Library Note

Debate on 29 October 2014: Devolution Following the

Scotland Referendum

This Library Note provides background reading for the debate in the House of Lords on 29 October

2014 on devolution following the Scottish independence referendum, which took place on

18 September 2014. Prior to the referendum, the Scottish Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat

parties each published separate proposals for the further devolution of powers to Scotland in the event

of a vote by Scotland in favour of remaining part of the UK. In the last month of the referendum

campaign, the three parties sought to present a united front to the Scottish people through a joint

commitment to a time-table proposed by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, which would see the parties’ different proposals combined to create a draft bill on further devolution. This draft bill

would be published prior to the 2015 general election.

Following the decision of the Scottish people on 18 September 2014 to vote against independence, the

Prime Minister, David Cameron, established a commission led by Lord Smith of Kelvin that was to

publish a heads of agreement document on Scottish devolution by November 2014. The areas where

the Smith Commission might be likely to seek consensus included the further devolution of tax raising

powers and control of some social security policies. In tandem with this process, a Cabinet Committee

chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons, William Hague, would consider the devolution

settlement in Wales and Northern Ireland, and the West Lothian question. The Prime Minster also said

that his Government would announce the further decentralisation of powers to local authorities and

measures to engender wider civic engagement.

The resolution of the West Lothian question, also referred to as the English question, presents a

number of challenges. These include the danger of creating two classes of MPs in the House of

Commons, which the McKay Commission into the West Lothian question warned would undermine the

stability of the Union. There would also be the difficulty of defining which bills might be classed as

England or England and Wales only bills. Although William Hague has stated that the Labour Party had

been invited to take part in the Cabinet Committee process, Labour has argued that the choice of a

Cabinet Committee to consider this kind of constitutional change was inappropriate. The Leader of the

Opposition, Ed Miliband, has argued that the issue should be considered as part of a constitutional

convention instead.

Edward Scott and Eren Waitzman

23 October 2014

LLN 2014/031

House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of the House of Lords and their personal staff,

to provide impartial, politically balanced briefing on subjects likely to be of interest to Members of the Lords. Authors

are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the

general public.

Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services, House of Lords Library,

London SW1A 0PW or emailed to vollmerp@parliament.uk.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Proposals for Further Devolution for Scotland made during the Referendum Campaign ....... 1

2.2 Scottish Referendum Results .................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Prime Minister’s Statement Following the Referendum Result ...................................................... 2

3.1 Scottish Devolution Prior to the 2014 Referendum ......................................................................... 3

3.2 Parties’ Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland ................................................................... 3

3.3 Criticism of the Time-Scale for the Smith Commission ................................................................... 4

3.4 Issues to be Considered by the Smith Commission .......................................................................... 5

3.5 Assessing Support for Further Devolution in Scotland .................................................................... 6

4.1 England and Resolution of the West Lothian Question ................................................................... 7

4.2 Proposals for the Resolution of the West Lothian Question ......................................................... 8

4.3 Opposition to Changing the Voting Rights of MPs for Scottish Constituencies ......................... 9

4.4 Relationship between Further Scottish Devolution and English Votes for English Laws ........ 11

4.5 Reform of House of Commons and the Impact on the Lords ...................................................... 11

5. Devolution in Wales ................................................................................................................................. 12

6. Devolution in Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 12

7. Widening Civic Engagement: Decentralisation for UK Cities ......................................................... 13

Appendix: Exit Polling from Scottish Referendum.................................................................................. 15

1. Introduction

In October 2012, the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmon, and the UK Prime Minister, David

Cameron, signed the Edinburgh Agreement which established the terms for a referendum on

whether Scotland should remain part of the UK or become an independent country. The referendum subsequently took place on 18 September 2014, and resulted in a majority of

Scottish voters choosing to remain in the UK. This Library Note provides background reading

for the debate in the House of Lords on 29 October 2014 on devolution following the Scottish

independence referendum. The referendum on Scottish independence and polling data on the

prospective results of the vote have both been the subject of House of Lords Library Notes

entitled Referendum on Scottish Independence1 and Polling Data on the Scottish Independence

Referendum2.

2.1 Proposals for Further Devolution for Scotland made during the

Referendum Campaign

Prior to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, the Scottish Conservative, Labour and

Liberal Democrat parties each established separate commissions to make recommendations

concerning the further devolution of powers from Westminster to Scotland in the event of a

majority of Scottish voters choosing to remain in the UK. The reports of these commissions

were: Scottish Liberal Democrats, Federalism: The Best Future for Scotland (October 2012);

Scottish Labour Devolution Commission, Powers for a Purpose—Strengthening Accountability and

Empowering People (March 2014); and Scottish Conservatives, Commission on the Future

Governance of Scotland (June 2014). Each of these reports recommended a separate devolution

settlement, but they all had in common the recommendation that the powers of the Scottish Parliament concerning income tax and social security matters should be increased.

On 5 August 2014, the leaders of the UK and Scottish Conservative, Liberal Democrat and

Labour parties issued a combined statement supporting the devolution of further powers to the

Scottish Parliament in the event of a vote against independence.3 This set out that the three

parties would “pledge to strengthen further the powers of the Scottish Parliament, in particular

in the areas of fiscal responsibility and social security”. This pledge would be delivered through

the respective manifestos of the three parties, with a guarantee “to start delivering more

powers for the Scottish Parliament as swiftly as possible in 2015”.

