Double Standards
Eric Joyce, the former Labour and now independent MP for Falkirk East, had an interesting article in The Guardian recently in which he looked at the prospects of more powers for the Scottish Parliament, or Devo Max, in the context of next year's general election.
And he's right to point out that Labour's biggest pitch to voters will be about the delivery of health care in England whereas in Scotland the NHS is the devolved responsibility of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.
So whether by accident or design Labour could not have chosen a better example to illustrate the inherent unfairness of the West Lothian question whereby English MPs cannot influence the size and shape of Scotland's NHS, directly at least, but as things stand Scottish MPs do have a vote on what goes on south of the border via the Westminster Parliament.
Now whichever way you cut things that doesn't make sense because it looks and sounds unfair and no doubt the Conservatives and Lib Dems will do their best to point this out since it doesn't sound a whole lot like federalism either.
The Scotland ‘vow’: Labour has the most to lose
If the party insists on linking wider constitutional change to a new devolution package it is they, not the Tories, whom Scots will blame
By Eric Joyce - The Guardian
'There is no doubt in my mind that if this parliament kicks the vow beyond the next election, and therefore into the long grass, it will be Labour – not the Conservatives – that will be held responsible.' Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Just before the Scottish referendum, panicked by a YouGov poll suggesting that the yes campaign was ahead, the main UK party leaders made a “vow” via the front page of the Daily Record. This joint statement committed the signatories to the introduction of a bill that would devolve substantial new powers to the Scottish parliament – described as home rule” by Gordon Brown.
Given that such a radical deal between three parties with different interests would require the West Lothian question to be dealt with at the same time as the Scottish devolution package, this late offer came as a surprise.
Labour will this week begin a long general election campaign built, post-vow, around the delivery of health in England only. Present projections are that Labour will win the election by a majority that will depend on Scottish MPs. It is obvious to Scots, and to anyone who thinks rationally and fairly about the situation, that it would be monstrous and wholly unjust for Scots to have all powers over health devolved while holding the balance of power over the same policy area in England. Voters won’t buy it for a second.
But what does Labour seem poised to argue? That the vast and perennial issues of English decentralisation and House of Lords reform must be dealt with at the same time as the West Lothian question. This is a comically transparent attempt to kick the vow beyond the next election in the hope that the issue can then be fudged. Doing this would, however, constitute a misjudgment of historical proportions – one that could, in an appalling two-for-one, lose Labour the general election and wipe out the party in Scotland.
It would technically be perfectly possible, over a period of six months, to put together a package of constraints on Scots MPs’ voting rights that complemented the powers handed to Holyrood. Wider constitutional issues could then be dealt with in the next parliament. This course of action may have future implications for the union itself, but that is the territory Labour accepted when it signed the vow.
In the aftermath of last week’s referendum, Labour is the party with the most to lose. Indemnified by the Scottish no vote, David Cameron has beaten Ukip to the “standing up for England” argument and would no longer be seen as the man who lost Scotland should new, second-tier rights for Scottish MPs lead to eventual independence.
Meanwhile, Labour is in deep trouble. Without dealing with the West Lothian question, Labour MPs and candidates in England will have no answer to the question of why they would support Scots having higher levels of expenditure than those available to poor areas of England, and to those Scots having a say in English-only matters.
In Scotland, before the vote, these asymmetric implications of the vow were understood with great clarity, as they obviously were by the three leaders. Labour has taken the biggest hit because it had been relied on to deliver large Scottish Labour votes to no. In the event, that vote marched towards yes, and more than 40% of Scottish Labour voters chose yes in the end despite the vow being aimed wholly at keeping such voters onside. Unless dramatic measures are taken, and fast, Labour will continue to be punished for the strategic error of neglecting its machinery in Scotland and for taking voters for granted.
I have spoken to firm no voters across the party political spectrum, from my own constituents to prominent Scots elsewhere, and there is no doubt in my mind that if this parliament kicks the vow beyond the next election, and therefore into the long grass, it will be Labour – not the Conservatives – that will be held responsible. Such a failure to legislate would be a moral hazard of such a scale as to confirm, even to many unionists, that the UK government has indeed become corrupted, and that the referendum was won on a lie.
Just before the Scottish referendum, panicked by a YouGov poll suggesting that the yes campaign was ahead, the main UK party leaders made a “vow” via the front page of the Daily Record. This joint statement committed the signatories to the introduction of a bill that would devolve substantial new powers to the Scottish parliament – described as home rule” by Gordon Brown.
Given that such a radical deal between three parties with different interests would require the West Lothian question to be dealt with at the same time as the Scottish devolution package, this late offer came as a surprise.
Labour will this week begin a long general election campaign built, post-vow, around the delivery of health in England only. Present projections are that Labour will win the election by a majority that will depend on Scottish MPs. It is obvious to Scots, and to anyone who thinks rationally and fairly about the situation, that it would be monstrous and wholly unjust for Scots to have all powers over health devolved while holding the balance of power over the same policy area in England. Voters won’t buy it for a second.
But what does Labour seem poised to argue? That the vast and perennial issues of English decentralisation and House of Lords reform must be dealt with at the same time as the West Lothian question. This is a comically transparent attempt to kick the vow beyond the next election in the hope that the issue can then be fudged. Doing this would, however, constitute a misjudgment of historical proportions – one that could, in an appalling two-for-one, lose Labour the general election and wipe out the party in Scotland.
It would technically be perfectly possible, over a period of six months, to put together a package of constraints on Scots MPs’ voting rights that complemented the powers handed to Holyrood. Wider constitutional issues could then be dealt with in the next parliament. This course of action may have future implications for the union itself, but that is the territory Labour accepted when it signed the vow.
In the aftermath of last week’s referendum, Labour is the party with the most to lose. Indemnified by the Scottish no vote, David Cameron has beaten Ukip to the “standing up for England” argument and would no longer be seen as the man who lost Scotland should new, second-tier rights for Scottish MPs lead to eventual independence.
Meanwhile, Labour is in deep trouble. Without dealing with the West Lothian question, Labour MPs and candidates in England will have no answer to the question of why they would support Scots having higher levels of expenditure than those available to poor areas of England, and to those Scots having a say in English-only matters.
In Scotland, before the vote, these asymmetric implications of the vow were understood with great clarity, as they obviously were by the three leaders. Labour has taken the biggest hit because it had been relied on to deliver large Scottish Labour votes to no. In the event, that vote marched towards yes, and more than 40% of Scottish Labour voters chose yes in the end despite the vow being aimed wholly at keeping such voters onside. Unless dramatic measures are taken, and fast, Labour will continue to be punished for the strategic error of neglecting its machinery in Scotland and for taking voters for granted.
I have spoken to firm no voters across the party political spectrum, from my own constituents to prominent Scots elsewhere, and there is no doubt in my mind that if this parliament kicks the vow beyond the next election, and therefore into the long grass, it will be Labour – not the Conservatives – that will be held responsible. Such a failure to legislate would be a moral hazard of such a scale as to confirm, even to many unionists, that the UK government has indeed become corrupted, and that the referendum was won on a lie.
