Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

West Lothian question

The West Lothian question denotes the constitutional imbalance in the United Kingdom's parliamentary arrangements post-devolution, whereby Members of Parliament representing Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish constituencies retain full voting rights in the House of Commons on legislation affecting exclusively England, while lacking equivalent authority over devolved equivalents in their own regions handled by the Scottish Parliament, Senedd, or Northern Ireland Assembly.^[1]^[2] The phrase emerged from interventions by Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who during 1977 debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill articulated the core objection to granting Scotland a devolved assembly without curtailing Scottish MPs' influence over non-devolved English affairs.^[3]^[4] Dalyell's critique underscored a fundamental asymmetry: devolution transfers powers asymmetrically without reciprocal adjustments to Westminster representation, enabling MPs from over-represented peripheral nations to override English interests on domestic policy while their constituents' parallel issues evade English scrutiny.^[5]^[6] This dilemma intensified after 1999 devolution implementations, exposing risks to governmental stability—such as the 2007-2010 Labour administration's reliance on Scottish votes for English matters—and spurring reform attempts like the 2015 English Votes for English Laws procedure, which certified England-only bills and barred non-English MPs from final approval stages but proved cumbersome and was rescinded in 2021.^[7]^[8] Unresolved, the question persists as a causal fault line of the UK's quasi-federal structure, questioning the sustainability of a unitary parliament presiding over devolved polities without English-specific safeguards or full separation of legislative competences.^[9]^[10]

Origins and Formulation

Historical Antecedents

The debates surrounding Irish Home Rule in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries highlighted early concerns over representational imbalances in the Westminster Parliament. Opponents of William E. Gladstone's Government of Ireland Bill in 1886 argued against the proposed exclusion of Irish members from the Commons, which would have left imperial and taxation matters under predominantly British control, potentially disadvantaging Irish interests.^[11] The 1893 bill advanced an "in and out" voting mechanism, permitting Irish MPs to engage only in discussions on shared UK-wide issues like defense and finance, but this provision faced backlash for complicating parliamentary sovereignty and was ultimately abandoned before the bill's rejection by the House of Lords.^[12] Similarly, the 1912–1914 Government of Ireland Bill envisioned 42 unrestricted Irish MPs post-home rule, yet implementation stalled due to the First World War, leaving unresolved the tension between regional autonomy and centralized legislative influence.^[11] Following the partition of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Northern Ireland established its devolved Stormont Parliament in 1922 for local governance, including education, health, and agriculture, while sending 13 MPs (reduced to 12 by 1983) to Westminster with unrestricted voting rights on all UK legislation.^[12] This setup enabled Northern Irish representatives to shape policies exclusively affecting Great Britain—such as infrastructure and economic regulations in England—without facing equivalent scrutiny from British MPs on Stormont-devolved affairs, fostering a structural asymmetry within the UK's unitary state.^[12] Conventions restrained Westminster from interfering in transferred matters, yet no reciprocal limits applied to Northern Irish MPs' participation in non-devolved votes, amplifying Celtic over-representation in pivotal decisions like post-war fiscal reforms that disproportionately impacted English constituencies.^[11] In the 1970s, as Labour government proposals revived devolution for Scotland and Wales, Enoch Powell warned of analogous perils to the unitary Parliament's cohesion. He emphasized that devolving powers to Scotland while retaining Scottish MPs' ability to vote on exclusively English matters would create an untenable double standard, eroding English sovereignty as English MPs lost reciprocal authority over devolved Scottish issues.^[13] Powell framed this as a direct assault on parliamentary sovereignty, arguing that asymmetrical arrangements could not sustain the UK's integrated constitutional order and risked precipitating fragmentation.^[13] The Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, reporting in 1973, similarly flagged representation challenges in devolved contexts but dismissed "in and out" restrictions as impractical, underscoring the enduring dilemma Powell highlighted.^[11]

Tam Dalyell's Question (1977)

Tam Dalyell, Labour Member of Parliament for West Lothian from 1962 to 2005, posed the question during debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill introduced by the Callaghan government in 1976–1977, as part of its effort to establish legislative assemblies for Scotland and Wales while preserving the unitary nature of the United Kingdom Parliament.^[14] An outspoken critic of devolution, Dalyell argued that transferring powers over domestic policy to regional assemblies would leave MPs from Scotland and Wales free to influence exclusively English legislation at Westminster, unencumbered by parallel regional oversight, thereby undermining reciprocal democratic accountability in a centralized sovereignty framework.^[15] The core of Dalyell's formulation emerged in his speech during the second reading of the Scotland Bill on 14 November 1977, where he rhetorically queried: "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members suffer the indignity of each one of them being defeated by the accumulated votes of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish members?"^[15] ^[4] In response, Conservative MP Enoch Powell explicitly termed this the "West Lothian question," referencing Dalyell's constituency to underscore the irony of a devolution opponent exposing a structural flaw in the proposed reforms: the retention of full voting rights for non-English MPs on matters devolved elsewhere, despite the UK's lack of federal symmetry.^[16] The Scotland Act 1978, which incorporated elements of the bill, required approval in a referendum held on 1 March 1979, where 51.6% of participating voters supported it, but turnout yielded only 32.5% affirmative votes from the total electorate—falling short of the 40% threshold mandated by a legislative amendment, rendering the Act inoperative.^[17] The question receded amid the government's fall but resurfaced in 1997 under Tony Blair's Labour administration, which enacted the Scotland Act 1998 following a September 1997 referendum (74.3% yes on a 60.4% turnout, without a threshold), establishing the Scottish Parliament without equivalent safeguards for English matters or restrictions on Scottish MPs' Westminster votes, thus institutionalizing the asymmetry Dalyell had critiqued two decades prior.^[18] This approach preserved parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster while selectively devolving powers, permitting non-reciprocal influence by devolved-nation MPs on reserved English policies, a dynamic incompatible with uniform representation in a non-federal state.^[11]

Constitutional and Democratic Context

Asymmetry Post-Devolution

The Scotland Act 1998 established the Scottish Parliament, granting it legislative authority over devolved matters including health, education, justice, and local government, while reserving areas such as foreign policy, defense, and macro-economic policy to the UK Parliament at Westminster.^[19] The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided a more limited initial framework for the National Assembly for Wales, primarily executive powers that later expanded, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 restored devolved institutions under the Good Friday Agreement framework.^[19] In contrast, no equivalent devolved legislature was created for England, leaving Westminster as the sole body responsible for legislating on matters affecting England alone, such as English health policy or education funding.^[20] This arrangement produced a structural asymmetry in the UK's unitary parliamentary system, as Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland retained full voting rights at Westminster on reserved and England-only legislation, despite their constituents' devolved bodies handling parallel policy areas.^[1] Scottish MPs, whose number was reduced from 72 to 59 following the 2005 boundary review to reflect population adjustments, could thus influence bills applying exclusively to England, including reforms to the National Health Service or infrastructure projects, even as equivalent Scottish policies were determined solely by the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood.^[21] This lack of reciprocal arrangement meant English MPs and voters had no formal input into devolved Scottish decisions, amplifying the representational imbalance in a non-federal devolution model.^[22] Empirical instances highlight this dynamic: during the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced variable top-up tuition fees in England capped at £3,000 annually, the Labour government secured approval by a narrow margin of 316 to 311 votes, relying on the support of approximately 46 Scottish Labour MPs, notwithstanding that the Scottish Parliament had already abolished tuition fees for Scottish students in 1999.^[23]^[24] Similarly, the Hunting Act 2004, banning hunting with dogs in England and Wales, passed with votes from Scottish MPs, following Scotland's earlier outright prohibition under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, where English representatives held no sway.^[25] These cases illustrate how devolution enabled non-English MPs to tip outcomes on England-specific legislation, without symmetric accountability for devolved policies north of the border.^[26]

