An English Parliament?

The English Parliament question is currently the flavour of the month for those who take exception to MPs from Scottish constituencies being able to vote on legislation which affects only England, while MPs representing English constituencies have no reciprocal rights to vote on Scottish legislation on devolved matters. For some, establishing an English Parliament is the best way of resolving this variant of the West Lothian question. Of course it has no support from the current government, as was made very clear by Lord Falconer in his widely reported (and blogged) speech to a conference in London on Friday. For him, the downsides of the English Parliament are political (what if the Tories ruled England but Labour ruled the UK?): pragmatic (when – and who would decide – was a Bill a truly English Bill?): and institutional (a large English Parliament will dominate the smaller assemblies of Scotland and Wales). But methinks there is more lurking beneath the surface than Lord Falconer will admit to.

Readers of this blog will know that I have commented on the West Lothian question before, making the point that as long as Scotland’s domestic expenditure is financed via the Barnett-formula block grant, there is a compelling case for MPs from north of the border having a say in English legislation – or at least those elements of English legislation that impact on departmental public expenditures. Indeed, this is precisely why Alex Salmond today is meeting with Ruth Kelly – if he is assured that adverse Barnett consequences will not flow from the current Education Bill (or will have such effects neutralised), the SNP MPs will abstain from the Westminster vote. Otherwise the SNP will vote – and, let’s be honest, it should vote. But, give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for raising the money it spends, as proposed most recently in the Steel Commission Report, and this problem vanishes. There would be no convincing case for any further interference of this sort by Scots-based MPs (although as politics is the art of mischief-making, there will always be some sort of case for interfering wherever possible!).

But what of the constitutional position? If fiscal autonomy is granted to Holyrood, should the West Lothian question finally be laid to rest by the creation of an English Parliament? As a democrat I have no problem with that. But, for some, this does pose a problem. For decades now successive Westminster Governments have moved mountains to protect the Union by containing the nationalist movements on its northern and (to a lesser degree) western borders. And it has done so reasonably successfully. Both Scotland and Wales remain part of the UK – devolution having taken care, for the moment at least, of the nationalism that was nurtured as a direct result of 18 years of English Tory misrule in Scotland and Wales. But here is the question. Could the Westminster Government contain the nationalism of England were it to be granted the first stage of re-invigorated nationhood by having its own Parliament? Here I think the truth lies rather than the concerns about institutional dominance. Ironic as it might seem, it is English nationalism that poses the greatest threat to the Union, not Scottish or Welsh nationalisms. And there is no 'plan B' for that contingency. Let that particular genie out to play and just sit back and watch the Union unravel.