In September 2014, in the final month of the referendum campaign, the Conservative, Labour

and Liberal Democrat parties sought to present a united front to the Scottish people through a

joint commitment to reach an agreement on a common plan for the implementation of further

devolution. In a speech in Midlothian on 8 September 2014, the former Prime Minister, Gordon

Brown, set out a time-table for the agreement of a new devolution settlement for Scotland if

the country decided to vote against independence in the referendum.4 This time-table would

see a consultation process begin immediately after the referendum with the publication of a

draft bill on further devolution in Scotland by Burns Night on 25 January 2015. Second reading

of a new Scotland Act would then take place after the 2015 general election. On 9 September

1 House of Lords Library, Referendum on Scottish Independence, 19 June 2014, LLN 2014/020. 2 House of Lords Library, Polling Data on the Scottish Independence Referendum, 8 August 2014, LLN 2014/027. 3 Scottish Liberal Democrats, ‘Clegg Backs Cross-Party Commitment on More Powers’, 5 August 2014. 4 BBC News, ‘Scottish Independence: Brown Sets Out More Powers Timetable’, 8 September 2014.

2014, the leaders of the Scottish Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties issued a

press release endorsing Gordon Brown’s time table.5

On 15 September 2014, the Daily Record published an article endorsed by the national leaders

of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.6 The article, published on the front

page of the paper under the head line ‘The Vow’, stated the three party leaders had agreed to

support further devolution of powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.

2.2 Scottish Referendum Results

On 18 September 2014, a majority of those who voted in the referendum on Scottish

independence chose to support Scotland remaining part of the UK.7 Further information on the

polling data on the Scottish referendum on independence has been included in the Appendix to

this Note.

The Scottish National Party accepted that the result was conclusive, as had been agreed in the

Edinburgh Agreement, but stated that the Party believed that commitments made in September

2014 by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat party leaders were a key factor as to

why many voted against independence. The Scottish First Minster, Alex Salmond, argued that

the pro-Union parties had made a “last-minute, desperate promise” to avoid defeat in the

referendum campaign.8 When the last minute nature of these commitments was suggested in

the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, argued that

the separate commitments to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament had in fact

predated the September agreement in some cases by some 18 months.9 Instead, Mr Carmichael

said that the significance of these commitments was that they included an agreement of a time-table to reach a single set of proposals.

2.3 Prime Minister’s Statement Following the Referendum Result

On the morning of 19 September 2014, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, delivered a

statement in which he outlined a series of measures intended to further strengthen the Union

following the no vote in the referendum campaign. Mr Cameron set out the time-table for a

process through which the parties would seek to reach agreement on proposals for further

devolution of tax, spending and welfare powers to Scotland.10 This process was to be overseen

by a commission lead by Lord Smith of Kelvin and, as had been agreed earlier in September by

the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, this commission was to publish a heads

of agreement document by November 2014. Draft legislation would then be published in

January 2015. The Smith Commission held its first meeting with the five political parties on

22 October 2014.11

5 Better Together, ‘Change is coming to Scotland with a No vote’, 9 September 2014. 6 ‘David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg Sign Joint Historic Promise which Guarantees More Devolved

Powers for Scotland and Protection of NHS if we Vote No’, Daily Record, 15 September 2014. 7 ‘Results’, Scottish Independence Referendum, 24 September 2014. 8 Rowena Mason, ‘Scotland Could Get ‘Revenge’ for Broken Referendum Promises, Says Salmond’, Guardian,

14 October 2014. 99 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, col 58. 10 Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Scottish Independence Referendum: Statement by the Prime Minister’, 19 September

2014. 11 BBC News, “Smith Commission: Party Representatives Hold ‘Constructive’ First Meeting”, 22 October 2014.

The Prime Minister also said that there should be a process conducted in tandem with the

Smith Commission to consider the West Lothian question and the devolution settlements in

Wales and Northern Ireland. The task of overseeing this parallel process was to be undertaken

by a Cabinet Committee led by the Leader of the House of Commons, William Hague.

Mr Hague has stated that his Cabinet Committee will work closely with the Smith Commission

and “ensure that the British Government feed in information as necessary and when it is

requested by Lord Smith”.12 The Committee held its first meeting on 25 September 2014.13

The Prime Minister also stated that further decentralisation of powers to local authorities was

necessary. Mr Cameron advocated wider civic engagement in the UK and the empowerment of

“our great cities”.14 Further details of how civic engagement might be improved in the UK

would be announced in due course.

3.1 Scottish Devolution Prior to the 2014 Referendum

The Scotland Act 1998 shifted responsibility for a number of policy areas from Westminster to

the Scottish Parliament, including health, housing and education.15 The UK Government

retained control over certain reserved matters including benefits and social security, defence

and foreign policy. The Scotland Act 1998 also enabled the Scottish Government to vary the

standard rate of income tax by three percent, although this power was never used.16

Further devolution to Scotland was provided for by the Scotland Act 2012, which granted the

Scottish Parliament greater powers to raise revenue and make decisions on how that revenue

might be spent. The Scottish Parliament is due to gain control of stamp duty land tax and landfill

tax from April 2015, and will have the power to set a new Scottish rate of income tax from April 2016. The Act will also enable the Scottish Government to borrow for capital investment

up to a total of £2.2 billion. The Scottish Government has also been granted separately the

power to issue its own bonds as an alternative means of borrowing up to a total of £2.2

billion.17 The overall effect of the Act was that the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for

funding around a third of devolved spending.18 On 9 October 2014, the Scottish Finance

Cabinet Secretary, John Swinney, delivered a statement to the Scottish Parliament on the draft

2015–16 budget, which included proposals for a new land and building transactions tax.19

Further information on the tax raising powers of the Scottish Parliament are set out in the

House of Commons Library Note The Scotland Act 2012: Devolution of Tax Powers to the Scottish

Parliament.20

3.2 Parties’ Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland

On 13 October 2014, the Government published a command paper entitled The Parties’

Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland.21 This set out the proposals for further

12 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 172. 13 Cabinet Office, ‘Cabinet Committee for Devolved Powers: Statement on First Meeting’, 25 September 2014. 14 ibid. 15 Scottish Parliament, ‘Devolved and Reserved Matters Explained’, accessed 21 October 2014. 16 House of Commons Library, Devolution of Tax Powers to the Scottish Parliament, 2 February 2012, SN05984. 17 Scotland Office and HM Treasury, ‘Scotland To Be Given Powers To Issue Its Own Bonds’, 19 February 2014. 18 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946. 19 Andrew Black, ‘Scottish Budget: Boost for first-time buyers’, BBC News, 9 October 2014. 20 House of Commons Library, The Scotland Act 2012: Devolution of Tax Powers to the Scottish Parliament, 10 October

2014, SN05984. 21 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946.

