(we south of the border, of couse had nothing to do with it) So the country has Scots in government and in opposition. So is it not obvious that Scotland dominated the Media output. Did anyone hear a reply from the English Democrats Party, NO! not allowed.
Raymond Groutage, Ringwood, Hampshire, England.
Salmond is deliberately antagonising the English so that they will eventually WANT the Scots to leave the Union albeit that the majority of Scots patently don't want to do so! His agenda is deliberate and manipulative with the apparent air of "common sense". I get angry at the unfairness of the West Lothian question, but this is a direct result of limited devolution ... a wrong headed notion in the first place and presupposes that Great Britain is indeed made up of a myriad set of people with massive differences. The opposite it true.
Steve, horsham, UK/West Sussex
Well if the English are too scared to even confront the tens of thousands of non-indigenes in their country who REALLY hate them then I can't see the Scots shaking in their boots.
ed lancey, london,
University tuition fees and the establishment of Foundation Trust hospitals were voted in by Scottish Labour MPs; without their votes neither would have occurred and do not occur in Scotland and so do not affect Scottish constituents. The call for English votes on English laws is democratic and fair and it is unreasonable for the author to claim otherwise.
Jonathan Allcock, Birmingham,
English votes on English matters does not mean bye-bye Scotland. It means that Parliament will not be able to use Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters, such as university top-up fees, foundation hospitals etc. and nothing more. National issues will still need all MPs to vote.
It will also mean that the provinces must stop relying on English largesse and pay their own way (or get it from Brussels).
As for not having Scottish PMs, Douglas-Home, Blair (yes he is a Scot) and Brown have not exactly been ones to admire.
Dave, Slough,
For all there has been a forced Union for 300 years - the English still do not understand the Scots . . .
. . . It’s that simple - and as in areas such as the Soviet Union have dissolved so should the antiquated hanging on desperation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be ended.
A new age of individualism and singular identity is feeding outward from the internet, and countries are becoming less relevant than ever. An independence for Scotland and England first - then a globalwide self determination for everyone to follow.
Jean Brodie, edinburgh, scotland
It is obvious that Scotland should no longer be part of the Union; the Scots fail to vote for the glorious, glorious Tory Party, the rightful rulers of the country.
If they fail to vote Conservative, why, away with them. Whatever may contribute to the return to power of the country's rightful Tory rulers is, by the very nature of things, unquestionably right.
Of course, should the Scots come to their senses and vote Conservative, any problems could be easily overlooked.
Perhaps we should go further and chuck out Wales; they fail to vote Tory too.
And perhaps we should get rid of the grim North and surly Midlands as well. They vote Labour far more than is proper.
Home Counties Home Rule!
Ahh, but London elected Livingstone; so...
Sovreignty for Surrey! And vote Tory. You know we should rule you!
John, Worcester,
Isn't this debate extraordinary. We indigenous Scots and English have the same genetic make-up ( proved in recent genetic study of the British isles) and have had a very successful union for 300 years. There are twice as many foreign immigrants in England as there are Scots in Scotland. What hope is there of properly integrating these foreigners if the Scots and English cant get on.
j gallagher, london, uk
After the next general election the Conservatives are likely to have a significant majority in England, but may lose to Labour because of Scottish and Welsh MPs.
The resentment in England is likely to grow strongly.
Bill Rees, Exeter,
I wonder what the outcome of a vote would be if the question was asked of English voters to let the Scots have their independence? I dont think there would be to much sadness at the scots going their own way. New Zealand seem to do alright with only 4 million.
Rob, Yorkshire via Auckalnd, new zealand
More transparency is needed on this issue. All Scottish MP's and Ministers (and there are plenty) should be obliged to wear their kilts when at Westminster and on TV.
john problem, london,
What a load of rot. It is no more childish for English people to resent having a Labour majority government imposed upon them through being propped up by votes from the Celtic fringe than it was childish for the Scots to resent being lumbered with a Tory government that they patently didn't want for so many years.
The solution obviously lies in either dissolving the Union altogether or federalising it by setting up an English Parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one.
The half-measure proposed by the Tories for when they next return to government can never work, because it is only a matter of time under such a proposal before you would have a Labour UK government back in power again, trying to run English domestic affairs but having to get all of its legislation past a Tory majority on the English Grand Committee. It would make effective administration a virtual impossibility.
Matt, Letchworth Garden City, Herts
"The English cannot be outvoted by the Scots, period."
True, but if the Scots MP's were taken out of the equation, how would the Labour majority look in Westminster? Significantly reduced is my bet - which is why Labour will never allow this to happen.
Ed, Livingston, Scotland
Its already bye bye Scotland thank to Labour. The Tories have nothing to loose and owe Scotland nothing. England will vote Tory, Scotland will vote SNP so yes it will be bye bye Scotland and Labour. Good move.
Johnny Norfolk, Mileham Norfolk, England
Well Aaron,
the English, as you pointed out in your article, have alreay had to live with the imposition of being governed by a gaggle of scottish socialists in sheeps clothing.
Browns, Ming Campbells, Charlie Kennedys, Alistair Darlings, Alec Douglas-Homes - we have had to put up and shut up.
A mini labour army of 59 tame votes at parliament can make a big difference in the world of politics.
Since when was natural justice ever childish?
Shane, Guildford, England
"...the main reason is that such a limitation would mean that it would be more or less impossible for an MP representing a Scottish constituency ever again to become Prime Minister, party leader, Chancellor of the Exchequer or to head a big spending ministry."
This isn't what the Tories are proposing, and it seems disingenuous to re-frame their proposal in this manner.
That said, I agree with David's main point and believe to continue down the road to tribalism will surely have divisive and unfortunate consequences.
David Farrell, Bangalore, India
After 300 years that such bickering is going on speaks volumes. This is a marriage of convenience that is no longer convenient to anyone except those that masquerade under 'Britishness'.
Eddie Reader, birmingham, england
I watched most of Mr Salmonds speech from southern England on so-called English television although what he had to say was entirely irrelevant to me. Nevertheless I ended up fervently wishing Scotland was my homeland. My lasting impression was his statement that he wished to govern in the interests of Scotland.
When will we have anyone to say the same for England?
Scilla Cullen
Campaign for an English Parliament
www.thecep.org.uk
Scilla Cullen, Hichin, Hertfordshire
without scotland the labour party is dead. even with tory voters paying for labour voters, there won't be enough turkeys left for the rest of to care whether they are prepared to vote for christmas.
maybe then the government will let the people get on with making everything work properly and not building a monolithic inefficient public sector, funded by those few who are still able to make their little cogs work properly.
without a labour government, we could actually afford most of what the labour government wants (or what it says it wants; clearly, snouts in the trough is what it actually wants).
jem, london, uk
"There would be no more Browns, Ming Campbells, Charlie Kennedys, Alistair Darlings, Alec Douglas-Homes or Scottish Rifkinds (though London Rifkinds would be allowed). "
What an excellent idea !!!
Andy, Taunton,