Is there a feasible solution to Gladstone’s concerns about the
‘West Lothian Question’?
BY OLIVIA BERTRAM
The ‘West Lothian Question’ addresses the issue of whether it is acceptable that
MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are able to influence English
domestic legislation while English MPs have no reciprocal influence in these
countries due to devolution. I presented my project as an extended essay in
which I used a range of approximately forty academic and news-related sources
in order to achieve a balanced and well informed conclusion. A variety of
solutions have been put forth since Gladstone raised a variation of the question
in 1886 including ‘English votes on English laws’, an English Parliament and
federalism, revoking Scottish devolution and doing nothing, but for a variety of
reasons each has proven to be unfeasible. As a result, despite some measures
that may be taken to help reduce the impacts of the problem, there is not
currently a feasible solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’.
!
The ‘West Lothian Question’ and the need for a solution is an issue best examined in
the context of one of the passionate disputes that it causes. This is shown most
clearly through the recent legislation on university tuition fees that was passed in the
House of Commons. When the Labour Party under Prime Minister Tony Blair came to
power in 1997 their mantra was, ‘Education, Education, Education’. It was a priority
for the party to achieve a target of 50% of 18 year-olds to enter into tertiary
education (Coughlan, 2007). However, in July 1997, Lord Dearing published his
enquiry Higher Education in the Learning Society which recommended that students
should contribute to their own university tuition fees through a student loan system
to help solve the university funding crisis (Smithers, 2001). His recommendation was
that students should pay approximately 25% of the total cost of their university
education. This resulted in the highly controversial and supposedly socially divisive
Higher Education Act, 2004. The Higher Education Act was widely regarded as unfair
by the Government’s own supporters because it places a huge burden on students
from less affluent backgrounds who are no longer being served by a ‘free’ education
system (Politics.co.uk, 2013). University funding, as is the case with all education
policy, is devolved in Scotland and is therefore the responsibility of the Scottish
Parliament. The Scottish Labour Party who controlled the Scottish Parliament at the
time had previously decided not to charge any tuition, therefore, the legislation
(whether it was passed or not) would not impact upon any students living or studying
in Scotland.
At the same time however, of the 46 Scottish Labour MPs, 38 voted with the
Government to pass the bill and without their votes the bill would have failed to be
passed as it was backed by only 316 votes to 311 (BBC News, 2004). The bill resulted
in higher charges being imposed on English students by Scottish MPs whose
! | Olivia Bertram
1
constituents do not have to pay these higher charges. At the time Peter Duncan was
the only Scottish Conservative MP and he chose to abstain from the vote saying,
“Those Scottish MPs who walked through the lobbies today should hang their heads in
shame.” This opposition was shared with many other Conservatives as well as a large
proportion of the public demonstrating a need for a solution to the ‘West Lothian
Question’. The case of university tuition fees as an example for the issues created by
the ‘West Lothian Question’ is one among several and proves the need for the
question to be resolved in the near future. The fate of the English students was
fundamentally decided by the Scottish and this is both incredibly unpopular and
unfair. Although not specific to this event, the McKay Commission, alternatively
known as the Commission of the Consequence of Devolution for the House of
Commons draws attention to the fact that the ‘West Lothian Question’ causes ‘a
significant level of grievance among the people of England’ who are aware of the
issue (McKay, 2013: 1). Furthermore, it is apparent that there is ‘substantial support
for a change in law-making procedures’ amongst the English public in response to the
‘West Lothian Question’ and their feeling of dissatisfaction (McKay, 2013).
This constitutional anomaly is certainly not a new issue and has a long history of
debate surrounding the continued failure of government to resolve it. In 1707 the Act
of Union joined together the Parliaments for England and Scotland, creating a single
Parliament in Westminster, London to govern the United Kingdom. This system of
joint governance except for the Church, education and legal systems operated in a
stable manner for the next 178 years. An increasing sense of Scottish nationalism that
developed in the 1970s saw votes for the Scottish National Party grow in numbers and
significance. This feeling was further exacerbated by the policies of Margaret
Thatcher during the late 1980s such as the Poll Tax, introduced a year earlier in
Scotland than the rest of the UK and widely unpopular. In 1997 there was a
referendum offered by Tony Blair’s Labour government which overwhelmingly backed
the creation of a Scottish Parliament at 74.3% of the vote (Coxall et al, 2006: 300).
The current devolved powers come in the form of the Scotland Act 1998 which
enables the Scottish Parliament to pass laws on a wide range of domestic issues that
affect Scotland such as education and health. Similar acts are in effect in both
Northern Ireland, to create the Northern Irish Assembly and in Wales to create the
Welsh Assembly although with varying degrees of political autonomy. However,
Westminster remains the sovereign body and under Section 28, subsection 7 of the
Scotland Act, the devolution of powers, “does not affect the power of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.”(O’Neil, 2004: 184) This ensures
that the Scottish Parliament only has secondary legislative powers and that the
majority of power and control over the United Kingdom remains in Westminster. It
was at this time that the specific ‘West Lothian Question’ began to gain prominence
and importance despite the broader issue being a constitutional anomaly since 1886
when Prime Minister William Gladstone first raised it. In a speech to the House of
! | Olivia Bertram
2
Commons on the First Irish Home Rule Bill he stated, “If Ireland is to have domestic
legislation for Irish affairs they cannot come here for English and Scottish affairs.”