Legal Status and Parliamentary Voting Rights

The United Kingdom's uncodified constitution maintains that all Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons possess equal voting rights on all legislative matters, irrespective of the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 1998–1999.^[1] This equality persists because devolution statutes, such as the Scotland Act 1998, confer legislative competence on devolved institutions without imposing restrictions on Westminster MPs' participation in votes affecting non-devolved (primarily English) affairs.^[27] Consequently, there exists no statutory or common law bar preventing MPs from Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish constituencies from voting on legislation applicable solely or predominantly to England.^[28] This framework derives from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, articulated by A.V. Dicey in his 1885 work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, which posits that Parliament, as the Crown-in-Parliament, holds supreme legislative authority without legal constraints from prior acts or devolved arrangements.^[29] Under this principle, MPs are elected to represent the United Kingdom as a unitary sovereign entity, with voting rights undifferentiated by constituency location; devolution alters administrative powers but not the holistic representational role of MPs at Westminster.^[30] House of Commons Standing Orders, which govern internal procedures, historically affirm this uniformity by permitting all MPs to participate fully in divisions without regional qualifications for voting eligibility.^[31]^[32] Judicial intervention in such voting practices is precluded by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which declares that "the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament," shielding parliamentary procedures—including vote allocation—from external legal scrutiny.^[33] Thus, any alteration to MPs' equal voting rights would necessitate explicit amendment via parliamentary resolution or statute, as the sovereign Parliament alone can redefine its own competencies.^[34] This legal continuity underscores the West Lothian question's status as a political rather than enforceable constitutional constraint.^[1]

Implications for English Representation

Democratic Deficit and Voter Inequity

England accounts for approximately 84% of the United Kingdom's population but holds 543 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, comprising 83.5% of MPs, while Scotland represents 8% of the population with 57 MPs (8.8%).^[35]^[36] This structure enables MPs from devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—whose constituents lack input on Westminster elections for devolved matters—to participate in and potentially determine votes on legislation exclusively affecting England, creating a representational imbalance without equivalent mechanisms for English veto or separate consent.^[37] A prominent instance occurred with the passage of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, which established foundation hospitals solely in England and was approved by a narrow margin of 17 votes (304 to 287); analysis indicates that votes from Scottish Labour MPs were decisive, as their removal would have defeated the bill despite opposition from segments of English Labour MPs whose constituents would bear the policy's direct impact.^[37]^[38] Such episodes exemplify voter inequity, where the 8% of MPs from Scotland can sway outcomes on English-only issues, amplifying the influence of non-English voters on policies lacking accountability to those affected, as English constituencies cannot reciprocate in devolved Scottish parliamentary decisions.^[39] This disparity fosters a democratic deficit by eroding the principle of affected voters' consent in governance; empirical polling post-Scottish independence referendum reflects English endorsement of devolution to address it, with 80% favoring greater local powers in England as of November 2014, yet highlighting resentment toward non-English MPs' "veto" power over English affairs, where majorities consistently report perceptions of unfairness in arrangements allowing external blocs to override larger English majorities on domestic matters.^[40]^[37] Mainstream commentary frequently frames these concerns as incidental costs of union stability, but causal evidence from voting patterns and sustained public opinion indicates they undermine legitimacy, as small non-accountable minorities effectively control policy for England's vast population without symmetric checks, prompting demands for representational parity to restore equitable democratic input.^[41]

Fiscal and Policy Disparities

The Barnett formula, devised in the late 1970s and formalized in 1978, determines increases in the block grants to devolved administrations by applying a population-based share of changes in comparable English departmental spending, without adjustments for relative needs or fiscal capacity. This has perpetuated higher per capita public spending in Scotland, as the formula's "consequentials" automatically flow from Westminster decisions on England-only matters, over which Scottish MPs retain voting influence at Westminster. In 2024-25, public spending per person in Scotland stood 14.4 percentage points above the UK average, equating to roughly £2,669 more per head than the UK figure, while England's spending remained below the national average at £12,625 per person in 2023-24. Such disparities arise because English taxpayers, who contribute the majority of UK fiscal revenue due to England's larger economic base, fund these allocations without direct parliamentary recourse over devolved expenditures, undermining equitable fiscal accountability. Policy divergences amplify these mismatches, as devolved decisions in Scotland draw on the block grant but lack symmetry in Westminster oversight. For instance, Scotland abolished prescription charges for all residents effective April 1, 2011, eliminating fees previously aligned with England's £9.65 item charge, a move costing an estimated £100 million annually and funded via UK-wide taxes. English MPs cannot amend or vote on this Scottish policy, yet Scottish MPs have shaped England-specific health funding votes—such as those under the Barnett-triggering Department of Health budget—that indirectly bolster Scotland's block grant, creating a one-way fiscal leverage. Critics, including parliamentary debates, highlight this as subsidizing Scottish benefits like free prescriptions through English revenues, fostering inefficiencies in resource allocation without voter-aligned incentives. These arrangements strain fiscal federalism tenets, where subnational spending should align with local revenue-raising to internalize costs and avert overconsumption; instead, the no-borrowing, grant-dependent model for devolved nations encourages divergence from English policies without compensatory fiscal discipline. Empirical analyses reveal Scotland's reliance on net fiscal transfers exceeding £20 billion annually in recent years, correlating with sustained per capita overspending relative to England and exacerbating English regional infrastructure gaps, as National Audit Office reviews document uneven UK-wide capital investment despite devolution's fiscal flows. Left-leaning interpretations often recast this as inter-regional "solidarity," but causal evidence from spending data attributes the premium to Barnett's mechanical persistence rather than needs-based equity, prioritizing historical formula over outcome-neutral allocation.