Scottish devolution from the Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties. This was

required as part of the Smith Commission process announced by the Prime Minister. As a

result of the decision of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party to take part in

the Smith Commission process, the Smith Commission would also consider their proposals for

further devolution for Scotland.22

In its command paper, the Government set out three principles for further devolution that

were established during the passage of the Scotland Act 2012, and stated that these should

form part of the considerations of the Smith Commission.23 These principles were that any

proposal for further devolution should have cross-party support, be based on evidence and not

be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. The Government also stated that it “anticipated

that any further devolution of powers should not of itself confer any systematic financial gain or

loss to either Scotland or the rest of the UK or the UK as a whole”.24

In his statement to Parliament announcing the publication of The Parties’ Published Proposals on

Further Devolution for Scotland, the command paper was described by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, as encompassing “a broad, complex and often interlinked range of

topics”.25 Mr Carmichael reasserted the Government’s commitment that Lord Smith of Kelvin

would publish his heads of agreement document, outlining the initial terms of the agreement on

further devolution, by St Andrews Day on 30 November 2014. Draft clauses on further

devolution would be published by Burns Night on 25 January 2015. The inclusion of the SNP in

the Smith Commission process was welcomed by Mr Carmichael. However, Mr Carmichael

warned that the process could not be subverted as a means of getting independence for

Scotland “through the back door”.26

3.3 Criticism of the Time-Scale for the Smith Commission

In their oral evidence to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform

Committee, the Director of the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, Professor Michael

Keating, and the Associate Director, Professor Nicola McEwen, both suggested that the time-

frame in which the Smith Commission was meant to operate was too short to achieve a

conclusive result.27 This criticism has been shared by the former Deputy First Minister of

Northern Ireland, Mark Durkan.28 Lord Smith has responded to this criticism, arguing that he

believed that the time-scale of the Smith Commission was achievable.29 Professor of Politics at

Strathclyde University, John Curtice, has argued that there should be a referendum on

proposals for further devolution to Scotland following the Smith Commission process.30

22 The proposals from the Scottish Government are included in its document More Powers for the Scottish Parliament

(October 2014); and the proposals from the Scottish Green Party are included in Scottish Green Party Submission to

Smith Commission on Devolution (2014). 23 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946,

pp 11–12 and 15. 24 ibid, p 16. 25 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, cols 46–60. 26 ibid, col 51. 27 BBC News, ‘Smith Commission Timetable ‘Unrealistic’’, 16 October 2014. 28 Scott Macnab, ‘Scottish Devolution Timetable ‘is Unrealistic’’, Scotsman, 17 October 2014. 29 BBC News, ‘Smith Commission Timetable ‘Unrealistic’’, 16 October 2014. 30 Mark Macaskill and Gillian Bowditch, ‘Scotland ‘Needs a Referendum on Devolution Settlement’’, Sunday Times,

19 October 2014 (£).

3.4 Issues to be Considered by the Smith Commission

The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland31 sets out the similarities and

differences between the party proposals, as well as stating areas where only some parties had

put forward proposals. Although it does not state how these differences might be resolved in

the heads of agreement document, the command paper does provide an indication of some of

the areas where the Smith Commission might seek to achieve consensus. Two of these possible

areas are the further devolution of tax raising powers to the Scottish Parliament and the

devolution of social security policy to Scotland.

Tax Raising Powers

The Government does not state which criteria the Smith Commission ought to apply when

considering whether to devolve further tax raising powers. However, it does provide, as an

example, the criteria used for the devolution of specific taxes by the Silk Commission on

devolution in Wales. These criteria included:

Whether the tax was paid in that particular territory and devolving it would strength accountability for raising revenue.

Whether devolution might affect the economic efficiency of the tax by tax payers

changing their behaviour to reduce their tax burden.

Whether devolution would impose substantial additional administrative burdens on tax payers or increase the cost of collection significantly.

Whether the tax might be useful as a policy lever to change behaviour.

Whether the devolution of a tax would be consistent with European law or

international arrangements.

Whether devolving the tax would increase the tax base.32

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties all agreed that further powers to set

the rate of income tax in Scotland ought to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However,

while the Conservative and Liberal Democrats both advocated devolution to Scotland of the

power to set the rates at which income is taxed in Scotland, Labour advocated an increase in

the amount that the Scottish Government was able to vary the basic rate of income tax, from

10 percent to 15 percent.33

The Institute for Government and the Economic and Social Reform Council have considered

how this new tax system might be administered, and have argued that it would be necessary for

HM Revenue and Customs and the Scottish Government to work closely to ensure that the

two tax systems operate harmoniously. This might be done through HM Revenue and Customs,

as is the case with the system established under the Scotland Act 2012, or by the creation of a

separate body operating alongside HM Revenue and Customs in Scotland.34 The Scottish

Government would also need to negotiate with HM Treasury the block grant adjustment

required when new taxes were brought into effect and started to be used.35

31 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946. 32 ibid, p 18. 33 ibid, p 19. 34 Institute for Government and Economic and Social Reform Council, Governing After the Referendum: Future

Constitutional Scenarios for Scotland and the UK, September 2014, pp 39–40. 35 ibid, p 40.