More recently, the campaign to resolve this issue has been led by the Labour MP Tam
Dalyell who argued that it was unfair and counterproductive that he was able to vote
upon issues that affected Blackburn, Lancashire but not on the same issues in
Blackburn, West Lothian, his own constituency. Simply put, the ‘West Lothian
Question’ asks whether it is acceptable that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland (approximately 100 MPs in total (ConSocYT, 2011)) are able to influence
English domestic legislation while English MPs have no reciprocal influence over such
issues in these countries because the matters are devolved. The justifiability of the
current system is brought into question when the influence of these MPs is placed in
the context of the 1964 or October 1974 Governments, for example when the Labour
Party had a majority in the House of Commons only as a result of their Scottish
Labour MPs (Bogdanor, 2001: 227).
This essay examines the various proposed solutions to the ‘West Lothian Question’,
questioning their feasibility in the context of being introduced in the next few years
providing that Scotland votes ‘No’ in the upcoming 2014 Scottish Independence
Referendum. In this setting, the term ‘feasible’ has been used to mean the
plausibility of a solution. The feasibility of any of the proposed solutions will take
into account the public demand for that solution, the likely consequences should it
be implemented, whether it could actually be implemented in the near future and
how well it solves the ‘West Lothian Question’. Over the past 127 years, since
Gladstone first raised the issue that is now known as ‘West Lothian Question’ many
solutions have been put forward, each backed by different parties and with varying
degrees of public support. Some have proved more popular than others but there is
yet to be a distinct solution that solves the question which can be agreed upon.
Firstly, many Conservatives currently suggest that the issue could be resolved by
preventing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from voting on matters in the
House of Commons that only affect England whilst still maintaining the ability to vote
on matters that affect the United Kingdom as a whole. This concept of ‘English votes
on English laws’ or a version of it has been around for virtually as long as the debate
has, after Gladstone proposed it in 1893 but later rejected it as unworkable
(Bogdanor, 2001: 229). However, it has recently been revived by the Conservative
party after William Hague proposed it once more in July 1999 and it subsequently
appeared in their 2001 manifesto (Lodge and Russell, 2005: 23). It was also the
solution behind Harriet Baldwin’s Private Member’s Bill, The Legislation (Territorial
Extent) Bill in 2010/11 which reached a Third Reading (The Constitution Society,
2013). Despite there being numerous variations, the proposition in its current format,
would involve the Speaker of the House selecting which bills applied to the UK and
which applied just to England or England and Wales for example. Once this was
concluded, the MPs that do not represent such areas would be forced to abstain from
! | Olivia Bertram
3
voting. By stopping these Members of Parliament from voting then the ‘West Lothian
Question’ is solved because there is no longer external influence on English internal
affairs. As a result of the solution’s logicality and clear answer to the question as well
as maintaining much of the current format of Government, the ‘public opinion polls
show that (it) has support both north and south of the border.’(Lodge and Russell,
2005: 24) Furthermore, this is shown by a poll in 2012 from the Institute for Public
Policy Research and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities which found that 79% of
English voters want England-only votes (Bagehot, 2012). On the other hand, O’Neil in
Devolution and British Politics suggests that the public as well as political
establishment ‘seem to be resistant’ to this type of change (O’Neil, 2004: 186).
Whilst perhaps true, the validity of this opinion comes into question given that it is
almost 10 years old. It is far more likely to demonstrate a shift in public views
possibly fuelled by the Independence Referendum or even the economic crisis which
has increased English resentment about the ‘West Lothian Question’. Furthermore,
polls are frequently unreliable due to small sample sizes among other human errors
and this lack of reliability is exacerbated when it is an issue of less importance for
the electorate.
Unsurprisingly, due to the number of times this solution has been rejected, there are
numerous issues of varying degrees of severity that it presents including, the
potential divergence and dissolution of the union, creating two tiers of MP at
Westminster, the Speaker’s inability to accurately define a Bill as ‘England-only’ and
quite possibly a constitutional crisis as a result of a government that is valid in some
areas and not in others. The initial issue that has been raised is that this solution
fundamentally reverses the constitutional principle on which the union was founded.