Proposed Solutions

Restricting Non-English MPs' Voting Rights

One procedural mechanism proposed to mitigate the West Lothian question entails the Speaker of the House of Commons certifying legislation or provisions applicable solely to England, thereby excluding MPs from Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish constituencies from deliberating or voting on those certified elements during committee stages or final passages.^[6]^[42] This certification process, typically based on the bill's territorial scope and consent from relevant English MPs, seeks to align voting rights with devolution's territorial logic, ensuring English domestic policies garner majority support from MPs representing English constituencies, akin to how devolved legislatures restrict non-local influence.^[1] Advocates view this as a targeted procedural adjustment that rectifies the asymmetry without necessitating wholesale constitutional restructuring, such as establishing a distinct English legislative body, while safeguarding the UK Parliament's authority over reserved matters where all MPs participate equally.^[43] It prioritizes voter sovereignty by confining influence to MPs elected by affected populations, countering the causal imbalance where non-English MPs—numbering around 118 out of 650 in the Commons as of recent compositions—could sway outcomes on England-specific issues despite their constituents' parallel devolved autonomy.^[5] Critics, however, argue it fosters a hierarchy among MPs, potentially eroding the Commons' unitary character and inviting deadlock if English majorities diverge from UK-wide ones, though proponents rebut that territorial representation inherently supersedes uniform privileges, as evidenced by devolution's exclusion of English MPs from Holyrood or Cardiff Bay votes.^[44] The Conservative Party has consistently endorsed such restrictions as a pragmatic resolution, pledging in every general election manifesto since 2001 to address the question through measures limiting non-English MPs' involvement in England-only legislation, as articulated in policy documents emphasizing procedural equity over radical devolution.^[6]^[45] Labour, conversely, has resisted these proposals, citing risks to parliamentary equality and union cohesion, with party leaders blocking cross-party talks on voting reforms in 2014 on grounds of procedural unfairness.^[46] From a union-preserving standpoint, right-leaning analyses contend that reciprocal fairness demands these limits, as unchecked non-English influence undermines the causal balance of a devolved state where devolved bodies already bar reciprocal Westminster intervention, preventing the anomaly from eroding English consent for shared governance.^[47]

English Devolution Options

Proposals for English devolution seek to mitigate the West Lothian question by devolving legislative powers over devolved matters from Westminster to English bodies, creating symmetry with arrangements in Scotland, Wales, and [Northern Ireland](/page/Northern Ireland).^[45] This approach would confine non-English MPs' influence to reserved UK-wide issues, addressing perceived inequities in parliamentary voting on English affairs.^[43] However, implementing devolution at the English level faces significant scalability issues due to England's population of 58.6 million, dwarfing Scotland's 5.5 million and complicating the formation of representative institutions without overwhelming centralization or excessive fragmentation.^[48]^[49] Logistical challenges include determining an appropriate seat of government, managing a legislature potentially rivaling Westminster in size, and avoiding dominance over the UK's economic and political balance given England's geographic concentration and prosperity.^[9] Empirical data underscores limited public appetite for such reforms; the 2004 North East England devolution referendum, held on 4 November, saw 77.9% of voters reject an elected regional assembly amid a 41.6% turnout, halting plans for further regional assemblies and signaling broader skepticism toward devolved structures.^[50] Subsequent polls and the abandonment of planned referendums in other regions reflect persistent low demand, with concerns that English devolution could foster duplicative bureaucracies, increased costs, and policy silos rather than efficient local empowerment.^[51] Proponents counter that targeted devolution could enhance responsiveness to regional needs, as seen in limited successes with combined authorities, yet critics highlight risks of inefficiency and unintended "English nationalism," potentially exacerbating union strains through heightened identity politics or demands for fiscal autonomy.^[52] Overall, while offering theoretical parity, English devolution's practical hurdles and evidence of public resistance suggest it may intensify rather than resolve constitutional asymmetries.^[53]

Federal or Separate English Parliament

A federal structure for the United Kingdom or the creation of a separate English Parliament would establish a dedicated legislative assembly for England, either integrated within the Westminster Parliament or housed at a distinct location such as York, to legislate on devolved matters equivalent to those handled by the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, and Northern Ireland Assembly.^[6] This approach seeks to achieve symmetry in the devolved system, confining decisions on English domestic policy—such as health, education, and transport—to English representatives alone, thereby neutralizing the West Lothian Question by preventing non-English MPs from influencing England-specific legislation.^[42] Proposals for an English Parliament gained traction among some Conservative figures in the late 1990s and 2000s as a direct response to Scottish devolution, with William Hague initially expressing support during his tenure as party leader before pivoting toward procedural alternatives like an English Grand Committee in 1999.^[54] The concept posits that such a body could operate under a federal framework, retaining UK-wide responsibilities (e.g., foreign affairs, defense) at Westminster while devolving others, thus preserving union integrity through clear jurisdictional boundaries informed by the principle of legislative consent tied to territorial impact.^[55] The McKay Commission, reporting in March 2013, evaluated options for England's voice in asymmetric devolution and endorsed processes granting "double majority" consent from English or English-and-Welsh MPs for relevant bills, but explicitly rejected a separate English Parliament as overly disruptive to Commons procedures without sufficient evidential basis for its necessity.^[56] Proponents argue it causally resolves representational inequities by aligning legislative authority with affected populations, avoiding the partial measures of English Votes for English Laws, which rely on bill certification prone to disputes over scope.^[57] Critics highlight risks of de facto separation, as an English Parliament could erode shared UK identity and fiscal pooling, with operational costs projected to mirror those of devolved assemblies (e.g., Scottish Parliament's annual budget exceeding £100 million for staffing and facilities alone).^[45] Empirical data from public opinion surveys indicate limited viability, with support consistently below 30% in England, reflecting preferences for Westminster-centric solutions over structural federalism.^[58] Despite logical appeal for equitable devolution in a post-1998 constitutional landscape, implementation remains stalled due to these union-preserving concerns and lack of cross-party consensus.^[59]

Regional English Assemblies

Proposals for regional English assemblies envision subdividing England into eight or nine regions—corresponding to longstanding statistical divisions such as the North East, North West, and South East—each with elected bodies granted devolved powers over local matters like transport, spatial planning, and economic regeneration, akin to but more limited than those of the Scottish Parliament.^[60] This approach aims to mirror devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland by decentralizing authority from Westminster, thereby mitigating the overrepresentation of non-English MPs in English-specific legislation.^[61] The most direct attempt occurred under the Labour government in 2004, when referendums were planned for the North East, North West, and Yorkshire and the Humber regions to establish elected assemblies alongside local government reorganization. On 4 November 2004, the North East vote—conducted via all-postal ballot—saw 77.93% rejection (696,519 votes against, 197,310 for), with turnout at 42.1%; subsequent polls in the other regions were cancelled.^[51] ^[50] Post-referendum, policy pivoted to sub-regional "city deals" and combined authorities as proxies, such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority formed in April 2011 under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which secured a 2014 devolution agreement leading to an elected mayor in 2017 and control over a £6 billion package for integrated transport, housing, and skills training.^[62] ^[63] Critics characterize regional assemblies as "devolution-lite," prone to patchy implementation due to varying regional identities and voter support, as evidenced by the 2004 outcomes and London's outlier status with its Greater London Authority established in 2000.^[45] This fragmentation risks spawning intra-English grievances, pitting metropolitan areas against rural peripheries—for instance, empowering urban conglomerates like Greater Manchester while sidelining sparsely populated regions—and adds bureaucratic layers without alleviating the West Lothian question's asymmetry, since Westminster-retained powers over national English policy would persist under non-English MP influence.^[7] Empirical data from low-turnout local elections and the referendums underscore public skepticism, often linked to fears of increased costs and diluted accountability rather than enthusiasm for subsidiarity.^[51] Advocates for regional devolution prioritize localism to foster tailored governance and economic responsiveness, arguing it decentralizes power from a London-centric Westminster without necessitating a unitary English parliament.^[64] Right-leaning skeptics counter that such balkanization erodes national unity and administrative efficiency, potentially entrenching regional inequalities without empirically resolving parliamentary inequities, as localized powers merely defer rather than dismantle the devolution-induced democratic deficit.^[45]

