I'd prefer to see the Scottish Parliament scrapped, as it's been a complete waste of time and money so far. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.
FedUpTaxPayer Speaking as a citizen of a federal country, the situation in the UK
appears to be what we would have in Canada if, say, Quebec and New Brunswick were the only provinces with a separate legislature and powers; Toronto had its own separate legislature and powers and the rest of the country was run directly from Ottawa. Of course, we do it another way and perhaps it's time that the British did as well.
CanSoc, Toronto The union of Great Britain reminds me of the Forth Bridge. It's red, it's very old, it's as symbolic of Britain as the Union flag, it's worked for a long time and been very useful to a lot of people, mainly Scots.
But while it seems a bit shooglie, though OK at the moment, it must be time to replace it with a new structure.
qche, Caracas The WLQ is a load of nonsense, given that England has a Labour majority of about 43 seats anyway. English MPs vote on devolved Scottish issues all the time as part of wider UK legislation.
Fiddler's Ferry, Scalloway, Shetland An English grand committee is not the solution. This means that if English MPs vote to cut spending on health then the Barnett formula is affected. The same applies if they vote to increase spending on education, so we would still have English MPs deciding how much money is spent in the other countries of the Union. The only fair solutions are independence or federalism.
karin m Regional assemblies are an attempt by Labour to solve the problem they created with devolution, by dividing England into artificial bite-size chunks.
Sassenach Observer, Edinburgh Recently, an English MP voiced his concerns that if Scotland froze the council tax it would lead to envy south of the Border. The question then arises, what is our parliament for? If it is only to do as Westminster does, then it is not much of a parliament.
The solutions to the problems are to scrap the parliament, a move which would have little support, or opt for more powers - perhaps involving a federal system - or go for independence. I favour independence because I don't think federalism answers all of the problems.
Gregor Addison, Scotland If England doesn't like the current arrangement, it could always leave the UK and become independent.
David Perth, Lincoln Discussed the WLQ last night with English colleagues. They raised a host of points about England being slighted by the government and large organisations, such as:
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own postage stamps. England doesn't;
• Persistent attempts by politicians - often Scottish Labour - to foist regionalism on England and divide the country;
• Left-wing politicians saying the English flag is a flag of racism, despite the fact that almost every church in England has always flown the English flag;
• British Gas calls itself Scottish Gas in Scotland but British Gas in England;
Tesco labels its milk Scottish milk in Scotland but British milk in England.
Publius, London The only way forward now is a parliament or assembly for England. This will reduce tensions and blunt nascent English nationalism - and, to a lesser extent, Scottish nationalism - and tidy up and largely complete the devolution process.
Create a de facto federal kingdom, giving the best-of-both-worlds solution for most parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and enjoy a large measure of self-rule in the home nation of your, er, home!
Geoff, South Africa The answer to the WLQ is an English parliament. The answer to the English question is to ask the English because only we can decide how we want to be governed. Of course, we won't be asked because the Establishment don't like the answer.
Toque, England New Zealand has four million people and survives quite well. It is in the United Nations and the Commonwealth and, while it's not an incredibly rich country, it takes a full part in world affairs. It will never have the political or economic influence of the UK, the US or Russia, but at least we take part. Scotland does not.
People in Scotland may not realise it but, worldwide, the United Kingdom or Britain are just other names for England.
james 1st, New Zealand While the constitutional question is an issue, I think the perception of the Barnett Formula (England subsidises Scotland) is a much bigger issue underlying the disquiet in England over the constitution.
Alan B Rifkind-lite may be the answer along with more fiscal powers
COMMENTAS A concept, we have lived with the West Lothian Question (WLQ) for nearly 30 years. It became a live constitutional issue only with the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 - and a political flashpoint in 2003-4 when government whips relied upon the votes of their Scottish MPs to push through controversial Commons legislation on foundation hospitals and tuition fees that failed to command the support of a majority of English members. The political system did not come tumbling down.
There is, then, a perfectly respectable school of thought that the WLQ does not need to be answered; that the unwritten British constitution is full of such anomalies, most of them dealt with by the traditional means of muddle and fudge. Why not leave things as they are?
This week, The Scotsman has carried a series of articles on the WLQ, exploring the issues and the views of politicians and voters from across the UK. Our inspiration was the suggestion by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory MP for Kensington and Chelsea, of a "grand committee" comprised only of English MPs to deal with domestic English legislation in areas such as health and education (when a bill was laid before the whole House, Scottish MPs would adopt a self-denying ordinance and abstain).
Sir Malcolm's initiative reignited the constitutional debate, but was itself a response to a growing (yet still minority) clamour in England against the perceived unfairness of letting Scottish MPs vote on issues which do not affect their constituents while denying English MPs a say over these issues north of the Border. (This noisy campaign draws heavily on another, incorrect, perception - that Scotland has a higher level of public expenditure than the rest of the UK, which means Scots get more things for "free".)
Assuming that what constitutes an English-only bill can be agreed upon - no easy matter - Sir Malcolm's scheme would entail the Prime Minister, his Chancellor and other members of the government who sit for Scottish seats refusing themselves a vote on their own legislation, a very odd anomaly indeed. Additionally, were Labour to win a majority of UK seats, but the Tories most English seats at the next general election, the government would need the support of either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories for its domestic legislative programme.
There is another, more fundamental problem, highlighted by the constitutional authority Professor Vernon Bogdanor. The Scottish Parliament is funded by a block grant which is directly dependent on the scale of spending by the government at Westminster.
As Prof Bogdanor says: "The Royal Commission on the Constitution pointed out as long ago as 1973 [that] any issue at Westminster involving expenditure of public money must remain of concern to Scotland, since it affects the level of taxation in Scotland and therefore the amount of money the Scottish Parliament has to spend. This means MPs from Scotland must retain the right to vote on what might seem purely 'English' matters."
This point highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to resolving the WLQ; dealing with voting in isolation would be like bandaging a broken limb.
The Scotsman's view is that the block grant must be abolished and the Scottish Parliament given the power to raise its own taxation revenues in areas over which it has power. Such fiscal autonomy would obviate the need for Scottish MPs to vote on "English" matters in order to preserve funding levels.
That would open the way to a what might be called a Rifkind-lite solution: rather than a grand committee of English-only MPs, a new parliamentary convention could be agreed whereby Scottish MPs abstained from voting on English domestic legislation in much the same way that the SNP's MPs currently do. An exemption from this would have to be made for Cabinet and government ministers.
Under the scenario of the Tories winning a majority of seats in England, Mr Brown might even take a leaf from Alex Salmond's book and form a "minority" administration in England. That really would change the political culture at Westminster.
The full article contains 1514 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