The basis of the union has always allowed MPs from all parts of the United Kingdom
to vote on every bill in the House of Commons regardless of which area they apply to
(Lodge and Russell, 2005: 25). This principle was altered by devolution and has as a
result exacerbated the issue of the ‘West Lothian Question’. By further amending this
principle the government would have to deal with dangerous levels of selfdetermination in entire countries such as Wales and Scotland as well as smaller
groups of people. For example those living in London may decide that they too want
only London MPs to vote on their issues and not the rest of the UK; it is not clear
where the line can or should be drawn. For a country to be run effectively it must be
in unison not with each area opposing or contradicting the next. This idea is reflected
in Vernon Bogdanor’s comments that ‘English votes on English laws’ would have a
‘separatist effect’ potentially resulting in the break-up of the Union on the back of
diverging principles and goals (Settle, 2012).
Furthermore, if the solution were not to have this divisive effect then it would
certainly create two classes of MPs in Westminster – those who can vote on all
matters (English MPs) and those who can only vote on a small minority of issues. In
effect, there would be ‘an English Parliament operating within the shell of
Westminster.’(Bagehot, 2006) This is undoubtedly problematic because MPs are
! | Olivia Bertram
4
elected on the basis that they are equal representatives of their constituents.
Electing MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales who only had secondary
influence over legislation would be resentful of their diminished representation and
authority, perhaps even leading to a push for full independence. MPs from the
devolved areas of the United Kingdom do not expect to be ‘demoted’ within their
own Parliament and as the Prime Minister David Cameron stated in 2010 in
Manchester, ‘I don’t want to… create something divisive.’ (Cameron, 2010) The
implication here being that the preservation of the union is one of the foremost goals
of the government of the United Kingdom and with two-tiers of Westminster MPs the
Kingdom would be far less ‘united’ than it currently is.
Even if the Government were to temporarily ignore the effects of implementing this
policy as the solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’. The solution in itself is flawed
because it would be virtually impossible for the Speaker of the House to distinguish
between which bills affect the UK, which affect just England or even England and
Wales for example. Firstly, many bills have numerous different clauses some of which
apply in certain areas and some that apply on others; in this situation how would the
Speaker distinguish who is able to vote on the bill as a whole, whether it was
everyone or simply the dominant country affected? This is yet to be resolved and
given the number of bills that contain such clauses, it would be a frequent issue that
is likely to be bitterly disputed by the MPs at Westminster. Moreover, the ‘territorial
extent clause’ of a bill does not necessarily define the ‘territorial application’ of such
a bill. This is because any bill that involved public money being spent (which is most
bills) would both directly and indirectly affect the devolved countries because it
would alter taxation or the expenditure in those areas (Lodge and Russell, 2005: 24)
as was recognised by the Royal Commission on the Constitution (Bogdanor, 2001:
232). This is due to the UK’s dominance over the single market as well as its control
of the welfare side of the state (Colley and Jeffery, 2009: 116). The area that a bill
applies to is not clearly defined nor is it simple to devise a new system to overcome
this. Therefore it would create instability as a solution because there would be
endless debate and disagreement over what certain MPs are able to vote upon.
The final issue that presents itself with the implementation of ‘English votes on
English laws’ is perhaps the most severe of all the potential issues as it brings into
question the validity of an entire government. Of the 59 Scottish MPs, 41 are Labour,
11 are Liberal Democrats, 6 represent the Scottish National Party and just one is
Conservative. However, the Conservatives still hold the majority in England as can be
shown by the 2010 General Election results where the Conservative Party won 307
seats but of these 298 were English seats (BBC News, 2013). Due to the close nature
of the Election, it is possible that in the future (as has been the case in the past)
there will be a Labour government with a UK-wide majority that does not have a
majority in England; increased in likelihood due to Scotland’s over-representation at
Westminster (Bogdanor, 2001: 231). In this case, there would effectively be two
administrations in charge: Labour for defence, foreign policy and the economy and
! | Olivia Bertram
5
Conservative for domestic affairs such as health and education. This set-up would
cause a constitutional crisis where there is no true government making the Labour
party hardly worth voting for in England at all because it would be unable to
implement most of the necessary policies. The decline of the Labour Party would
reduce almost all competition for Government and would make the entire process far
less democratic and fair (Johnston, 2013). It would also potentially lead to the rise of
the Scottish National Party in Scotland who may again push for independence and the
break-up of the union. This would be bad for both the electorate and the government
and is the main reason that ‘English votes for English Laws’ is not a feasible solution
to the ‘West Lothian Question’. There are flaws in the solution itself as well as there
being severe implications once it was introduced, potentially creating an effectively
illegitimate government or a push for independence. Despite being only theoretical
issues, they generally accepted and are the reason that this solution has been
rejected by such a wide variety of different individuals and parties including the
Attorney General in the 1960s, the Kilbrandon Commission in 1973, Tam Dalyell who
deemed it ‘indefensible’ in 1977 and William Gladstone (Lodge and Russell, 2005:
24).