Enhanced Local Powers

One proposed incremental response to the West Lothian Question involves strengthening devolved powers at the sub-regional level in England, such as through elected mayors leading combined authorities, rather than establishing larger assemblies or a national English parliament. This approach, advanced particularly since the 2010s under Conservative-led governments, aims to decentralize decision-making on localized matters like economic development and infrastructure, fostering efficiency without the political risks of wholesale constitutional redesign.^[65] Devolution deals began with Greater Manchester in 2011, granting the area control over skills training and later expanding to transport via the 2014 agreement; by 2017, an elected mayor assumed strategic oversight, with subsequent deals extending to housing and planning in areas like the West Midlands and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.^[66] As of 2025, nine mayoral combined authorities cover about 20% of England's population, with powers typically encompassing bus franchising, adult education budgets, and housing delivery targets, though varying by deal— for instance, London's mayor holds broader planning authority compared to northern counterparts.^[67] The Labour government's English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced in 2025, seeks to standardize and expand these, including enhanced planning powers for mayors to accelerate infrastructure and housing projects.^[68] Empirically, these arrangements have enabled targeted interventions, such as Greater Manchester's £1.2 billion housing investment pipeline by 2023, but their scope remains confined to sub-national functions, leaving Westminster responsible for England-only legislation on health, education, and taxation. Proponents highlight benefits like improved local accountability and economic tailoring, yet this model does not mitigate the West Lothian anomaly, as non-English MPs retain full voting rights on residual England-specific bills at the UK level, perpetuating the asymmetry in parliamentary influence.^[45] Critics argue it disperses authority without addressing the causal root of over-representation in national decision-making, effectively layering localism atop unresolved federal tensions rather than resolving them.^[69]

Reducing Scottish MPs at Westminster

One proposed adjustment to mitigate the West Lothian question involves decreasing the allocation of Scottish seats in the House of Commons from the current 59 to approximately 50, better aligning representation with Scotland's population proportion of the United Kingdom (around 8%) and the limited scope of reserved matters post-devolution.^[70] This approach preserves Scottish participation in Westminster debates on UK-wide issues like foreign policy and defense while curtailing potential over-influence on predominantly English legislation.^[12] The idea gained traction in the 1970s amid initial devolution debates, when Scotland held 71 or 72 seats—equating to over 11% of Commons membership despite demographic underweight—prompting advocates to suggest trimming to 50 seats as a reciprocal concession for granting Scottish autonomy.^[70] Enoch Powell, who popularized the question's phrasing in 1977, opposed devolution partly on grounds of representational imbalance, implicitly endorsing reductions to maintain parliamentary sovereignty without full Scottish exclusion.^[6] The Scotland Act 1998 indirectly spurred the first major cut, with boundary reviews reducing seats to 59 by 2005 to equalize electorate sizes across the UK and partially rectify pre-devolution over-representation.^[71] Subsequent boundary proposals in the 2010s, linked to Coalition government plans for a smaller Commons (600 total seats), targeted a further drop to 53 Scottish constituencies based on electoral quotas, though implementation stalled after parliamentary opposition.^[72] Empirically, a smaller Scottish bloc could avert scenarios where their votes tip tight majorities on devolved-equivalent English issues, such as the 2015 Sunday trading defeat, where excluding Scotland's 59 MPs would have reversed the outcome by 21 votes.^[73] This mirrors federal models, where subnational MPs focus on federal competencies without parity in regional affairs. Opponents, including Scottish National Party leaders, decry such cuts as "outrageous" and undemocratic, arguing they erode Scotland's legitimate input on shared fiscal and economic policies despite devolution's asymmetry.^[74] Yet, the reform's rationale rests on causal equity: devolution transfers domestic powers to Holyrood, logically diminishing Westminster's representational demands for Scotland relative to England, fostering union stability without resorting to voting curbs or structural overhaul.^[11] No further reductions have materialized, leaving the 59-seat framework intact as of 2024.^[75]

Reversal of Scottish Devolution

The proposal to reverse Scottish devolution seeks to repeal the Scotland Act 1998, thereby dissolving the Scottish Parliament and restoring the United Kingdom to its pre-devolution unitary structure, which would eliminate the asymmetry underlying the West Lothian question.^[76] Under the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Parliament retains the legal authority to legislate for Scotland and could enact such a repeal without requiring Scottish consent, as affirmed in the Scotland Act 1998 itself.^[77] Proponents argue this addresses the root cause of the anomaly—devolution's creation of devolved powers for Scotland without reciprocal restrictions on Scottish MPs' voting rights at Westminster—by reverting to a symmetric system where all MPs represent the entire UK on all matters.^[78] Prior to the 1998 Act, the UK maintained structural stability as a unitary state following the Acts of Union 1707, with no devolved legislature in Scotland and thus no practical manifestation of the West Lothian question despite its theoretical raising by Labour MP Tam Dalyell in 1977 against proposed devolution.^[79] From 1707 to 1999, the union endured without territorial parliaments exacerbating representational disparities, as evidenced by the absence of sustained constitutional crises over English matters during that period, during which UK-wide legislation proceeded under a single sovereign Parliament.^[1] Conservative figures have invoked this history to contend that devolution introduced unnecessary fragmentation, with post-2014 Scottish independence referendum discussions highlighting reversal as a means to reinforce union integrity rather than pursuing English-specific fixes.^[76] Advantages of reversal include the restoration of full legislative symmetry without necessitating further devolution to England, which risks internal balkanization and administrative inefficiency, as seen in critiques of federal models that could dilute national cohesion.^[78] By targeting the causal origin—the 1998 devolution settlement—this approach avoids palliative measures like English Votes for English Laws, which merely mitigate symptoms, and empirically aligns with the pre-1999 model's proven endurance of over two centuries without devolved asymmetries fueling separatism.^[11] However, drawbacks center on political infeasibility: public attachment to the Scottish Parliament remains strong, with celebrations marking its 25th anniversary in 2024 underscoring broad Scottish support for retained powers, and the Scottish National Party's dominance would mobilize fierce opposition, potentially destabilizing the union further.^[80] Right-leaning commentators, including Tory peer Lord David Frost in 2023, advocate recentralization to curb perceived "dysfunction" in devolved governance and reassert Westminster's primacy, viewing reversal as essential for long-term union preservation amid fiscal dependencies.^[81] In contrast, left-leaning narratives frame devolution as an irreversible "settled will" embedded in popular sovereignty, dismissing reversal proposals as reactionary threats to democratic progress, though this overlooks the UK's unwritten constitution's flexibility for parliamentary override.^[82] Even Scottish Conservatives have distanced themselves from explicit reversal calls, prioritizing union maintenance through accommodation rather than rollback, highlighting intra-party tensions on feasibility.^[83] Despite theoretical viability, no major legislative attempt has materialized, reflecting the high political costs against devolution's entrenched status.^[84]

