eurealist.co.uk

Jeremy Black has a good post about the West Lothian Question on the Social affairs Unit Blog

The West Lothian Question - the fact that, post-devolution, Scottish Westminster MPs can still vote on legislation, on for example health and education, where Westminster legislation does not affect Scotland - could become the key issue at the next general election, argues Prof. Jeremy Black.

The West Lothian Question is in part a dummy run for the next election. The very real possibility that Labour may only hold onto power because of Scottish votes is one that has not yet received sufficiently public attention.
Labour produced what was, at least for its ends, a brilliant constitutional solution in 1997: pushing through a Scottish Assembly in order to assuage nationalist pressure in Scotland, while leaving Scotland able to play a key role to ensure its future political position and legislative programme in Westminster. Rather like the terms of our relationship with the European Union, it is far from clear that this situation can be redressed, which means that some commentators will at least think of the option of severance.

Professor Black suggests that there is an urgent need for the Conservatives - as the alternative party of government - to address these issues as a matter of party policy.

(always assuming they are going to become anything like a sensible political party again)

The Conservative Party - if they wish to make headway on this issue - should not hesitate to use the language of fairness. This does not mean ending the Union or aping a crude English nationalism, but, instead, arguing that a Union that is demonstrably unfair is devoid of the positive qualities and consequences that encourage respect and support.

Gareth Young from the News Blog comments;

Of course there is no reason why Scottish and Welsh MPs should vote on English legislation without English MPs being able to vote on the concommitant legislation of the devolved administrations.

In terms of the General Election there is another related question, one that could well play a huge part: Why should a Gordon Brown executive exercise its authority over England when Gordon Brown is democratically unaccountable to the people of England over huge swathes of Government policy? Indeed, Labour do not even have the plurailty of the vote in England, so they lack the moral authority to legislate for England on all matters that they have devolved to Scotland. At the moment, thanks to a gerrymandered constitution, they have the greatest number of seats, but should that change, leaving them relying on Scottish and Welsh MPs to govern England then the UK will rapidly disintergrate.

Peter Hain has recently asserted that to bar Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on English matters would be “dangerous and wrong”, and that such a measure would risk “fanning the flames of English nationalism”. He goes further than that by stating that “To prevent Welsh MPs from voting on certain classes of parliamentary business…would disenfranchise Welsh voters”. It would not disenfranchise Welsh voters anymore than English voters were disenfranchised by Welsh devolution, and it would not be anymore “dangerous and wrong” than Labour’s devolution to Scotland and Wales. And, quite frankly, it is Labour themselves that have fanned the flames of English nationalism by shattering the concept of a unitary state and abusing English goodwill by imposing an asymmetrical constitution that so obviously discriminates against England.

I hope to hear more from the Social Affairs Unit on this matter, it is a most pressing concern; one that threatens Parliamentary democracy as we know it.

Lord Vinson asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How many times since its inclusion in the Maastricht Treaty the subsidiarity principle has been used successfully to ensure that powers remain with the United Kingdom and are not transferred to the institutions of the European Union. [HL3469]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman):

Article 5 of the treaty establishing European Community (TEC) states:
“In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”

Subsidiarity should be seen in the wider context as a general principle which underpins the operation of the European institutions.

The institutions take account of subsidiarity when acting under the TEC, and in this respect subsidiarity has positively influenced the EU’s overall direction.
The Government believe that further progress can be made, particularly in strengthening the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making.

So obviously the proper answer is none otherwise the government would be able to tell us how many times.

At the Convention which drafted the Constitution David Heathcoat-Amory said :

In section A-9 of the draft Constitution, it states that “National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with the subsidiarity principle”. This implies a power to do so.

But the Protocol only grants a request. A draft law would then have to be reviewed, but if the Commission wishes it can then proceed. So we must bring the Protocol into line with A-9 if we are to be consistent.