The second proposed solution is to devolve England and create and English Parliament
similar to the Scottish Parliament that is separate from the UK Parliament in
Westminster. The UK Parliament would therefore be in place to deal with UK-wide
issues such as foreign affairs and the economy. Although this does effectively resolve
the ‘West Lothian Question’ it would mean an upheaval of the entire British political
system. Therefore, instead of being a unitary state, Britain would become in effect,
a federation with a central government and regional parliaments for England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. This system would ensure that each region was
run in accordance with the desire of its local people but that the nation was still able
to act as a whole, similar to the system in Australia. Federalism is a successful form
of government with approximately 40% of the world’s population living in 25 different
federalist states among which are some of the richest and most prosperous countries
with the highest standards of living (Forum of Federations: The Global Network on
Federalism and Devolved Governance, 2013).
However, federalism in Britain would not be a straightforward change to make for
several reasons. Firstly, Britain is an asymmetric country with England for example,
being 29 times larger than Northern Ireland in terms of population size. As Bogdanor
points out, a federalist state that has one unit representing over 80% of the
population is unheard of and would be unfeasible as a result of this dramatic
imbalance (Settle, 2012). This is because the asymmetry causes further
complications; with English political dominance over Scotland, Wales and Ireland for
so long and the huge differences in size it would be difficult to imagine a successful
government based on equalising the four regions. England’s dominance in terms of
power and resources would undoubtedly continue and as Forsyth in The Spectator
asks, ‘who would be the power in the land, the English first minister or the Prime
! | Olivia Bertram
6
Minister of the United Kingdom?’ (Forsyth, 2013) There would be inevitable conflicts
of interest but more so there would be extensive overlaps with Westminster
becoming almost redundant entirely because it is overshadowed to such a great
extent.
It is argued furthermore, that asymmetry coupled with the potential lack of UK-wide
control from Westminster could result in a hugely unstable nation (O’Neil, 2004:
322). There is no guarantee that the different regions of the United Kingdom as part
of a federal or quasi-federal state would be able to work in unison and act effectively
as one nation. For instance, Canada is a federalist state but not necessarily one that
works harmoniously as can be evidenced by the on-going issues with Quebec and its
desire for independence from Canada. However, in referendums the voters have
narrowly rejected independence every time. Although this means that Canada and
Quebec are still unified, it has created permanent instability and it is distinctly
possible that were the United Kingdom to become a federal state there would be a
similar situation with Scotland constantly threatening independence (Coxall et al,
2006: 303). This level of volatility would not be conducive to effective governance
and is a major issue were the UK to become a federalist state.
It has been suggested that to reduce the asymmetry of the United Kingdom, England
could be split into smaller states each with regional assemblies which are on a more
equal level with that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, in England
there is not a natural way to split the country in order to do this as the population is
concentrated in certain urban areas such as London and Manchester while other areas
are very sparsely populated. When regional assemblies were polled in January 2003
only 41% of those living outside London said that they would vote for regional
government in England whilst 35% said that they would not vote or were unsure of
how they would vote. This demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm for this method of
overcoming the main issue surrounding federalism in the United Kingdom (Curtice et
al, 2004: 232). Nevertheless, Labour attempted to introduce regional assemblies by
holding a referendum in the North East in 2004 but they were rejected and by 2012
all plans for regional assemblies were scrapped by the coalition government which
makes it even more unlikely that they would be reintroduced to help solve this issue
(Wikipedia, 2013). In short it was deemed by the UK electorate to be an extra layer
of Government adding bureaucracy and not democracy showing that federalism as a
whole is unlikely to ever win popular support.
Furthermore, there are issues with the introduction of federalism that would perhaps
contribute to its lack of feasibility as a solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’. Such
issues have the potential to be overcome but simply add more difficulties to an
already seemingly impossible solution. Not all parts of the United Kingdom currently
have their own legislatures because the parliament at Westminster has always acted
partly as the English parliament. Not only this but the House of Lords is yet to be
reformed and so is not a chamber of territorial representation meaning that it would
! | Olivia Bertram
7
not be valid if there were to be a federation as it would not represent all four states
(O’Neil, 2004: 322). Leach, Coxall and Robins argue that creating a Federal State
would also require a written constitution to work. Given that the United Kingdom has
never had a written constitution but is based upon a large variety of documents and
laws from many different centuries, it would be incredibly difficult to gather this
information together and create a constitution. Yet, it is necessary in order to control
the interrelationships and functions of the government levels that a federation would
involve (Coxall et al, 2006: 309).
