Following the Scottish independence referendum, the ‘West Lothian-West Bromwich problem’ needs an urgent answer, says Simon Wilson. But is there one?
Has the Union been saved?
Perhaps not for long. PM David Cameron hailed the result (55.3% against independence) as a declaration of “the settled will of the Scottish people”. But Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, who is to step down in November, only noted that Scots had decided against full separation “at this stage”.
And given everything that was thrown at the Yes campaign, and its own lack of coherence on key economic issues, 45% support is impressive. What’s more, the UK parties’ last minute “vow” to devolve maximal powers to Holyrood, and preserve the Barnett formula (see box) means further unravelling is likely.
Why’s that?
First, there’s a clear Scottish will for more powers, and even those seem unlikely to satisfy the appetite for yet more autonomy (a checklist of “devolved” and “reserved” powers can be found on the Scottish Parliament website).
Second, any backsliding by the UK parties could fuel demands for a rerun. Third, the core reserved powers remain defence and foreign policy, where there are fundamental differences between Westminster and Holyrood – over Trident, and potentially on UK membership of the EU.
Finally, following the vote, Cameron changed the whole game by announcing that England must now have its say and the West Lothian question must be answered.
What’s the West Lothian question?
It’s the anomaly which means that, under a devolved system, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster vote on legislation (on devolved matters such as health or education) which affects only English voters.
English MPs, meanwhile, enjoy no equivalent say in the devolved nations. The question takes its name from the Scottish constituency of Labour MP Tam Dalyell.
During the Scottish devolution debate on 14 November 1977, Dalyell addressed what he called the “West Lothian-West Bromwich problem” – attacking the “basic design fault” of a devolved system that meant that he, a Scottish MP, would be allowed to vote “on issues affecting West Bromwich but not West Lothian”.
Was it a new problem?
This a paradox that has been vexing Westminster for a century, ever since William Gladstone tried to introduce Home Rule for Ireland.
But the question has become ever more pointed since the (failed) attempt in the late 1970s to introduce a devolved assembly for Scotland – and of course since the 1997 referendums in which the Scots voted (74%) to set up their own parliament and the Welsh (50.3%, on a turnout of just 50.1%) to create a national assembly.
In 1999, Tory leader William Hague – now tasked with taking charge of the ‘English question’ for the UK government – argued that “English MPs should have exclusive say over English laws” or else “dangerous resentments” would build.
Is there a solution?
None that the Westminster parties can readily agree on. Conservatives are far more relaxed about a form of “English votes for English laws” because they have most to gain. The forms this might take include cutting back Scottish MPs (unlikely to make the Scots feel wanted); a fully federal UK (addressed more fully below); a separate English parliament (costly and unpopular); an English-only “grand committee” of the Commons to vote on English laws (more plausible); or a mechanism whereby English-only laws go through one reading where all non-English MPs abstain (the least hassle).
The trouble with all of them is that in practice they create two classes of MP, two classes of business, and raise the spectre of a UK government that cannot govern in England, home to 84% of the UK population.
If Labour wins a narrow majority next May, for example, but is reliant on Scottish MPs to pass legislation – a perfectly possible scenario – it would place potentially intolerable strains on the Union, not from Scotland, but from England. The West Lothian question is tricky enough; answering the West Bromwich question might be even harder.
Could we be heading for a federal UK?
The odd thing about the United Kingdom, notes Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian, is that it has repeatedly spurned federalism, even though it has left behind numerous durable federal states across the world (the United States, Canada, Australia, India).
However, says Vernon Bogdanor in The Times, there is no federal system where one unit dominates the way England does (the nearest is Canada, where Ontario accounts for 35% of Canadians). And the fate of previous unbalanced federal states, such as the former USSR and Yugoslavia, does not inspire much confidence.
What is the Barnett formula?
This is how spending allocated by the UK government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is adjusted in line with changes to spending in England. It does not set the overall budget, but it does govern how the budgets are adjusted, and its effect, as Scotland has grown wealthier but its population has fallen relative to England, is that Scotland now gets far more per head of public funding (£10,152 last year) than England (£8,529).
It was devised as a temporary measure but has lasted 30 years, much to the annoyance of its creator. Lord (Joel) Barnett, then Labour’s chief secretary to the Treasury, told The Daily Telegraph: “It is unfair and should be stopped… If we want to give them some money after devo-max OK, but do it honestly and openly. Not… under the table like this.”