Dissolution of the Union

The dissolution of the United Kingdom via Scottish independence represents an extreme resolution to the West Lothian Question, as it would terminate the shared Westminster parliament responsible for the devolution-induced asymmetry in MP voting rights. Scottish National Party (SNP) figures have invoked the question to argue that continued union perpetuates English dominance over devolved matters, necessitating separation to achieve full Scottish sovereignty over all policy areas. This perspective gained traction after the 2014 independence referendum, in which 55% of voters rejected independence on a turnout of 84.6%, yet the SNP under leaders like Nicola Sturgeon renewed calls for a second vote, positioning the WLQ as symptomatic of inherent unionist inequities.^[85]^[86]^[87] Brexit exacerbated these arguments, with the 2016 EU referendum exposing national divergences: 53% of English voters supported Leave compared to 38% in Scotland, enabling Westminster legislation on EU withdrawal that SNP proponents claimed overrode Scottish Remain preferences and amplified WLQ grievances. Independence advocates contend this self-determination resolves the anomaly by devolving all powers without non-Scottish interference, aligning with first-principles of democratic accountability where each nation's electorate controls its legislature exclusively. However, causal analysis reveals the WLQ as a post-devolution construct exploited by nationalists, rather than a foundational injustice; pre-devolution symmetry existed under uniform UK governance.^[88]^[89] Empirical evidence tempers independence's appeal as a WLQ fix, highlighting profound economic interdependence that separation could disrupt. Scotland conducts over 60% of its exports to the rest of the UK, with intra-UK trade forming a larger share of its economy than EU or global flows, fostering mutual reliance in supply chains, labor markets, and fiscal pooling. Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) data for 2024-25 records a public sector deficit of £26.2 billion (10.4% of GDP), sustained by net UK transfers exceeding £20 billion annually, underscoring how union mitigates Scotland's structural fiscal gap from lower onshore revenues and higher per-capita spending. While proponents emphasize intangible benefits like policy autonomy, critics, drawing on GERS's methodology rooted in ONS attributions, argue that independence would necessitate austerity or debt issuance to cover this shortfall, absent the Barnett formula's equalization—challenging claims of economic viability without overreliance on volatile North Sea oil or optimistic EU rejoining scenarios.^[90]^[91]^[92]^[93]

Attempts at Resolution: English Votes for English Laws (EVEL)

Introduction and Mechanisms (2015)

The English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedures were introduced by the Conservative government under Prime Minister David Cameron as a response to the West Lothian question, which highlighted the anomaly of MPs from devolved nations voting on matters reserved to Westminster that did not affect their constituents. Following the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September 2014, in which 55.3% voted to remain in the United Kingdom, Cameron pledged on 19 September 2014 to resolve the issue through mechanisms ensuring English MPs had decisive influence over England-only legislation, without establishing a separate English parliament.^[27]^[94] This pragmatic approach aimed to address post-devolution asymmetries while maintaining the unitary nature of the UK Parliament.^[8] EVEL was enacted not through primary legislation but via amendments to the House of Commons Standing Orders, approved without division on 22 October 2015, taking effect immediately thereafter.^[94]^[8] The process began with certification by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who determined whether a public bill—or specific provisions within it—related exclusively to England, or to England and Wales (while excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland).^[27] Certification occurred at key stages: after second reading for the entire bill, or during committee or report stages for individual clauses or schedules.^[94] This certification was final and non-justiciable, based on the Speaker's assessment of territorial extent statements provided by the government, with the threshold for "exclusively" meaning no discernible impact on devolved matters in Scotland or Northern Ireland.^[8] For certified English-only bills, additional scrutiny stages were inserted into the legislative process. During the consideration stage, proceedings could occur in an English Grand Committee (EGC), comprising only MPs for English constituencies, who could debate, amend, and vote exclusively on certified provisions—effectively excluding MPs from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.^[27]^[94] Following this, a consent stage in a Legislative Grand Committee (LGC)—again limited to English MPs—required a motion to approve the bill's passage, providing English representatives with a potential veto over England-specific legislation.^[8] These mechanisms targeted an estimated 20% of annual government bills deemed England-only, focusing on reserved powers like health and education in England, while preserving the whole House's role in financial and UK-wide matters.^[27]

Operation and Empirical Outcomes

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) operated from 22 October 2015, when the relevant Standing Orders took effect, until its suspension in April 2020. During this period, the Speaker certified provisions in multiple bills as relating exclusively or predominantly to England (or England and Wales), subjecting them to additional scrutiny stages: a consent motion at committee stage and a further consent vote at report or third reading, limited to English (or English and Welsh) MPs. Over 150 provisions across various bills were certified, including elements of legislation on housing, education, and infrastructure.^[95]^[96] In practice, EVEL triggered 43 dedicated votes in the House of Commons, but the veto mechanism—requiring consent from English MPs—was never exercised to block or amend legislation. Bills such as the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Act 2017, which included certified England-only provisions, progressed through Parliament without invoking a veto, as government majorities composed primarily of English MPs ensured passage at the consent stages. This outcome stemmed from procedural design and political dynamics: governments drafted bills to minimize certification risks, and Conservative administrations from 2015 to 2019 held sufficient English MP support to bypass contention.^[95]^[8] EVEL's implementation revealed operational inefficiencies, including added complexity in certification and consent processes that occasionally delayed proceedings. The Procedure Committee noted the system's opacity, with provisional certifications sometimes requiring revisions and contributing to uncertainty in bill timetabling. Empirical data indicate limited substantive impact on addressing the West Lothian Question, as non-English MPs retained influence over England-only matters in initial stages, and the absence of veto usage underscored EVEL's role as a procedural overlay rather than a structural safeguard against asymmetric devolution effects. Analyses from parliamentary reviews concluded it failed to deliver meaningful differentiation in legislative consent, primarily serving as a symbolic measure amid stable party majorities.^[95]

Suspension and Abolition (2020-2021)

In April 2020, the House of Commons suspended the English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedures as part of adaptations to hybrid parliamentary sessions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to streamline legislative processes amid remote voting and physical distancing requirements.^[8] The suspension, agreed on 22 April 2020, effectively reverted the Commons to pre-2015 practices where all MPs retained full voting rights on England-only matters, without the additional certification and veto stages introduced by EVEL.^[97] The temporary measure became permanent on 13 July 2021, when the House approved a motion to rescind the EVEL standing orders entirely, introduced by Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg.^[98] Rees-Mogg argued that EVEL "undermined" the Commons by creating unequal classes of MPs, with English and Welsh MPs able to veto legislation affecting their constituents while Scottish and Northern Irish MPs could not, thus eroding the principle of equal representation in a sovereign Parliament.^[99] The government, under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, contended that the procedures had added unnecessary complexity and delay to bill scrutiny without substantive benefits, as EVEL had been certified for only a handful of bills since 2015 but never resulted in a veto blocking passage.^[100] Empirical analysis of EVEL's operation confirmed its limited impact: between 2015 and 2020, the veto mechanism was not invoked to prevent any legislation from proceeding, meaning English MPs had not overridden devolved-nation votes on England-specific matters despite occasional certification by the Speaker.^[101] Abolition thus restored "one nation" voting parity across the UK, prioritizing procedural uniformity and the Commons' unitary sovereignty over devolution-induced asymmetries, but it fully reinstated the West Lothian Question by allowing MPs from devolved legislatures to influence exclusively English legislation without reciprocal constraints. Critics, including some Conservative MPs, viewed the decision as favoring institutional tradition and short-term efficiency over long-term equity for English constituents, given that EVEL's non-use reflected political restraint rather than inherent flaws, and its removal benefited MPs from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in Westminster divisions.^[102]

