Search Results

In October 2015, the Conservative Government introduced a reform to the procedures of the House of Commons known as ‘English votes for English laws’ (or EVEL). This chapter examines how the Conservative Party, which has historically been closely identified with unionism, became the architect of such a scheme. It documents how this topic emerged in political debate, following the implementation of devolution and, again, in the aftermath of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. And it analyses EVEL’s operation at Westminster in 2015–17, uncovering tensions within it that point to deeper strains within Conservative Party thinking. It concludes that EVEL needs to be understood not only as a response to the ‘West Lothian Question’, but also in relation to a longer-term disjuncture in the Conservative psyche arising from two competing conceptions of the nature and purpose of union.

Devolution to Scotland since 1707. Church patronage 1707–1874. The Disruption 1843. The Jacobite risings. The Scottish Enlightenment. Revival of devolution since the 1960s. The shotgun conversion of Scottish Labour 1974. Failure 1974–9; success 1989–99. The Claim of Right (1689 and) 1989. Devolution to Northern Ireland since 1920. A Protestant Parliament in a Protestant state. The Troubles. The Good Friday Agreement. Constitutional framework. Devolution to Wales since 1964. ‘And to a lesser extent Wales.’ The weakest territorial department: Aberfan. Constitutional issues arising out of devolution. The Barnett Formula. The West Lothian Question, true and false. ‘English votes on English laws.’ Authority of subordinate parliaments. Formal (but empty) Diceyanism of the devolution statues. The Sewel Convention.

Short of independence, Scotland's constitutional position might evolve gradually, with a slow accretion of powers. Fiscal powers are an important element although fiscal equalization poses major problems. There are strong arguments for devolving welfare matters in order to strengthen the Scottish political arena, although this divides neo-nationalists and neo-unionists. The West Lothian Question can be resolved by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English matters. Neo-unionists have argued for a written constitution and a British bill of rights, but these are nation-building measures unacceptable to neo-nationalists. The main difficulty in stronger Scottish self-government is the need for common institutions to manage common issues. English political and public opinion remains unitary in its thinking and would want to retain a unitary English polity and resist federalizing measures.

The asymmetry of the UK as a union means that England, unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, not only has no domestic legislature but no executive of its own either. Westminster is England’s Parliament and the UK Government is England’s Government. Much attention has been devoted to the (parliamentary) anomaly of the West Lothian Question, but there has been little discussion of England’s Government. This chapter asks whether the UK Government contains a ghost in the machine: an embryonic English Government, perhaps in English departments or cabinet committees, or shown in social or economic policy or in taxation and spending. It notes how deeply entangled UK and English economic and fiscal policy are, notably via the Barnett formula, and considers the options for more explicit English governance such as a ‘Minister for England’, but questions how politically salient this would be when the main issue is England’s relations with Europe.

This chapter illustrates that the ‘West Lothian Question’ is not an issue between the Scottish and English public. It explains how the attitudes of those living on both sides of the border have developed in the immediate wake of the creation of the Scottish Parliament. It specifically highlights the three sets of attitudes that might be thought to be central to the relationship between two countries that share the same state: constitutional preferences, policy preferences and identities. The extent to which people in the two countries have similar or different constitutional preferences is investigated. The chapter then explores how far people in England and Scotland do or do not share similar policy preferences. It further looks at how far people in England and Scotland do or do not have a set of identities and symbols in common. Devolution has so far not helped to drive England and Scotland apart from each other. They lack on strong common commitment to a shared set of identities and symbols, but even they appear to have enough in common for them to be capable of sharing the same multinational state.

This Chapter considers what Hazell once called the ‘gaping hole’ in the devolution settlement, England. It could be said that the English question has become the damnable question in British politics. Current expressions of Englishness have a particular context: the new complexity of United Kingdom governance and the uncertainty of how England fits into it. Most of the proposals for accommodating a distinctive political voice for England within the United Kingdom pose great difficulties for coherent governance and potential dangers for the Union. The chapter argues that the time has not yet arrived for dealing with this question. And when or if it does, it is likely to be the consequence of changes elsewhere in the United Kingdom rather than because of any serious press of English public opinion.

The state’s means of catering for Scottish distinctiveness developed alongside the growth in its role in society and the economy. This created numerous ad hoc arrangements at a Scottish and local level. Parallel developments occurred in how Parliament handled Scottish business. The implications of special Scottish parliamentary procedures became apparent. Arthur Balfour warned of the dangers of treating Scotland as a distinct entity in Parliament, presaging much later debates on what became known as the West Lothian Question. Paralleling developments aimed at consolidating central administration were efforts to create a more coherent and rational structure of local governance within Scotland. These twin developments diminished what had made public administration distinct in Scotland though the trends never eradicated all that made Scotland a distinct polity. These developments and the periodic efforts to consolidate and rationalize these developments are discussed in this chapter.