The West Lothian Red Herring

One thing which has driven the increase in England for Scotland to become independent is the West Lothian Question, or- as I call it- the West Lothian Red Herring.

Tam Dalyell was the Labour MP for West Lothian from June 1962 to June 1983, and (after the constituency boundaries were altered) for Linlithgow (the county of West Lothian was traditionally called Linlithgowshire) from June 1983 to May 2005 (being Father of the House of Commons from June 2001).

In the 1970s he asked the question about Scottish devolution- if Scotland had its own Parliament, why would he be able to vote on some things affecting England but not affecting Scotland? This was referred to a few minutes later by Enoch Powell as "the West Lothian Question" and the name stuck.

It is often phrased along the lines of "Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on health, education etc. matters affecting England but not Scotland?"

Why indeed?

Well, there is a simple answer- they can vote on these matters for Scotland!

The Scotland Act 1998 made very clear that ultimate sovereignty remained at Westminster. There are the "devolved matters" where the Scottish Parliament can pass legislation, and the "reserved matters", where it can't.

But- and this is the crucial misunderstanding- Westminster has priority over Holyrood for "devolved matters." In theory, 323 English MPs could pass a piece of legislation altering Scotland's health system, or school system- and even though these are devolved matters, the Scottish Parliament could do absolutely nothing about it. Indeed, the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, passed by Westminster, both included parts covering "devolved matters"- Westminster legislating for things Holyrood can legislate for.

Secondly, those raising the West Lothian Question forget that old slogan- "No Taxation Without Representation." The Scottish Executive draws its funding through a block grant, raised from taxes across the whole United Kingdom. The "driver" for the grant is the spending in England on things that are "devolved matters" in Scotland.

What happens if the call for "English votes for English laws" actually happened? Well, suppose a government plans legislation for English schools or hospitals. No effect on Scotland? Well, yes there is actually.

A government plans legislation on a "devolved matter", and this has the effect of reducing Government spending in that area. As a knock-on effect, the block grant received by the Scottish Executive goes down. Hence less money for them to spend in Scotland.

Alternatively, a government plans legislation on a "devolved matter", and this has the effect of increasing Government spending in that area, and as a consequence tax goes up. Tax goes up- just in England? No, in Scotland as well.

The third problem is a technical one- a "bifurcated Executive." Suppose that Labour has an overall majority in the United Kingdom as a whole, but the majority of English MPs are Conservative. An entirely feasible proposition. Sometimes critics look at John Reid (Airdrie & Shotts), the Home Secretary, and Douglas Alexander (Paisley & South Renfrewshire), the Transport Secretary and argue that Airdrie & Shotts and Paisley & South Renfrewshire are both in Scotland, and so Reid and Alexander are both holding Cabinet posts where they make decisions that in Scotland are dealt with by Cathy Jamieson (Scottish Minister for Justice) and Tavish Scott (Scottish Minister for Transport)- hence they make decisions that do not affect their constituents.

Firstly, it is not as clear cut as this. Some justice & home affairs matters in Scotland are for Reid to decide, others for Jamieson, and still others for Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor & Constitutional Affairs Secretary. And the same thing can be said for Alexander and Scott over transport.

Secondly, there is a simple solution to having Cabinet ministers with Scottish constituencies making decisions that don't affect Scotland- take their constituencies from them! There's always the House of Lords! Would the critics be happier if the Home Secretary was a Lord Reid of Bellshill? The Transport Secretary a Lord Alexander of Paisley?

Thirdly, the issue of Scottish MPs having executive responsibility for matters that didn't affect Scotland has been around since about 1885. Sometimes it is portrayed as if the Scottish Minister for Education took over powers from the Education Secretary, the Scottish Minister for Health took over powers from the Health Secretary etc.

This is not true. Pre- 1999, much executive responsibility within Scotland for what are now "devolved matters" rested with the Scottish Secretary. There was little controversy over, for example, a Scottish MP serving as Transport Secretary when most of the ministerial decisions on transport within Scotland would not be made by him, but by the Scottish Secretary.

The "English votes for English laws" argument would create a two-tier House of Commons. Sometimes it would be a parliament for the whole United Kingdom, and other times an English parliament.