Social Security

The Conservative and Labour parties have both stated that they would support the devolution

of two social security policies: attendance allowance and housing benefits.36 The associate

director at the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, Professor Nicola McEwen, has

considered what the implications might be of devolving more power to the Scottish Parliament

to set social policy.37 In 2012–13, spending on attendance allowance was of £489 million, which

equalled around three percent of Scotland’s total welfare spend. Housing Benefit was a

significantly larger policy. In 2012–13, it amounted to £1,789 million, making up nine percent of

welfare spend in Scotland. Professor McEwen argued that the most likely form of devolution

would see the Scottish Government opt out of the UK wide attendance allowance and the

equivalent funding provided by the UK Government as a fiscal transfer. The Scottish

Government would then be able to use the money to deliver its own programmes.

One of the challenges in delivering devolution of welfare spending is that housing benefit is one

of the benefits to be provided in future through universal credit.38 The Government stated in The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland that the proposals to devolve

Housing Benefit predated the establishment of universal credit. Professor McEwan argued that

how housing benefit could be disentangled from the rest of universal credit was not yet clear.

The involvement of the SNP and the Scottish Green Party in the Smith Commission process is

likely to see debate on the devolution of other schemes as well. Professor McEwan has pointed

out that the Smith Commission would need to consider to what degree the Scottish Parliament

should be able to shape its benefits system in a significantly different way to that which operates

in the rest of the UK. This would include establishing the extent to which the welfare policies

of the Scottish Government would be dictated by the UK budgets agreed in Westminster. The

Government has said in The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland that one

of the factors that would need to be considered when planning for the devolution of social

security was the cost and complexity involved in setting up new systems for the delivery of

benefits.39 Based on the previous experience of the Department of Work and Pensions, it said

this cost and complexity could be considerable.

3.5 Assessing Support for Further Devolution in Scotland

ICM have produced polling data for the Scotsman newspapers on what people in Scotland

thought should happen if there was a no vote in the Scottish referendum. In September 2014,

ICM found that 74 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement “the Scottish

Parliament should become primarily responsible for making decisions about taxation and

welfare benefits in Scotland”, while 18 percent agreed with the statement “there should be no

further change to the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament”. Eight percent

responded saying that they did not know.40 Professor John Curtice, citing polling data from

YouGov and TNS BMRB, noted a rise over the course of the referendum campaign in the

36 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946,

pp 33–7. 37 Future of the UK and Scotland, ‘Devolving Social Security—Key Challenges and Opportunities’, 8 October 2014. 38 HM Government, The Parties’ Published Proposals on Further Devolution for Scotland, 13 October 2014, Cm 8946,

p 34. 39 ibid. 40 What Scotland Thinks, ‘What Should Happen Next if Scotland Votes No?’, accessed 16 October 2014.

number of those who were in support of the devolution of powers on taxation and welfare

payments, including amongst those intending to vote no in the referendum.41

Professor of Politics at the University of Ulster, Alan Trench, has also noted support for further

devolution of powers from Westminster to Holyrood, citing the evidence of the Scottish Social

Attitudes Survey:

Polling evidence shows that over 60 per cent of Scottish voters think health and

education should be devolved (which is good, as they are), that a similar proportion

think that decisions about taxes should be made in Scotland, and only a slightly smaller

percentage think that decisions about the levels of welfare benefits should also be made

in Scotland. It also shows that around 70 percent of Scottish voters have consistently

wanted the Scottish Parliament or Government to have the most say in how Scotland is

run, going back to before devolution.42

4.1 England and Resolution of the West Lothian Question

In his 19 September 2014 statement, the Prime Minister described the resolution of the West

Lothian question as a key part of any strategy to strengthen the Union after the Scottish

referendum. The West Lothian question, which has also been referred to as the English

question or the issue of English votes for English laws, arises from the fact that MPs

representing Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies may vote on legislation

extending to England, while English MPs do not have the equivalent right to vote on all

legislation affecting devolved regions.43 The Prime Minister argued that, without a resolution to

the issue of voting rights of MPs in Westminster concerning laws affecting England, a “crucial part” would be missing from this national discussion.44

The arguments in favour of reforming the procedures of the House of Commons are described

by Dr Mark Elliott, Reader in Public Law at the University of Cambridge.45 Dr Elliott described

the first argument in favour of reform as being that the current system lacks reciprocity

between England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The second argument identified by

Dr Elliott is the absence of an institution which adequately represents the distinct national

identity of England as part of the UK. Dr Elliott argued that such English nationalist tendencies

were likely to be “ignited by perceptions that Scotland is being accorded preferential treatment

through the devolution of additional powers”. Such disquiet would be exacerbated in a situation

where a UK government came to power that only commanded a majority in the House of

Commons because of Scottish MPs.

Professors Charlie Jeffery and Richard Wyn Jones have argued that the survey data collected by

Cardiff University for its Future of England Survey provides some indication on the level of

41 John Curtice, ‘So What Should Be Done About The Vow? Public Opinion and More Devolution’, What Scotland

Thinks, 30 September 2014. Data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey is set out on the What Scotland Thinks

website: ‘Explore the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey’, accessed 20 October 2014. 42 Alan Trench, What Happens after the Scottish Referendum?, 15 May 2014, p 13. 43 Further information on the history of the West Lothian question is provided in the House of Commons Library

Note The West Lothian Question, 18 January 2012, SN02586. 44 Prime Minister's Office, ‘Scottish Independence Referendum: Statement by the Prime Minister’, 19 September

2014. 45 Dr Mark Elliott, ‘Scotland has Voted No. What Next for the UK Constitution?’, UK Constitutional Law

Association Blog, 19 September 2014.

support in England for finding a resolution to the West Lothian question.46 The Future of

England Survey included a question on people’s preferred options concerning different

constitutional arrangements in England. Support for the status quo and for regional assemblies

was both low, while English votes on English laws appeared to have become the preferred

option.47

Any answer to the West Lothian question would need to resolve a number of complex

consequential problems. The Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London,

Professor Robert Hazell, has described the process necessary to resolve the English question as

being complex, arguing that is not a single question, but rather a number of different related

questions.48 He argued that an answer to the English question should include not only the

voting rights of MPs in the House of Commons, but also the devolution of powers across

England. Professor Hazell has described the following difficulties concerning the House of

Commons. The first difficulty would be how to identify the laws on which only English MPs

would be allowed to vote. Bills currently indicate their territorial extent, but are not designated

as “England only” or “England and Wales only” in terms of their effect. The second difficulty would be deciding at which stage in the legislative process only English or English and Welsh

MPs might be allowed to vote. Professor Hazell has argued that supporters of the principle of

English votes on English laws tend to underestimate the implications of the change involved,

with the risk being that a new system might create two classes of MPs. This could also lead to

political instability in a situation where a government was dependent for its majority on the

support of MPs from devolved regions of the UK.