Criticisms, Debates, and Counterarguments

Validity of the Question Itself

Some proponents of the unionist perspective maintain that the West Lothian Question does not constitute a substantive constitutional anomaly, asserting that Members of Parliament (MPs) from devolved nations are elected to represent the United Kingdom as a whole and thus retain full voting rights on all Westminster legislation, regardless of territorial scope.^[5] This view posits that the asymmetry is an inherent feature of parliamentary sovereignty, where Westminster's authority over reserved matters remains undivided, and any perceived unfairness is mitigated by the government's agenda-setting powers, which typically ensure that England-only bills align with the executive's priorities supported by an English-dominant majority in the Commons.^[6] Scottish nationalists have similarly contended that no equivalent issue existed prior to devolution in 1999, when uniform legislative powers applied across the UK, allowing all MPs to deliberate and vote on domestic policies without asymmetry; they argue the question's salience emerged artificially from partial devolution rather than any pre-existing democratic deficit.^[22] However, this overlooks the causal mechanism of post-devolution voting patterns, where non-English MPs—often aligned with Labour—have demonstrably tipped the balance on England-specific legislation in ways that contradicted preferences among English MPs. For instance, during the 2003 vote on establishing NHS foundation hospitals (an England-only policy), the 59 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, overcoming a rebellion by 98 English Labour MPs and enabling passage by a slim margin of 5 votes; without their support, the measure would have failed.^[103] Empirical analysis of parliamentary divisions further rebuts claims of overstated salience, identifying at least 21 instances between 1997 and 2010 where Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish MPs' votes proved decisive on bills affecting primarily England, including the 2004 Higher Education Act that introduced university tuition fees up to £3,000 in England (while Scotland pursued free tuition), which passed by a majority of 5 after non-English MPs offset English Labour dissent.^[103] Such outcomes highlight a lack of recourse for the English electorate, comprising over 80% of the UK's population yet unable to counterbalance devolved decisions via a parallel assembly, thereby undermining equal representation in practice despite theoretical UK-wide mandates.^[104] This asymmetry persists even when governments control agendas, as evidenced by rebellion-driven close votes that non-English MPs resolved, revealing the question's tangible democratic implications rather than mere procedural artifact.

Critiques of Devolution's Design

The asymmetric structure of UK devolution, established through the Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998, and Northern Ireland Act 1998, devolved legislative powers over areas such as health, education, and transport to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland while maintaining their full complement of MPs at Westminster to deliberate and vote on exclusively English or England-and-Wales matters.^[45] This framework inherently institutionalized the West Lothian Question without incorporating symmetric English institutions or reductions in non-English representation, creating a constitutional anomaly where devolved-nation MPs exercise influence over policies inapplicable to their electorates.^[22] Critics, including constitutional scholars, argue that this design flaw stems from the Labour government's prioritization of devolution as a means to neutralize Scottish nationalism following the 1997 referendums, sidelining earlier cautions—such as Tam Dalyell's 1977 parliamentary query—about the risks of unaddressed asymmetries eroding Westminster's legitimacy.^[105]^[11] The absence of built-in corrective mechanisms, such as a sunset clause for devolved powers or mandatory periodic constitutional audits, perpetuated these tensions by design, transforming devolution into a one-way ratchet of divergence without incentives for parity or reversal.^[4] Empirical manifestations include sustained English electoral resentment, evidenced by post-1999 polling shifts and Conservative advocacy for English-focused reforms, which attribute union strains to the model's failure to balance representation with devolved autonomy.^[106] Post-Brexit repatriation of EU competences to Westminster amplified these defects, as devolved administrations contested UK-wide implementation of reserved policies—such as trade and immigration—despite their MPs' continued voting rights, exposing the framework's rigidity in handling competence overlaps and fueling intergovernmental disputes without predefined resolution protocols.^[107]^[52] Although devolution facilitated policy experimentation, such as Scotland's divergence in tuition fees and prescription charges since 1999, enabling localized responses to social needs, these gains are offset by the model's causal role in grievance cultivation and cohesion erosion.^[108] The entrenched asymmetries have demonstrably incentivized zero-sum territorial politics, where devolved innovations heighten perceptions of unfairness in Westminster decision-making, thereby sustaining demands for further fragmentation absent any equilibrating design features.^[34] This critique underscores how the 1997 settlements, by eschewing holistic union redesign, embedded irresolvable frictions that prioritize short-term appeasement over long-term stability.^[10]

Perspectives from Scottish Nationalism

Scottish nationalists, led by the Scottish National Party (SNP), interpret the West Lothian Question as evidence of an inherently flawed and asymmetrical union, arguing that devolution has rendered the UK's parliamentary arrangements untenable and necessitating Scottish independence. Following the 2014 independence referendum, where 45% voted yes to separation, SNP leaders like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon framed the WLQ as a post-devolution anomaly that exposes the "broken" nature of the union, using it to advocate for a second referendum (IndyRef2).^[85]^[109] The party's position holds that the only resolution is full sovereignty for Scotland, dismissing partial fixes like English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) as divisive and insufficient, with Sturgeon labeling EVEL proposals in 2015 as "unacceptable" and a "constitutional shambles" for potentially sidelining Scottish MPs on UK-wide matters.^[110] This perspective reveals inconsistencies, as SNP MPs at Westminster have routinely participated in votes on England-only legislation despite the devolved status of equivalent Scottish policies, thereby exercising influence over areas where English MPs lack reciprocity. For instance, in 2016, SNP MPs voted against proposed Sunday trading reforms in England and Wales, intervening in a devolved-equivalent matter, and similarly opposed fox hunting law changes in England, actions critics highlighted as hypocritical given the party's opposition to English MPs influencing Scottish affairs.^[111]^[112] Such participation underscores a selective application of the WLQ principle: nationalists decry Westminster "interference" in devolved Scottish issues while demanding and utilizing voting rights on non-Scottish matters to advance broader anti-Conservative agendas.^[113] Empirically, SNP rhetoric linking the WLQ to independence has not translated into majority support, with polls from 2015 to 2020 consistently showing Scottish public opinion divided, often favoring retention of the union by margins of 45-55%.^[114] Nationalists' emphasis on the WLQ as a catalyst for separation overlooks fiscal interdependencies, where Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) data indicates Scotland's public spending exceeds revenues by approximately £10,000-£15,000 per person annually, sustained through transfers from the rest of the UK—a "union dividend" that empirical analysis attributes to risk-sharing and economies of scale rather than mere subsidy.^[115] This selective framing prioritizes constitutional grievance over comprehensive economic causation, as independence would require Scotland to assume full liability for its deficit without automatic equalization mechanisms.^[116]

