As Falkirk West prepares to send a new MP to Westminster, the question is not so much "who?" as "why?". The 21 December by-election is happening at a time when everyone is arguing that there are now too many Scottish Westminster MPs (72 out of 659) with too much power. The green-eyed monster of English envy has raised its head, and apparently it will be satisfied only by the sacrifice of a few parliamentary Scots.
The Scottish people, already over- represented on a population basis, now have their own parliament dealing with many of the matters once handled by Westminster. The long-unanswered "West Lothian question" has become the "English question": why do the English allow Scots to run England?
With a Scottish government in Edinburgh talking openly of initiatives that would bring it into conflict with London (such as full implementation of the Sutherland report on long-term care of the elderly), the focus will be on a tit-for-tat reduction of Scots representation at Westminster.
In exploitation of the anti-Scottish backlash, William Hague has seized on the slogan "English votes on English laws". He has said that one of the first acts of a Tory government would be to reduce the number of Scottish MPs, and that those who remain would be barred from voting on purely English matters.
But by feeding the beast of English nationalism, Hague has done his party no good in Scotland. Indeed, his proposals are tantamount to an admission that Scotland will remain a Tory-free zone after the coming general election. Why send to Westminster a Tory whose aim is to diminish Scotland's voice?
Hague was not first in the field against the Scots. In July, Frank Field, the former minister for welfare reform, presented a bill aimed at "preventing a feeling of unfairness among voters in England and Wales" by barring Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs from voting in Westminster on issues over which their devolved governments have exclusive control. It also sought to debar Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs from holding office in UK ministries that wield powers devolved to the regional parliaments.
The reality is that it is now unthinkable that a Scottish MP could hold certain Cabinet posts; health, education, environment, agriculture and home affairs are now English posts. In effect, only the Treasury, foreign affairs, defence, social security and, perhaps, employment are available to Scottish constituency MPs.
For Gordon Brown's sake (and to prevent the break-up of the Union), it should still be possible to have a Scottish prime minister. John Reid's slimmed-down post of Scottish Secretary will eventually develop into the Secretary for Faraway Places and constitutional link-man.
Field's bill caused the kind of commotion that afflicts the Commons when MPs feel threatened. The Tory David Curry frothed: "Do not demean, denature and destroy this place by imposing on it an institutional schizophrenia. We would be creating an English government, a sort of bastard government not born of its own right." Some Scottish Labour MPs are already worried about their futures. However, in what seemed like turkeys voting for Christmas, three of them - Michael Connarty, Norman Godman and Tam Dalyell - co-sponsored the bill. Jimmy Hood furiously denounced his Labour colleagues for wanting "a bastardised parliament". The bill was defeated by 190 votes to 130, but Connarty warns: "It is the unfinished business of devolution. What is needed is an English forum for English members to deal with English business - and a forum in which UK business is dealt with by UK members. If it is not raised and dealt with, it will be raised by people like the British National Party."
The complication is that Scottish par-liamentary constituencies are the same as Westminster constituencies, plus a regional list elected by PR. If a dozen MPs were to go, a dozen MSPs would have to go, too, plus some from the regional list - and any weakening of Holyrood brought about by a Westminster decision would be seen as overbearing interference.
However, the point about the West Lothian or English question is that it is a problem only if you think it is. If England had regional assemblies and Scots MPs were not allowed to vote on exclusively English matters, it wouldn't worry ordinary Scots. And it is clearly unfair that a Scotland-only vote at Holyrood could outlaw fox-hunting north of the border, yet Scottish MPs will still have a say on whether it is also banned in England and Wales.
The odds-on bet is that Falkirk West will be sending another Labour MP to Westminster after the Dennis Canavan episode. Canavan, who became "maverick independent" after being rejected as a Scottish Parliament candidate, lost his credibility because he tried to use the threat of the by-election to bargain his way back into the Labour Party.
Labour is gambling that only core supporters will find time to vote in the midst of the final pre-Christmas shopping rush. Most of the 13,783 majority that Labour won at the 1997 general election is expected to return to the party's candidate, Eric Joyce, a former army major who belies all the cliches. He is young, he looks and sounds like an off-duty squaddie in civvies, he has a local accent and he quit the army after outspoken criticisms of class prejudice and racism. The only serious challenger, the Scottish National Party's David Kerr, has made nothing like the same impact, and the pro-life movement's unsought endorsement of him is an extra handicap.
With a little common sense over Scottish representation, the new MP could have a long, if somewhat boring, career at Westminster. But then, when could you ever count on these commodities in politics?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