4.2 Proposals for the Resolution of the West Lothian Question The January 2008 report of Kenneth Clarke’s Democracy Taskforce, commissioned by the

Conservative Party, included a proposal to allow only English MPs to sit at committee stage of

an “England-only” bill.49 The bill would then reach a final vote of all Members of the House of

Commons. Proposals were included in the Conservative Party’s 2010 manifesto for the

introduction of new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England or England and

Wales could not be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those

countries.50

Subsequently to the 2010 general election, the West Lothian question was considered by the

McKay Commission, who’s Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the

House of Commons was published in March 2013. The Commission’s recommendations included

that matters considered in the House of Commons exclusively affecting England should

normally require the consent of a majority of English MPs.51 This would extend to England the

principle under which the UK’s devolved assemblies were established, which was that:

Decisions at the UK level having a separate and distinct effect for a component part of

the UK should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of the elected

representatives for that part of the UK.52

46 What Scotland Thinks, ‘English Votes on English Laws: the English Constitutional Preference?’, 15 October 2014. 47 Cardiff University, Future of England Survey, 2014, p 3. 48 ‘The English Question Comprises Two Broad Questions, with Half a Dozen Different Answers’, The

Constitution Unit, 25 September 2014. 49 Hélène Mulholland, ‘In Summary: the Democracy Taskforce Proposals’, Guardian, 14 January 2008. 50 Conservative Party, Invitation to Join the Government of Britain 2010 The Conservative Manifesto 2010, p 84. 51 McKay Commission, Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons, p 8. 52 ibid, p 36.

The McKay Commission recommended that, to achieve this, the standing orders of the House

of Commons should be amended to enable a number of changes to be made to its

procedures.53 The McKay Commission argued that this option was preferable to any change

being made through primary legislation. It also concluded that any change to the procedures of

the House of Commons should avoid a situation which created two classes of MPs.54

The changes proposed by the McKay Commission included the introduction of a procedure

either in grand committee or on the floor of the House before second reading that would be

the equivalent to a legislative consent motion. Legislative consent motions are currently used to

grant the consent of the devolved legislatures to the UK Parliament to legislate in a devolved

area on their behalf.55 The House of Commons would also introduce a specially-constituted

public bill committee of English or English and Welsh MPs to ensure that, where necessary, bills

were scrutinised by MPs from relevant parts of the UK. The McKay Commission also

recommended that the Government should consider the separate interests of England as part

of the process for drafting legislation placed before Parliament.56 Professor Robert Hazell has argued that in practice the process would also require the designation of laws as affecting

England only by the Speaker of the House of Commons.57

The two possible methods of enacting a resolution of the West Lothian question—either

through an amendment to the standing orders of the House of Commons or through primary

legislation—were both advocated in the House of Commons following the Prime Minister’s 19

September announcement. Former Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell,

argued that any change to the rules for Scottish MPs voting on English legislation would need to

be enacted by primary legislation.58 The approach advocated by the McKay Commission for an

amendment to the standing orders was endorsed by Rory Stewart, Conservative MP for

Penrith and the Border.59

4.3 Opposition to Changing the Voting Rights of MPs for Scottish

Constituencies

The Labour Party has stated its opposition both to the methods used by the Government to

seek to resolve the West Lothian question and to some of the proposals suggested for a

possible future resolution. Labour has criticised the decision by the Government to seek to

resolve the English question through a Cabinet Committee. The Leader of the House of

Commons, William Hague, stated that Labour were invited to take part in the discussions of

the Cabinet Committee, but that he had not received a response to his request.60 On

14 October 2014, the Guardian reported comments from a Labour spokesperson that the Party

would not participate “in a Westminster stitch-up”.61 The Leader of the Opposition,

53 ibid, pp 37–8; and House of Commons Library, ‘The McKay Commission: Report of the Commission on the

Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons’, 14 February 2014, SN06821, pp 7–8. 54 McKay Commission, Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons, p 44. 55 ibid, p 54. 56 ibid, p 59. 57 Professor Robert Hazell, ‘The English Question Comprises Two Broad Questions, with Half a Dozen Different

Answers’, Constitution Unit, 25 September 2014. 58 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, cols 49–50. 59 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 178. 60 ibid, col 178. 61 Nicholas Watt and Rowena Mason, ‘Labour to Boycott ‘Stitch-Up’ on English Votes for English Laws’, Guardian,

14 October 2014.

Ed Miliband, has advocated the convening of a constitutional convention to discuss the future of

devolution in the UK, such as that which took place between 1989 and 1995 on devolution for

Scotland. The Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has also argued that a constitutional

convention for the UK is required.62

On the issue of how laws affecting England are considered in the House of Commons, Mr

Miliband argued that more could be done to improve the scrutiny of English legislation by

English MPs.63 However, he has stated his opposition to the proposals for changing the voting

rights of some MPs on the grounds that this would create two different classes of MPs.