The biggest block to a federal United Kingdom however, is the lack of public support
for such a solution. If a federal system were to be introduced then the biggest change
would be to England as Scotland and the other devolved nations already have their
own parliaments separate from Westminster. The absence of a demand for English
devolution is a reflection of the lack of a distinct English identity or the regional
pride that is more prominent in Scotland. Even in areas in England where there is this
sense of pride, the consensus is that devolution would not represent them any better
than the current system and would therefore be a waste of public money (Curtice
and Trench, 2005: 135). The British Social Attitudes Survey of Constitutional
Preferences for England showed that in 2002 56% of people believed that there
should be no change in the constitutional structure of England – a clear majority over
those who favoured a change such as devolution. John Curtice in Has devolution
made a difference?: The State of the Nations 2004 argues alongside this data that
infact, the English are not opposed to this change but that it is ‘greeted with
indifference’ (Curtice et al, 2004: 232). English MPs when surveyed in 2004 supported
the measure at a level of only 13% again demonstrating the solution’s lack of backing
and support. Given the level of change and public spending that would be needed to
devolve England and the implications that would have, it is clear that this solution is
not feasible as a solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’. This is shown most clearly
in the McKay Commission’s report which suggested that the solution had, ‘compelling
objections’ (McKay, 2013: 2) and the Scottish Calman Commission which suggested
that the federal systems seen in other countries ‘cannot simply be applied
here’ (Calman, 2009: 7).
The third proposed solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’ instead of devolving
England would be to revoke devolution to Scotland and also potentially, Wales and
Northern Ireland. This solution would involve returning to the political system that
was in place prior to 1997/98 meaning that although Scottish, Welsh and Northern
Irish MPs could all influence English legislation, English MPs are able to influence
their legislation as well. This appears to be far more of a compromise than a solution
as it is an unjust but nevertheless equal settlement between all of the regions of the
United Kingdom. This solution however, has the clearest objections of any solution to
the ‘West Lothian Question’ making it increasingly unlikely as time progresses. To
revoke devolution to Scotland despite its current stability, taking into account next
year’s Independence Referendum would result in an almost definite retaliatory ‘Yes’
! | Olivia Bertram
8
vote and a totally independent Scotland. This is because devolution in Scotland has
been widely regarded as successful and it has been suggested that the support levels
for this solution within Scotland are as low as <10% (Wikipedia, 2013). This feeling is
reinforced when looking wider at Wales where a BBC Wales/ICM poll reported that
only approximately 19% of those asked would be willing to abolish the Welsh Assembly
(BBC News, 2009). It is clear from these statistics that the electorate in the devolved
regions are satisfied with their devolved powers and would be largely outraged were
these powers to be taken away after being both effective and popular as well as
being granted so recently. In this same sense, Westminster would be unwilling, due to
the implications, to carry out such a measure. This is shown explicitly in the McKay
Commission which states that ‘abolishing devolution is not on the political
agenda.’ (McKay, 2013: 2). The repercussions of this policy being the breakup of the
union are deemed by politicians and many others to be insufficient to warrant its
implementation and the benefits that come with that such as reducing the impact of
the ‘West Lothian Question’. As the Calman Commission points out devolution ‘is here
to stay’ because in Scotland, as in Wales and Northern Ireland, it is popular to have
decisions made in Scotland and by the Scottish (Calman, 2009: 6). For these reasons,
it is virtually impossible to reverse devolution without the end of the United Kingdom
in its current format because of the likelihood that Scotland, Northern Ireland and
possibly also Wales would seek independence. The solution therefore does not solve
the ‘West Lothian Question’ but would get rid of it entirely through Scottish
independence.
On the other hand, many argue that the debate is irrelevant anyway as a growing
section of the population have become disengaged from politics and the political
process. This can be shown through the 2010 General Election statistics where only
65.1% of the population voted which although is higher than the elections of 2001 and
2005, it is still a sharp decline on all other electoral turnouts since 1945 (UK Political
Info, 2013). A smaller voter turnout on something as significant as a General election
indicates that fewer people appear to be taking an interest in politics and therefore
in debates which are crucial to their futures. This political apathy combined with no
obvious simple resolution provides the majority support for the ‘do nothing’ solution.
For a long time there have been groups who believe there is not an issue within the
‘West Lothian Question’ prominent enough to be worth solving, such as Lord
Chancellor Derry Irvine who said the only true solution to the question would be ‘to
stop asking it’ (Lodge and Russell, 2005: 29). O’Neil argues however, that although it
appears that there are large groups of people who support this doing nothing as the
answer to the ‘West Lothian Question’ infact surveys show that largely people are
just unaware of it. He suggests that upon pointing out the anomaly to people they
feel it is unjust and would like a solution to be reached by politicians (O’Neil, 2004:
323). In response to the ‘do nothing’ approach it is also apparent that it is believed
that the current devolution settlements, in particular with respect to Wales and
Northern Ireland, are unsustainable and will inevitably change. The current situation
! | Olivia Bertram
9
fuels resentment and the McKay Commission believes that this situation is ‘a long
term risk’ (McKay, 2013: 2) which is why a solution must be reached in the near
future. As awareness of the ‘West Lothian Question’ grows there will be an increase
in public support for a solution and a decrease in support for the idea of leaving
things as they are.