Ongoing Impact and Recent Developments

Post-EVEL Status Quo

Following the abolition of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) on 13 July 2021, the United Kingdom House of Commons restored the pre-2015 procedural status quo, under which all 650 Members of Parliament exercise equal voting rights on bills, including those concerning matters devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland but applicable solely or predominantly to England.^[100]^[102] This change eliminated the Speaker's certification process and the legislative grand committee veto for England-only provisions, thereby reinstating the constitutional anomaly first articulated by Tam Dalyell in 1977, wherein non-English MPs can determine English domestic policy without equivalent influence over devolved equivalents in their own nations.^[117] In operational terms, this has meant no procedural barriers to non-English MPs participating in divisions on England-specific legislation, such as aspects of the Health and Care Act 2022, which included reforms to NHS structures primarily affecting England, or the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, focused on English planning and infrastructure powers. Despite these opportunities for influence—potentially comprising up to 10% of MPs from devolved nations—the democratic deficit has not empirically altered legislative outcomes in recent sessions, as successive governments have held commanding majorities obviating reliance on opposition votes, including from Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru benches.^[95] For example, the Conservative majority of 80 seats post-2019 election ensured passage of English-centric bills without evident sway from non-English MPs, while the Labour majority exceeding 170 seats following the 4 July 2024 general election has similarly insulated proceedings as of October 2025. The persistence of this arrangement underscores a lack of political impetus for reform, with the Conservative Party offering no substantive proposals to address the West Lothian Question during its governance through 2024, despite prior commitments to English interests.^[118] This inertia reflects causal dynamics wherein majority control by English-dominated parties minimizes immediate electoral penalties for inaction, allowing the anomaly to endure without formalized mitigation, though it continues to fuel debates on England's underrepresentation in a devolved framework.^[9]

Influence on Brexit and Union Stability

The West Lothian Question (WLQ) assumed heightened relevance during the Brexit referendum campaign and aftermath, underscoring devolution's asymmetries in a UK-wide decision with uneven territorial support. In the June 23, 2016, referendum, England voted 53.4% to Leave the European Union, while Scotland voted 62% to Remain, amplifying perceptions that non-English MPs—particularly the 56 Scottish National Party members elected in 2015—could sway post-Brexit legislation on matters predominantly affecting England, such as trade and regulatory frameworks devolved elsewhere.^[119]^[120] This dynamic fueled arguments that the WLQ, unmitigated by full territorial separation of powers, distorted democratic consent in England, contributing to English nationalist sentiments that bolstered Leave advocacy as a partial response to devolution imbalances.^[121] Post-Brexit implementation further highlighted these tensions, as Scottish MPs opposed key measures like the triggering of Article 50 on March 29, 2017, despite the referendum's UK-wide mandate, prompting calls for mechanisms to exclude them from English-centric aspects of EU withdrawal bills. The WLQ's role in Brexit dynamics indirectly strained union stability by exacerbating Scottish grievances—framed by nationalists as Westminster overreach—while stoking English demands for parity, evidenced in the Conservative Party's 2015 manifesto linkage of EVEL reforms to referendum commitments that secured their majority.^[122]^[123] From 2022 to 2025, opinion polls have linked persistent WLQ concerns to growing English support for devolution, with YouGov tracking showing around 40-45% favoring an English Parliament akin to Scotland's, up from pre-Brexit levels and attributed to perceived inequities in parliamentary influence.^[58] Analyses from think tanks emphasize that unresolved WLQ asymmetries pose a causal risk to union cohesion by eroding English buy-in, potentially amplifying separatist pressures in Scotland amid stagnant reform efforts. No substantive legislative changes addressing the WLQ have occurred since EVEL's suspension amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and formal abolition via standing orders on July 8, 2021, leaving the status quo vulnerable to territorial resentments.^[102] The UK Supreme Court's unanimous November 23, 2022, judgment barring the Scottish Parliament from legislating for an independence referendum without Westminster approval—on grounds that such matters are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998—indirectly intersects with WLQ debates by affirming central authority over union integrity while exposing the lack of reciprocal English safeguards against devolved divergences.^[124] This ruling, by delimiting Holyrood's competence, preserved shared sovereignty but did little to alleviate WLQ-driven legitimacy deficits, as English MPs retain no equivalent veto over Scottish policies despite fiscal interdependencies. Empirically, the union's net benefits—pooled defense expenditures supporting a £10-15 billion annual economic contribution through procurement, skills, and supply chains, alongside macroeconomic stability from integrated markets and fiscal risk-sharing—outweigh WLQ frictions, with independent Scotland facing higher per-capita defense costs absent UK nuclear and NATO frameworks.^[125]^[126] Nonetheless, causal realism suggests that sustained WLQ inequities, by fostering perceptions of English subordination, incrementally undermine union consent, particularly if Scottish nationalism leverages post-Brexit divergences to renew independence bids, as evidenced in stalled 2023-2025 devolution reviews.^[127]