However, Mr Hague argued that there were already two classes of MPs with different rights in

the current devolution settlement, with Scottish MPs voting on matters in England that were

devolved to Scotland.64

Mr Miliband has also argued that creating a system for the classification of bills as “English-only”

would be overly complex.65 Although issues such as tuition fees in England might seem to affect

only England, Mr Miliband argued that they might have an effect on public spending in Scotland and Wales. The Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has also argued that the process of

identifying which bills applied only to England would be “immensely complicated”.66

The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has argued in the House of Commons that any

devolution settlement ought to guarantee the rights of the minority population countries of the

Union and that minority rights would be threatened if Scottish MPs could not vote on

legislation affecting UK spending:

The fundamental question in the British constitution arises because England is

84 percent of the Union, Scotland is eight percent, Wales is five percent and Northern

Ireland is three percent, and the reality is that at any point the votes of England could

outvote Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, individually or collectively. So the real

issue is about getting a fair distribution of power that respects not only majority rule—I

am sensitive to the needs of England and English votes—but the rights of the minorities,

so that we have stability and harmony in the British constitution.67

The size of England, in terms of it population, in the Union has also been identified by Professor

Vernon Bogdanor as an obstacle to the resolution of the English question. 68 Professor

Bogdanor has argued that no effective federal system has existed where one of the units in that

system represented 85 percent of the population. He cited the former USSR, Czechoslovakia

and Yugoslavia as examples of federal systems where one member dominated the others in

terms of size.

62 Patrick Wintour, ‘Labour Proposes Devolution Settlement to ‘Shape Own Futures’’, Guardian, 19 September

2014. 63 George Eaton, ‘Miliband Rejects English Votes for English Laws—But Backs “Greater Scrutiny”’, New Statesman,

21 September 2014. 64 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 186. 65 George Eaton, ‘Miliband Rejects English Votes for English Laws—But Backs “Greater Scrutiny”’, New Statesman,

21 September 2014. 66 BBC News, ‘Powers for English Regions “Better Fit”, Carwyn Jones Says’, 20 September 2014. 67 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 195. 68 Professor Vernon Bogdanor, ‘The One-State Solution to England’s Role in a Devolved UK’, Guardian, 25 March

2013.

4.4 Relationship between Further Scottish Devolution and English

Votes for English Laws

The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, has stated that while the Government

wished for further devolution in Scotland to take place at the same time as a separate process of constitutional change elsewhere in the UK, the Government would not “delay the

implementation of the proposals in Scotland for other parts of the UK”.69 Mr Carmichael also

stated that there was no deadline for the process to resolve the English question, although the

coming general election in May 2015 would be a factor.70

Some MPs for English constituencies have argued that a resolution of the English question is

fundamental to any future plans to devolve further powers to Scotland. Crispin Blunt,

Conservative MP for Reigate, has argued that the issue of English votes for English laws ought

to be addressed at the same time as further devolution to Scotland, and that he ought not to be

bound by the commitment to deliver the further devolution to Scotland agreed in by party

leaders in September 2014, because this was not a manifesto commitment in the 2010 general

election.71 John Redwood, Conservative MP for Wokingham, has proposed that, if no cross-

party consensus is reached on the English question, he intends to table his own motion to

resolve the issue and he believes that he might be able to achieve the support of a majority of

MPs.72

4.5 Reform of House of Commons and the Impact on the Lords

The Prime Minister did not mention reform of the House of Lords as part of his 19 September

2014 statement following the referendum result. The Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband,

said during his speech to the 2014 Labour Conference that reform of the House of Lords

should be part of the process to increase the representation of nations and regions in

Westminster, advocating the creation of a senate for the nations and the regions to replace the

House of Lords.73

During questions to the Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, Chris Bryant, Labour MP or

Rhondda, asked what would happen to the votes of Members of the House of Lords who were

Scottish Peers in the event of a change in the procedure in the House of Commons.74 The

question of what does or does not constitute a Scottish Member of the Lords is addressed in

House of Lords Constitution Select Committee report Scottish Independence: Constitutional

Implications of the Referendum.75 This report considered the issue in the context of a

hypothetical yes vote in the Scottish referendum. Because Members of the House of Lords do

not represent constituencies, there is not a clear distinction made in the House between

Scottish and other Members. The Committee stated that the only Members of the House of

Lords whose membership might be linked specifically to Scotland were a minority of the 92

Members who sat in the House by virtue of a hereditary title that pre-dated the formation of

69 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, cols 49. 70 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, col 52. 71 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 172. 72 Andrew Sparrow ‘Redwood Says Tories Could Pass English Votes For English Laws’ Could Pass Before General

Election’, Guardian Politics Live Blog, 14 October 2014. 73 ‘Ed Miliband’s Speech to the Labour Conference: Full Text’, New Statesman, 23 September 2014. 74 HC Hansard, 13 October 2014, col 60. 75 House of Lords Constitution Select Committee, Scottish Independence: Constitutional Implications of the

Referendum, 16 May 2014, HL Paper 188 of session 2013–14, pp 18–20.

Great Britain in 1707. Peers of Scotland with titles created subsequently would also hold

peerages of Great Britain or of the UK.

5. Devolution in Wales

In Wales, the reaction to the Scottish referendum from Assembly Members has focused on the

issues of what form future devolution might take and the funding formula used to deliver the

block grant that Wales receives from the UK Government. On the day that the result of the

Scottish referendum on independence was announced, the Welsh First Minster, Carwyn Jones,

stated that Wales should not “play second fiddle” to Scotland in the devolution talks to

follow.76 On 16 October 2014, Mr Jones gave a speech to the Institute for Government on the

future of the Union in which he argued that any future devolution settlement for the UK should

be a holistic settlement addressing the needs of all the countries of the Union.77

Mr Jones also said that the method for funding given to Wales through the Barnett formula

needed to be reformed, arguing that Wales was currently being under funded. Following the

Scottish referendum, the leaders of the Welsh Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat

parties and Plaid Cymru held talks on what further powers might be devolved to Wales.78