There are three other solutions that have been proposed as things that will help
reduce the impact of the ‘West Lothian Question’ despite not alleviating it entirely as
an issue. They consider that the current solutions, as previously discussed, have
fundamental issues and so aim to solve the problem to an extent that pleases both
the devolved areas and England. The first of these three solutions is altering the
current voting system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation which
would require a UK-wide referendum. There are several reasons why proportional
representation would reduce the issues surrounding the ‘West Lothian Question.’ As
Colley points out, if there had been proportional representation in the United
Kingdom when devolution was introduced, in around 1997, then the Conservative
Party would most likely not have diminished so much in Scotland and Wales and
would have maintained some broader support. This would have helped them to
preserve a sense of being a party for the United Kingdom rather than an ‘English
party’. Such a change would have undoubtedly helped to foster more united attitudes
rather that separating England and Scotland in a way that creates tension (Colley and
Jeffery, 2009: 27). This idea is very much supported in Devolution in the United
Kingdom where Bogdanor suggests that the dominance of the Labour Party in
Scotland is partly due to the system of first-past-the-post (Bogdanor, 2001: 233) and
is therefore something that can be altered. The introduction of proportional
representation is a change that would largely alter the current and/or future
situations whereby the political majority in England is different to that in Scotland
(Lodge and Russell, 2005: 29). By changing this there would be fewer tensions and a
more harmonious, effective and representative government. However, proportional
representation is more of a temporary solution which attempts to close the political
gap between Scotland and England rather than actually resolving the ‘West Lothian
Question’. The McKay commission suggests that it is ‘not realistic’ and that the
solution ‘fails to tackle the underlying issue’ which is why it is unworkable and will
not be introduced (McKay, 2013: 2). Bogdanor argues that there are more political
reasons because the Conservatives are ‘almost universally opposed’ and that the
Labour Party would simply be averse to such a change (Lodge and Russell, 2005: 29).
The rejection of the opportunity to reform the UK voting system when it was
presented through the Alternative Vote Referendum in 2010 indicates a lack of
support for alterations to the current voting system. The AV Referendum attracted a
turnout of 41% which was higher than expected but the overwhelming ‘No’ at 67.9%
of the votes suggests that there would be little support for another such voting
reformation (BBC News Politics, 2011).
! | Olivia Bertram
10
Another semi-solution that has been proposed is to reduce the number of Scottish
Members of Parliament because currently at 59 MPs they are over represented. The
Scottish have been overrepresented at Westminster for almost the entire time there
has been a political union with the exception of the 37 years between 1885 and 1922.
It has been suggested that the number should be reduced to 42 MPs (the Stormont
level – although the exact level of the reduction is debated and uncertain (The
Constitution Society, 2013)) who would all still be able to vote on English issues but
given that there are fewer of them, they will have a smaller influence (The
Economist, 1997). The last time that the number of Scottish MPs was cut was in 1999
at the time of the creation of the Scottish Parliament when the number was reduced
by 13 MPs although this was of course a trade-off of devolution. To reduce the
number further would be popular with the English electorate who for example in
2005, had 70,000 people in a constituency compared with Scotland that had
constituencies of 65,000. Moreover, it is suggested that this gap is increasing due to
changes in constituency boundaries and England’s growing population (BBC News,
2007). However, again it appears unlikely that this change would be implemented due
to its unpopularity in Scotland. It was accepted last time due to the incentives of a
Scottish Parliament but when the English have nothing to offer in exchange for
decreased Scottish representation at Westminster the issue becomes more
disagreeable for them. When Scottish overrepresentation was initially introduced it
was on the basis of guaranteeing the continued success of the union as it attempted
to ensure that Scotland’s ‘interests could not be ignored or belittled’ by a dominant
England (O’Neil, 2004: 186). Nevertheless a situation has been reached where this is
no longer the case and the overrepresentation has yet to be reformed or amended
(despite reform being suggested in 2011) most likely due to a lack of political will. It
is unclear what the exact Scottish reaction to such a solution would be; whilst there
could be a greater push for absolute independence, there could also be little reaction
at all. Both of these reactions are unlikely and the true response is likely to fall
somewhere in the middle but it demonstrates the unpredictability of the decision and
therefore its significant risks.
The last of the solutions that help to reduce the issues raised by the ‘West Lothian
Question’ is to reform the Barnett formula that defines the levels of public spending
in England and the rest of the United Kingdom. The issue here, although it does not
directly impact on the ‘West Lothian Question’ at all is that spending per capita in
Scotland is approximately a 31% increase on per capita spending in England putting
them at a financial advantage to their English counterparts (Coxall et al, 2006: 303).