One of the issues that arises from this is the way that the First Past The Post System favour Labour in Scotland. After the May 2005 election, the number of MPs sitting for Scotland was:

Labour- 40*
Liberal Democrats- 11*
Scottish National Party- 6
Conservatives- 1
(plus the Speaker)
[* Rachel Squire, Labour MP for Dunfermline & West Fife, died in January 2006. The by-election was won by Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems]

However, the share of the vote was:
Labour- 38.9%
Liberal Democrats- 22.6%
Scottish National Party- 17.7%
Conservatives- 15.5%

so a fully proportional system would give:
Labour- 24
Liberal Democrats- 14
Scottish National Party- 11
Conservatives- 9
(plus the Speaker)

Labour would no longer have over two-thirds of Scotland's constituencies, and the possibility of Labour having a majority across the United Kingdom but the Conservatives a majority in England would be reduced.

The Khaki and The Tartan

On 3 May, there will be the third elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the latest opinion polls show the Scottish National Party overtaking and pulling far ahead of Labour. There are many factors- the unpopularity of the devolved Labour/Liberal Democrat administration in Holyrood (Edinburgh) and that of the Labour government in Westminster (London) on one hand, and on the other the divisions and collapse of the Scottish Socialist Party which drew support from the SNP.

The way things look, the Labour/Lib Dem coalition will lose its overall majority. Until now, it had appeared that any potential SNP/Lib Dem coalition after May 2007 would need to come to some sort of deal with the Greens, but now it seems that the SNP and Lib Dems would have enough seats to form a coalition.

Hence, Labour's panic and producing John Reid, the Home Secretary, to try and scare people into voting Labour. Next May, Labour looks ready to fight a classic khaki election. Now, this month's elections to the US Congress showed that the Republican's fighting it as a khaki election backfired badly.

Reid is getting worked up over the fact that 52% of people in Scotland (and 59% of people in England) want Scotland to become independent. Reid's dire warning is that this will expose Scotland to a greather threat of terrorist attacks. Not of course backed up by any evidence. Scotland will be flooded with illegal immigrants (it's almost as if Enoch Powell has risen from the dead and is living in Reid's body). And by his heart-rending warning that families will be separated by the border makes it sound as if a huge Berlin Wall will be built from the Solway Firth to Berwick-on-Tweed.

I am wondering what's next? If Scotland became independent it would be struck by an asteroid and the survivors all die from bird flu perhaps?

Go on Reid, let your imagination go! Only 5 months of more doom-mongering to go. The clock is ticking.

The Final Year- What Was Left Unsaid

On Wednesday, the 2006/2007 session of Parliament opened. By the time it ends, we'll have a new Prime Minister. So, it's a bit odd that Tony Blair has drawn up a busy legislative programme that he won't be around to see through.

The big surprise was no anti-terrorism legislation. John Reid, the Home Secretary, has simply said he will review the current legislation by Christmas. Both Blair and Reid promise to have a second attempt to allow the police to detain suspected terrorists without charge for 90 days, after the House of Commons provided Blair with his first defeat last November on this.

A lot of this is simply to look tough, and to try and portray the Conservatives as weak on terrorism. Blair talks about Conservative leader, David Cameron, as being a lightweight, and of Labour providing the "big thunking fist."

The problem with detaining without charge for lengthy periods is that it amounts to internment. If Blair looked back to the 1970s, he will know that internment has one effect- it radicalises communities and turns law-abiding citizens against the Government.

The other issue with this is that the amount of time the police want always increases. Initially, it was 48 hours. A few years back it was increased to 14 days. Then they want 90 days (but the House of Commons settled on 28). Each time it increases, the arguments are precisely the same, and there's the promise that this is the final amount, and that there will be no need to increase the time in future.

So, if the Commons agrees on 90 days, will it be 90 days? Or next year will there be legislation to increase it to 120 days?

One of the myths, pushed by The Sun, is that the bombers of 7 July 2005 had been held by the police for 14 days- the maximum time allowed at the time- and then had to be released (thanks to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats being "weak on terror") and kill 52 people. The Sun's front page description of those MPs who had voted against 90 days was simply one word- "Traitors". A word which should be used sparingly.

And connected to an awful "ends justifies the means" logic. If you want the "ends" (defeating terrorism), then you must support whatever "means" the Government proposes. If you point out flaws in the "means", then that means you would be happier if thousands were killed in a terrorist attack.

Maria Miller, the Conservative MP for Basingstoke, was one of the majority unconvinced by the argument for 90 days. One letter in Basingstoke Gazette slated her for her stance. How would she feel if a terrorist was released after 28 days and carried out an attack? Well, how would her critic feel if a terrorist was released after 90 days? 120 days? 180 days? Released after a year? 2 years? Once you get into her critic's logic, you simply raise the time limit.