Following these talks, a joint statement was presented to the Welsh Assembly which included a

call for the UK Government to review the Barnett formula.79

In 2010, the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, chaired by Gerald

Holtham, recommended reform of the annual block grant used by the UK Government to

allocate money to Wales. The Holtham Commission argued that basing the size of the grant on

population size failed to take account of the specific needs of Wales, such as the prevalence of high unemployment in certain areas of the country. Further information on the

recommendations of the Holtham Commission is provided in the House of Commons Library

Note, Holtham Commission.80

6. Devolution in Northern Ireland

The debate in Northern Ireland following the Scottish referendum has been distinct from that

in the rest of the UK because of the ongoing disagreements in Stormont. While the Leader of

the House of Commons, William Hague, has stated specifically that his Cabinet Committee was

considering further devolution for Scotland and Wales, he stated that the Committee was

“committed to meeting the special needs of Northern Ireland”.81 Following the announcement

of the results of the Scottish referendum, the Northern Ireland First Minister, Peter Robinson,

and the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, gave different views on the impact of the

vote on the prospects of further devolution in Northern Ireland.82 While Mr McGuinness said

that the UK Government should make progress towards the transfer of full fiscal powers, Mr

Robinson argued that the status quo should be maintained.

76 Welsh Government, ‘First Minister News Conference’, 19 September 2014. 77 Welsh Government, ‘First Minister of Wales—Speech on a New Union’, 16 October 2014. 78 BBC News, ‘Welsh Party Leaders Unite on Call for Further Powers after Talks’, 8 October 2014. 79 BBC News, ‘Leaders Call for Agreement on Extra Funding for Wales’, 14 October 2014. 80 House of Commons Library, Holtham Commission, 1 November 2012, SN/EP/6288. 81 HC Hansard, 14 October 2014, col 181. 82 BBC News, ‘Scottish Independence: Peter Robinson Says NI Border Poll Not Needed’, 19 September 2014.

The Northern Ireland Executive has been divided on the issue of implementing reforms to the

welfare system introduced by the UK Government.83 This has led to the imposition of financial

penalties by HM Treasury on the Northern Ireland Executive. On 9 September 2014, the Belfast

Telegraph published an article by Mr Robinson in which he stated that the disagreement over

welfare reform had confirmed to him that the arrangements for devolved government in

Northern Ireland were “no longer fit for purpose”.84 The Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland, Theresa Villiers, has said that although Northern Ireland had recently enjoyed an

improving economy, the devolved administration faced the challenges of the agreement of its

budgets and welfare reform as well as achieving agreement on issues such as parades, flags and

issues concerning the events of the Troubles.85 She urged the Sinn Fein and the SDLP leadership

to make progress on the implementation of the UK Government’s welfare reforms.

The devolution of powers to set the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland was proposed

prior to the referendum on Scottish independence. In June 2013, the Northern Ireland Office

and Northern Ireland Executive published Building a Prosperous and United Community, which

included measures intended to rebalance the economy of Northern Ireland. Among the changes proposed were increases to capital borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Executive.

Building a Prosperous and United Community also stated that the UK Government would consult

on whether to devolve to Northern Ireland the power to set the corporation tax rate. A final

decision would be taken by the time of the Chancellor’s 2014 autumn statement. The House of

Lords spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Office, Baroness Randerson, stated on 20

October 2014, in response to a parliamentary question, that the UK Government remained on

track to meet that timetable.86

7. Widening Civic Engagement: Decentralisation for UK Cities

The Prime Minister, in his 19 September 2014 statement following the Scottish referendum,

argued that increasing civic engagement was one of the factors necessary to increase the

stability of the Union. This view was also stated by the Institute for Public Policy Research

(IPPR) North in its report The Decentralisation Decade.87 IPPR North argued that

decentralisation was necessary on grounds of improving the performance of the economies of

English cities and improving the efficiency of public services, as recommended in Lord

Heseltine’s review No Stone Unturned: in Pursuit of Growth.88 Decentralisation was also important,

IPPR North argued, because it would help combat public discontent at the concentration of

power in the hands of politicians and civil servants based in London, who operated in a

“Westminster bubble”.89 The House of Commons Communities and Local Government

Committee had found broad support for greater decentralisation of powers during its 2014

inquiry into the issue.90

83 Mark Devenport, ‘Treasury Warned Northern Ireland Executive ‘To Go Into Red’’, BBC News, 2 October

2014. 84 Peter Robinson, ‘Stormont’s Inadequate Set-Up and the Welfare Row... Northern Ireland’s First Minister Writes

Exclusively For the Telegraph’, Belfast Telegraph, 9 September 2014. 85 Theresa Villiers, ‘Villiers: “Northern Ireland’s Political Leaders Need to Act Now to Grip the Situation”’, Slugger

O’Toole, 22 September 2014. 86 HL Hansard, 20 October 2014, col WA50. 87 IPPR North, The Decentralisation Decade, September 2014. 88 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, No Stone Unturned: in Pursuit of Growth, October 2012. 89 IPPR North, The Decentralisation Decade, September 2014, p 3. 90 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee, Devolution in England: The Case for Local

Government, HC 503 of session 2013–14, 9 July 2014, p 3.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to widening civic engagement was welcomed by some

campaign groups and the leaders of city authorities. The Core Cities group, made up of

representatives from the local authorities of ten of the larger UK cities, supported the

statement, but said that measures to devolve further powers from central government to the

cities should not be delayed as part of the negotiation of other constitutional issues.91 The

announcement was also welcomed by the Centre for Cities, however, the think-tank also said

that it was vital that politicians from all parties kept the momentum going in the months to

follow.92 Mark Rogers, the Leader of Birmingham City Council, has criticised the progress made

in Westminster towards the further devolution of powers to English cites, arguing that

Parliament has become distracted by the issue of English votes for English laws.93