It is also not just in Scotland that this is the case as per capita spending in England is
the lowest of any part of the United Kingdom as a whole. This creates issues of
discontent and resentment because the English population believes that they are
unjustly receiving less per capita spending than other areas despite being similarly
deprived (particularly the case in some areas of Northern England). The differences
that the formula creates are a result of its inefficiency as it is concerned with the
! | Olivia Bertram
11
changes of public spending not the actual levels and it also does not take into
account the needs of the regions (The Constitution Society, 2013). Fundamentally the
public spending levels are higher in Scotland because ‘political unrest was [not] in
the interests of the Union’ so this was the government’s way of ensuring that the
union did not break up. The areas of England that are most affected by this are the
North, the East Midlands, East Anglia and the South West which is also where one is
likely to see higher levels of dissatisfaction with the current system (Hazell, 2000:
85). The link here with the ‘West Lothian Question’ is that the monetary imbalance
of the union is one of the most debated and sensitive areas of the devolution
settlement. If it were to be balanced out so that public spending in Scotland did not
exceed the per capita level of comparable areas within the rest of the United
Kingdom then people would be less concerned with other perceived advantages that
the Scottish have over the English such as the ability to influence English legislation –
the ‘West Lothian Question.’ The failures of the Barnett formula are an issue that is
parallel with the ‘West Lothian Question’ so although fixing it will not resolve the
question it will potentially reduce the overall discontent and anger at the
disadvantages that the English feel they face.
One of the main problems with the ‘West Lothian Question’ to date is that the
Government has not made any significant moves to attempt to resolve it with the
Prime Minister himself saying, ‘I’m afraid it’s one of those questions where I’m going
to have to answer that we’ve set up a review’ (Cameron, 2010). Given that the issue
was first raised over 125 years ago there has been very little progress by politicians
to come up with an answer even though many Prime Minister’s and MPs have
subsequently drawn attention to the ‘West Lothian Question’ as a problem. The
‘review’ that was set up by the Coalition Government is the McKay Commission which
published its report on the 25th March 2013 and since then there has been no further
action taken by the Government on its recommendations. The McKay Commission
suggested an adapted version of the ‘English votes on English laws’ solution which
suggested that bills which specifically affect England ‘should normally be’ passed
only when there is a majority of the MPs in England. Nonetheless, it recognises that
the final decision should still lie with the entire of the House of Commons and not
just the English MPs and that anything that is unusual will be threatened with
‘political… accountability’ (McKay, 2013: 3). This solution can be seen to given English
MPs a marginally increased say on their own legislation over their Scottish, Welsh or
Northern Irish counterparts but it is weak as there are no significant changes, as are
needed, nor does this actually fully resolve the ‘West Lothian Question’ at all. The
recommended amendments to the current system are weak at best because they fail
to fix the problem and although it has been more clearly defined there is essentially
very little difference between this and the current situation.
Unfortunately, the ‘West Lothian Question’ is not one with an extensive campaign
base, nor is it an issue at the face of British politics meaning that it is often pushed
to one side in preference of another more pressing concern. This has been done by
! | Olivia Bertram
12
politicians in successive British governments for decades who recognize that it is
short-term results and issues that are far more likely to get them re-elected than a
complicated and disputed constitutional anomaly. Even when there is progress or
focus on the debate it appears that it is dominated by partisan politics rather than by
politicians looking at the future of the United Kingdom and the best solution in the
long term. As is pointed out in British Politics, ‘each initiative has been seemingly
pursued in isolation’ and there has been no coherent plan or vision to help find a
resolution (Coxall et al, 2006: 305). More than simply a lack of long-term perspective,
the public are losing faith in their government and approximately 60% of those asked
did not trust any UK Government ‘very much’ or ‘at all’ in pursuing England’s
interests (McKay, 2013: 2). The preference for partisan politics in the approach to the
‘West Lothian Question’ is most clearly shown when looking closely in the change in
position of the Conservative and Labour Parties in recent years. In 1969 (prior to
devolution), the Conservatives used their English MPs to vote against Labour’s
elimination of Scottish schools fees and when asked the spokesman said, ‘I do not
find it an atom embarrassing to have to ask my English colleagues to… vote against
the clause’ (Lodge and Russell, 2005: 20). Yet, merely 35 years on, as this essay has
previously examined, the Conservatives were outraged at Labour’s use of its Scottish
MPs to pass the controversial Higher Education Act. Given that this is not the only
available example of such an exploitation of the ‘West Lothian Question’ for political
gain it becomes obvious that the political parties are not taking into account what is
better for the future of the nation but what is better for themselves in terms of
popularity and short-term success. This creates a fundamental flaw in the search for
a feasible solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’.