We know what the process will be in the next few weeks:
* The Government will announce that there has been a major terrorist plot foiled.
* Although it was foiled using powers the police enjoy under current legislation, it shows that the current legislation isn't enough, and more powers are needed.
* Further legislation is proposed, with those objecting portrayed as weak on terrorism, and Labour portraying itself as the only party willing to protect the people from terrorism.
* A journalist will do some digging around and show that the major terrorist plot was not real (e.g. Muslim has season ticket for Manchester United, therefore he must have been plotting something at a Manchester United match).

Daily Telegraph had a good cartoon, showing police with megaphones calling "Wolf!"

Of course there is a serious threat, but it should not be trivialised by crying wolf for party political purposes.

The "big thunking fist" and the "hairy chest policy" gives it away. Often it's all about proving that one politician is more macho than another.

The Deadline Lives To Fight Another Day

In the Northern Ireland political process the clock has been ticking away to the final non-negotiable deadline of Friday 24 November. By this stage, the largest party, the Democratic Unionist Party, will have to use its right to nominate a First Minister. And the third largest party, Sinn Fein, will have to use the right it enjoys as second largest party (don't ask, just don't ask) to nominate a Deputy First Minister.

Peter Hain, the Wales & Northern Ireland Secretary, has emphasised that if there are not the nominations by then, then he pulls the plug on the whole thing. The Northern Ireland Assembly will be closed down, dead and buried.

Now, this doesn't give SF much time to wring concessions out of Hain, with the threat of the IRA becoming active again (not helped by George Bush- blissfully unaware that there's a War on Terror going on- allowing SF to fundraise in the USA again).

Fortunately for them, when Hain said 24 November, he meant March 2007.

Hain's original promise to pull the plug next Friday has gone. Instead there will be fresh elections on 7 March, come what may. By which stage the Government will have given in to a fresh set of demands from SF.

I Know Who I Am

Yet again, this week I made a gormless comment.

http://www.freewebs.com/bradandest/quotes.htm

Thankfully, to spare my embarrassment, I have been listed as You Know Who You Are.

Moral of the story- don't be the greedy one who goes for the sausages first. Let somone else make a fool of themselves.

A Hairy Moment for the Government

This time the Government has gone too far, way, way too far.

An article in The Times had this disturbing headline:

Home Office chided over "hairy chest" policy.

I was too shocked to read on. What on Earth is a hairy chest policy?

There are only two conclusions I can come to:
(i) This Government has an obsession with banning things. Will they provide the razors? Will we pay for them ourselves? Who checks whether a man is in breach of the hairy chest policy? What about tourists and men over for business trips?
(ii) This Government is obsessed with setting up a National Identity Register. The more personal information we provide them, the safer we'll be from al-Qa'eda. Is this to be added to the personal information??

There's Trouble At T'Treadmill

I went to our company gym thrice this week.

On Thursday, I don't know why, I was running on the treadmill and had a panic attack. I used to get these quite frequently, but in the last couple of years they have disappeared. So it came as a surprise. I ended up sitting in the changing room trying to breathe normally, and realised I wouldn't be up to going back that lunchtime. So, we rearranged for Friday lunchtime. I knew that if I didn't go back by then, I probably would give up.

However, on Friday my workout partner needed to see a doctor at lunchtime, so I finally took the step that a few weeks ago I thought was impossible- I went to the gym on my own. It's not as good as working out with someone else- if you're with someone you both compete and encourage each other- but I felt I had really achieved something important. Not physically, but emotionally, knowing that if my workout partner can't make it, I can go on my own.

Graham's Gormless Comment of the Week...

...was on Wednesday. I was having lunch with Adam and Jeremy, a couple of friends at work, and the discussion got on to American wrestling and the move called the Pearl Harbour, where you hit someone hard from behind got mentioned.

When we went back to the office, I had this sneaking suspicion I would be on the receiving end of a Pearl Harbour, so insisted they go through the door before me.

One of my colleagues asked about this, and my brain just went offline, and I ended up replying "I didn't like the way Adam and Jeremy were holding their lunchboxes", before realising the double meaning in it.

Speaking out of turn

One sign that someone in public life is doing their job in a fair and impartial way is that they get accused by both sides of not doing their job in a fair and impartial way.

This week, at Prime Minister's Questions, Michael Martin performed his job fairly, sticking to the rules. And faces opprobrium for it.

PMQ has one function- for members of the House of Commons to question the Prime Minister (or another senior minister if he's away) about Government business.