Measures to increase the decentralisation of some powers to local authorities have already

been made by the Government. In December 2011, the Government launched its city deals

programme. City deals have been negotiated with a number of cities in the UK which provide

for the passing to local authorities of particular powers, based on an agreement with central

government.94 The Government has also stated that £2 billion is to be devolved per year to local enterprise partnerships from 2015.95 The Times reported on 10 October 2014 that the

Government planned to allocate around £12 billion to local economies over the forthcoming

five years, mainly in the area of housing and transport.96

One of the challenges to achieving greater devolution of powers to cities in the UK is the need

to create a system which can work at different speeds for different cities. IPPR North has

stated that one of the challenges to further decentralisation was that local government often

lacked the competence and capacity to take on new or additional powers and responsibilities.97

In September 2014, the think-tank Res Publica published a report entitled Devo Max-Devo Manc:

Place-Based Public Services, which advocated that the City of Manchester be given more powers

over public services in the city. Res Publica argued that, through an incremental process, the

entire allocation of public spending for the city—currently £22.5 billion per annum—should be

devolved.98 However, Res Publica argued that Manchester was one of only a minority of cities

with sufficient growth potential and mature governance structures to pilot this scale of city

devolution.

The Labour Party has also set out policy proposals intended to increase the powers of local

government. In a speech delivered in April 2014, the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband,

stated that his party would also seek to reverse the process of the over-centralisation of

government in the UK by at least doubling the level of devolved funding to city and county

regions to £20 billion over the next Parliament.99 This follows recommendations made in the

review by Lord Adonis on how to rebalance economic growth to outside London, entitled

Mending the Fractured Economy.100

91 Core Cities, ‘Core Cities: Cameron’s Actions Must Match His Words’, 3 October 2014. 92 Alexandra Jones, ‘The Next Act of the UK’s Devolution Movement’, Centre for Cities, 19 September 2014. 93 Jane Dudman, ‘Birmingham Council Boss Says English Devolution ‘Could Slip Away’’, Guardian, 17 October 2014. 94 Further information on the city deals scheme is set out in the House of Commons Library Note, ‘Community

Budgets and City Deals’, 10 April 2014, SN05955. 95 HC Hansard, 14 October, cols 175–6. 96 Jill Sherman, ‘Devolved Powers for Northern Cities’, Times, 10 October 2014 (£). 97 IPPR North, The Decentralisation Decade, September 2014, p 4. 98 Res Publica, Devo Max–Devo Manc: Place-Based Public Services, p 2. 99 George Eaton, ‘Miliband Shows His Hand on English Devolution’, New Statesman, 7 April 2014. 100 Policy Network, Mending the Fractured Economy, 1 July 2014.

Appendix: Exit Polling from Scottish Referendum101

On 18 September 2014, residents of Scotland went to the polling stations to decide whether

their country would become independent from the United Kingdom. On 19 September 2014 it

was announced that Scotland had voted against independence by 55 to 45 percent. Of those

who voted, 1,617,989 people voted for independence, whilst 2,001,926 people voted to stay in

the United Kingdom.

Background to the Scottish Referendum

In the Scottish Parliament elections of 2011, the Scottish National Party gained an overall

majority, with a manifesto commitment to seek independence by referendum. Enacted following

the signing of the “Edinburgh Agreement” between the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and

First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013

provided for a referendum on Scottish independence to take place on 18 September 2014. In

that poll, voters were asked the following question: “Should Scotland be an independent

country?”. Voting eligibility was based on the franchise at Scottish Parliament and local

government elections, but was also extended to those aged 16 and over.

Exit Polling

A number of polling organisations conducted exit polling of the Scottish referendum result.

Provided below is a selection of those results for key electoral demographics.

By Party Group

According to YouGov, who polled 3,188 people following the referendum result, eight percent

of those who defined themselves as supporters of the Conservative Party, 27 percent of Labour

Party supporters and 29 percent Liberal Democrat supporters voted in favour of independence.

In contrast, 20 percent of voters who declared support for the Scottish National Party voted

‘no’ in the referendum.

101 The information in this appendix was first published in the House of Lords In Focus Note The Scottish

Referendum: Exit Polling (2 October 2014, LIF 2014/013).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Conservative Party Labour Party Liberal Democrats Scottish National Party

YouGov Poll: The Percentage of Supporters of Each Major Political Party who Voted for Independence

By Region

Out of the thirty-two Scottish regions, four voted for independence: Dundee City, West

Dunbartonshire, Glasgow and North Lanarkshire. Included in the list of regions that voted

against independence was Aberdeenshire, where Scottish National Party and leader of the ‘yes’

campaign, Alex Salmond, has a seat in the Scottish Parliament.

By Age Group and Gender

The YouGov poll suggests that the largest opponents of independence were those over the age

of 65 years old, with two out of every three people within that age group voting against it.

Further, 55 percent of 60 to 65 year olds, and 53 percent of 40 to 59 year olds, voted against

independence. In contrast, out of all of the age groups polled, those aged between 25 and 39

years old favoured the yes campaign, with 55 percent voting for independence.

According to a survey carried out by Lord Ashcroft Polls, which surveyed 2,047 people, 53percent of men and 56 percent of women voted against independence.

Key Issues

According to the report from Lord Ashcroft Polls, among those who voted against

independence the ‘key issue’ cited was the preservation of the pound as the currency of

Scotland. For ‘yes’ voters, in turn, the key issue which prompted their vote was ‘disaffection

with Westminster politics’. Furthermore, the poll also indicates that the majority of voters who

supported independence had made their decision since the beginning of the year. In contrast,

whilst those who backed the ‘Better Together’ campaign had decided their voting intention

prior to 2014.

Further information on polling prior to the referendum can be found in the House of Lords

Library Note, Polling Data on the Scottish Independence Referendum, published 23 July 2014.

53

56

Men

Women

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Lord Ashcroft Poll: Gender Breakdown of the 'No' Vote

Men

Women