The “West Lothian” question is more relevant today perhaps than it has even been
because the interests of England and Scotland have diverged from their once more
unified goals. In this context this essay concludes that there is currently no feasible
solution to the ‘West Lothian Question’ that could be implemented in the near
future. The solutions of ‘English votes on English Laws’, federalism and an English
parliament, and revoking devolution to Scotland all have major issues with no obvious
way to overcome them. As Johnston points out, today’s answers to the ‘West Lothian
Question’ will inevitably weaken the Union rather than strengthening it making them
unfeasible (Johnston, 2013). Given that they are unpopular in Scotland and the Union
is ‘a partnership rather than an absorption’ they will largely provoke a Scottish push
for independence which is very unpopular with the English, especially Members of
Parliament who recognise the inevitable implications for England (Augey and Trench,
2008: 94). This is because Scottish independence would in turn be a threat to British
prominence and power within the world. The residual United Kingdom as a result
would quite possibly lose its membership of the G8, its seat on the United Nations
Security Council and have a diminished role in NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation which has been a system of collective defense since 1949). The image
of a post-imperial nation struggling to find an effective role in the modern world
! | Olivia Bertram
13
would be reaffirmed and the idea of the final fall of the Empire confirmed. It is this
that makes the solutions unfeasible in the eyes of the Westminster MPs such as Tam
Dalyell who coined the term the ‘West Lothian Question’ and describes the threat of
Scottish independence as ‘absolutely catastrophic’ (Dickie, 2013). Colley argues that
the idea of ‘Britain’ has always been simply a part of Westminster’s perception of
itself in the world (Colley and Jeffery, 2009: 21).
Therefore it appears that Scotland is able to win superior devolution settlements to
England and benefit from the ‘West Lothian Question’ on the basis of the preserving
the ‘Great’ in ‘Great Britain’. Politicians recognise that it was not England that
fought the World Wars, nor was it just the English that ran the Empire but it was the
British, a United Kingdom. Only in England have the terms ‘English’ and ‘British’ been
interchangeable and this has fostered a dangerous misconception that England does
not need Scotland to maintain its global prominence (Marguand, 2013). The Scottish
currently do not only have the ability to vote on English legislation but per head they
receive £1200 more than their English counterparts (Johnson, 2013). This fuels
resentment in England, especially at a time of economic hardship and austerity
where many families are struggling. In many ways it can be seen that the British
Government appeases Scotland in order to ensure that it remains a part of the Union
and that the role of the United Kingdom is not diminished.
This problem is further exacerbated by a declining sense of Britishness. Colley draws
attention to several reasons for this such as a reduction in the study of history in
schools, the lack of a clear foreign enemy, the decline of the Empire, modern
globalisation, the inability of people to ‘imagine their nation’, partisan and electoral
self-interest and the asymmetry of the Union (Colley and Jeffery, 2009: 25). Jeffery
also argues that there is a remarkable absence of distinct shared interests among the
citizens of the Union, nor has its fundamental purpose been made clear (Colley and
Jeffery, 2009: 116). One can also see the decline in ‘Britishness’ in relation to the
European Union to which post-imperial Britain has surrendered much sovereignty. The
United Kingdom used to be crucial to Scotland partially as a result of our systems of
defense and security but currently this is not the case. The British army has been
through several recent cuts leaving it with 82,000 regular soldiers, the smallest army
since the Napoleonic wars which Colonel Bob Stewart has described as ‘hardly an
army’ (Cecil, 2012). Scotland in this sense sees independence and membership of the
European Union as an opportunity rather than a danger as a result of the
prosperousness of small EU nations (Marguand, 2013). Therefore, Britain’s potential
exit from the EU, despite opinion polls suggesting that the Scottish and Welsh would
be against such a measure, would most likely result in a further push for Scottish
independence. Whatever the specific reason for the reduction in a sense of
‘Britishness’ is; it is affecting the success of the Union. If the concept of ‘Britishness’
was to be reignited then it would be far more likely that one of the proposed
solutions could be implemented without the threat of independence and the breakup of Britain.
! | Olivia Bertram
14
Some of the semi-solutions such as reforming the Barnett formula, a change to
Proportional Representation or a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at
Westminster could improve the discontent surrounding the ‘West Lothian Question’
although they would not actually resolve it. Given the circumstances that the
question finds itself in today, they are perhaps the public’s best bet at finding a
solution that will have more benefits that negative implications. Despite this they
remain to have much public support and there is little desire to introduce such
measures to resolve the ‘West Lothian Question’. Many politicians are angry at what
they describe as ‘piecemeal change’ and instead are only willing to back a larger
change that will make a true difference because they fear that single changes are
dangerous to constitutional arrangements (Flibberti, 2006). However, after the 2014
Scottish Independence Referendum, presuming a ‘No’ vote, it is possible that the
British Government will be able to make the necessary changes providing public
backing. It will be many more years before Scotland will have another referendum
and by then they are more likely to have accepted the changes to their favourable
settlement. Yet, as things stand, none of the potential solutions that exist present
sufficient benefits to society to warrant such a drastic change from the current
political system and therefore are not feasible resolutions. As Britain experiences its
modern day decline from a once global super-power, it must ensure at all costs that
it remains unified with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if it wishes to secure its
place in the world. It may be that the inequities of the current system such as the
‘West Lothian Question’ represent a price worth paying for a United Kingdom.
! | Olivia Bertram
15