Some time back, Martin rebuked Tony Blair at PMQ for using it as an opportunity to attack the Conservatives. And quite right to- Conservative policy is nothing to do with Blair's role as Prime Minister.

This week, Conservative leader David Cameron made a blunder, and felt Martin's wrath. And Cameron just kept on digging.

Cameron wanted to know who did Blair want to succeed him as Labour leader. Martin rebuked him, as this was an internal Labour party matter, not technically connected to Blair's role as Prime Minister. Cameron was allowed to ask Blair who he wanted to succeed him as Prime Minister.

Martin has been portrayed as a pedantic nit-picker for pointing out that these are two separate matters. Blair will resign as Labour leader, and Labour will elect a new leader. Blair will then resign as Prime Minister. Now, as Martin points out, the Queen will ask someone to be Prime Minister. And the decision is hers, and hers alone. Yes, probably she will ask the new Labour leader to be Prime Minister. But she doesn't have to.

It is hard to understand the hostility towards Martin, especially the cruel "Gorbals Mick" jibe (note- Martin is not from Gorbals).

Every Speaker faces accusations of being partial when they perform their duties impartially. Yes, Martin came from the Labour party, but I don't think he is being a Labour lackey by his ruling.

Part of the problem is that there are those who argue that the wing of the pendulum operates for the Speaker. A Labour Speaker who retires should be replaced by a Conservative one, who in turn will be replaced by a Labour one.

The swing of the pendulum argument goes back to the February 1951 election, when the Speaker retired. Out of the 5 Speakers who had served since June 1905, 4 of them had come from the Conservatives. The other (from April 1921 to June 1928) had been a Coalition Liberal. The Liberals had split in December 1916 when David Lloyd-George (Liberal) had worked with the Conservatives to remove Henry Asquith (Liberal) as Prime Minister, and Lloyd-George had become Prime Minister. In October 1922 the Conservatives ousted Lloyd-George, which led to the Liberals reuniting.

So, by 1951, the Conservatives and allies had held the Speakership for over 45 years. Labour were arguing that it was their turn. The Conservatives won the 1951 election, and the Commons elected a Conservative MP as Speaker. And when he retired, he was replaced by a Conservative.

Labour had to wait until October 1965, when Horace Maybray-King became Speaker, serving until January 1971. There is a local link, as Maybray-King was MP for Southampton Itchen from May 1955 to January 1971. One of the main roads through Southampton Itchen is now called Maybray-King Way.

A pattern had arisen. Speakers who came from the Labour party retired when the Conservatives were in Government and were replaced by a Conservative. And vice versa.

So, two schools of thought arose:
* The Speakership swings from Conservative to Labour and back again.
* When the Speakership falls vacant, the new Speaker is drawn from the governing party.

Until April 1992, it didn't really matter which one you believed- the result was the same.

The Conservatives pulled off a suprise fourth victory in a row. Bernard Weatherall, who had been Speaker since June 1983 retired. He had been a Conservative when elected Speaker.

In another surprise, there was an election for the Speakership between the Conservatives' Peter Brooke and Labour's Betty Boothroyd. And now the two viewpoints collided.

If you believe in the swing of the pendulum, then Boothroyd should be Speaker. If you're of the other school of thought, the job's Brooke's.

Boothroyd pulled off a victory, becoming the first woman Speaker and the only Speaker of the 20th century not to come from the governing party when first elected.

The Speaker is above party politics. He or she resigns from their party upon election. At subsequent general elections, the Speaker contests their constituency under the label "Mr Speaker [or Madam Speaker in Boothroyd's case] seeking re-election." And the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats do not contest the Speaker's constituency. And if the Speaker is re-elected to the House of Commons, by convention, the Commons elects them unopposed as Speaker (even if there has been a change in government). Upon retiring as Speaker, he or she resigns from the House of Commons and joins the House of Lords, sitting there as a Crossbencher (still remaining above party politics).

In October 2000, Boothroyd resigned. And, as in 1992, the two viewpoints collided- as Boothroyd was from Labour originally, was it the Conservatives' turn? Or, as Labour was in Government, should it be two Labour Speakers in a row?

In 2000, there were an unprecedented 14 MPs standing for the Speaker's job. Labour's Martin was elected. Despite some Conservatives claiming that it wasn't fair- it was the Conservatives' turn.

So, this is part of the reason for hostility towards Martin- the idea that he unfairly stole the Speaker's throne.

And it is sad that this has now risen again, after 6 years in the post.