References

[1]
West Lothian question - UK Parliament
The West Lothian Question refers to the perceived imbalance between the voting rights in the House of Commons of MPs from Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland ...
[2]
The West Lothian question - House of Commons Library
Jan 18, 2012 · This note explores the concept of the 'West Lothian Question' in the light of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from 1999.
[3]
Q&A: The West Lothian Question - BBC News
Sep 13, 2011 · Mr Dalyell's question was first posed on 14 November 1977 during a House of Commons debate over Scottish and Welsh devolution. He illustrated ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[4]
Answering the West Lothian Question? A Critical Assessment of ...
Feb 17, 2018 · Summarising this objection in a Commons debate on the Scotland Bill in 1977, Tam Dalyell, then Labour MP for West Lothian, posed the following ...Devolution and the emergence... · An answer to the West Lothian... · Conclusions
[5]
What is the West Lothian question and why does it matter?
Jan 17, 2012 · An anti-devolutionist, Dalyell argued it would be unfair for Scottish MPs to have equal rights to vote on English-only legislation. Callaghan's ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[6]
Chapter 2: The English Question and the West Lothian Question
English votes for English laws attempts to address the West Lothian Question by changing the procedures that govern how the House of Commons legislates.
[7]
The Future of the Union, part one: English Votes for English Laws
Feb 9, 2016 · 2Context: Devolution, the West Lothian Question and English Votes for English Laws. 11.Though a variant of the West Lothian Question was ...
[8]
English votes for English laws: House of Commons bill procedure
From 22 October 2015 until 13 July 2021, the House of Commons Standing Orders gave effect to a procedure known as 'English votes for English laws' (EVEL).
[9]
Devolution - The Constitution Society
Four principal challenges that are associated with devolution are: The West Lothian question; Uneven/asymmetrical devolution; The power of the UK Parliament ...
[10]
Mark Elliott: Devolution, the West Lothian Question, and the nature ...
Mar 26, 2013 · The McKay Commission's approach to the West Lothian Question is of a piece with this dominant approach to constitutionalism in the UK, in that ...
[11]
[PDF] The West Lothian Question - The Constitution Society
Mar 23, 2011 · This aspect of the debate is often referred to as the 'West Lothian Question' (so named following a campaign by Tam Dalyell, the Member for West ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[12]
[PDF] West Lothian Question - UK Parliament
Sep 6, 1995 · The West Lothian Question has been regarded by many since the 1970s as a crucial consideration in any proposed devolution in the UK, and has ...Missing: quote | Show results with:quote<|control11|><|separator|>
[13]
Enoch Powell and the Sovereignty of Parliament - Gresham College
They are: firstly, the role of the free market; secondly, immigration; thirdly, the European Union; and fourthly, the dangers of Scottish Devolution, which he ...
[14]
Scotland And Wales Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament
Feb 24, 1977 · Hansard record of the item : 'Scotland And Wales Bill' on Thursday 24 February 1977 ... 4.59 p.m.. Mr. Tam Dalyell. (West Lothian). Share this ...Missing: speech | Show results with:speech
[15]
Obituary - Tam Dalyell, politician and framer of the West Lothian ...
Jan 26, 2017 · “For how long,” he asked during a debate on devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1977, “will English constituencies and English Honourable ...
[16]
Enoch Powell – 1977 Contribution to the Scotland Bill - UKPOL.CO.UK
Enoch Powell, referring to the comments made by Tam Dalyell, coined the phrase “The West Lothian Question”. The comments were made on 14th November 1977.
[17]
[PDF] THE DEVOLUTION REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN OF 1979
On that day Scottish voters were asked "Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect? ... side failed to win a sufficient majority in ...<|separator|>
[18]
[PDF] Scottish Devolution (1997-9) - Institute for Government
This case study looks at how the proponents of Scottish devolution prepared the ground and turned an opposition commitment for major constitutional change into ...
[19]
Introduction to devolution in the United Kingdom - Commons Library
May 21, 2024 · The legislative frameworks for devolution were originally set out in the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern ...
[20]
What is devolution? - Commons Library - UK Parliament
Jul 16, 2024 · The power to make laws in certain policy areas has been transferred from Parliament to legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ...
[21]
New Scottish Constituency Boundaries 2005 - Electoral Calculus
Dec 11, 2003 · The number of Scottish consituencies has decreased from 72 to 59. This reduces the over-representation of Scotland at Westminster.<|separator|>
[22]
The West Lothian question | DEVOLUTION MATTERS
The so-called 'West Lothian question' draws attention to the anomaly caused by asymmetric devolution, in which devolved legislatures have law-making powers ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
[23]
Scotland | Scots MPs attacked over fees vote - BBC NEWS | UK
Jan 27, 2004 · The Higher Education Bill was backed by 316 votes to 311 at Westminster. Some 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, even though the ...
[24]
Politics | Blair wins key top-up fees vote - BBC NEWS | UK
Jan 27, 2004 · The government had only won because Scottish Labour MPs voted to impose fees on English students which would not apply north of the border," he ...
[25]
Fox Hunting & The Hunting Act (2004) - Wildlife Online
On 14th February 2002, Scottish MPs voted 83 to 36 in favour of an outright ban on fox hunting that subsequently became law on the 1st August as the ...
[26]
Government wins top-up fees vote | Politics - The Guardian
Jan 27, 2004 · After a six-hour debate, the government won the vote by minuscule margin of just five, with 316 voting for the bill and 311 against.
[27]
English votes for English laws: an explanatory guide to proposals
Oct 22, 2015 · English votes for English laws addresses the so-called 'West Lothian Question' – the position where English MPs cannot vote on matters which ...
[28]
The government's 'English votes for English laws' review
Apr 5, 2017 · This means that the votes of non-English MPs can continue to be decisive on England-only policy matters, as occurred last year on Sunday ...
[29]
Chapter 3: Parliamentary sovereignty - Parliament UK
122 Dicey divided the attributes of sovereignty between, on the one hand, the legal sovereign: “the person or body with the power of law-making unrestricted by ...
[30]
Carwyn Jones: Is Dicey dicey? - UK Constitutional Law Association
Jan 18, 2021 · Parliamentary sovereignty is based on the views of Dicey and not on statute law. Parliament has never expressly declared itself to be sovereign nor defined ...
[31]
Standing Orders of the House of Commons - Parliament UK
(a)A ballot shall take place in the lobbies unless the Member presiding directs otherwise. (b)Each Member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot ...
[32]
Votes in the House of Commons | Institute for Government
Oct 19, 2019 · Do all MPs vote in divisions? ... No. First, MPs are not obliged to vote in each division – though their parties may whip them to do so. Second, ...
[33]
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights - Parliamentary Privilege - First Report
Article 9 provided: `That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of ...
[34]
multifaceted constitutional dynamics of U.K. devolution
... devolution has left intact Albert Venn Dicey's core principle of U.K. Parliamentary sovereignty. Westminster is still able to legislate for any part of the U.K. ...<|separator|>
[35]
Population estimates for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and ...
Sep 26, 2025 · The size of the population increased by 755,300 (1.1%) from mid-2023. The population grew faster in England (1.2%) than in Scotland (0.7%), ...
[36]
Parliament: Shake-up of England's electoral map outlined - BBC
Jun 8, 2021 · Scotland and Wales will see their total cut - while England gains 10 MPs. The task of reconfiguring parliamentary constituencies is being ...
[37]
Would 'English votes' affect Westminster's decisions? - BBC News
Oct 14, 2014 · Results in selected votes with and without Scottish MPs The legislation was eventually approved by 304 votes to 287. Without Scottish votes, ...<|separator|>
[38]
Government wins foundation hospitals vote despite rebellion | NHS
May 7, 2003 · The motion was won by 304 votes to 230. Over 50 Labour rebels voted for an amendment opposing the plans to give hospitals greater autonomy ...
[39]
Parliament without Scottish MPs: how would it have looked different ...
Sep 10, 2014 · 27 Jan 2004 The majority of MPs would have voted against allowing university tuition fees to increase from £1,125 per year to up to £3,000 per ...
[40]
'Support' for English devolution - BBC poll
Nov 5, 2014 · Some 80% of people in England support having more powers devolved to local areas, a poll on devolution commissioned by the BBC has suggested.
[41]
Scots don't want MPs voting on English affairs - The Telegraph
The YouGov survey, conducted for the SNP, shows that two thirds - 65 per cent - of Scots believe it is "generally unfair" that Scottish MPs in the House of ...
[42]
English votes for English laws: proposed changes - GOV.UK
This note explains proposed changes to the way legislation is considered in the House of Commons to give English and Welsh MPs a fairer say.
[43]
[PDF] Devolution, The West Lothian Question and the Future of the Union
Unsurprisingly, the West Lothian Question is more complex than at first sight appears. It is often expressed in terms of how a government might be formed when ...
[44]
The Duel: Should Scottish MPs be able to vote on English matters?
It is unfair and needs to change now. yesduel. Your constituents sense a kind of injustice, and their instinct is right. But the injustice is not that ...
[45]
[PDF] The Implications of Devolution for England - GOV.UK
At the last three General Elections, the Conservative Manifesto has included a commitment to constitutional change to resolve the „West Lothian‟ question.
[46]
Labour blocks reform talks to exclude Scottish MPs from English laws
Oct 14, 2014 · LABOUR was accused yesterday of not standing up for England after saying it will boycott talks on Commons voting reform.
[47]
Devolution: Conservatives plan to limit Scottish MPs' voting rights
Jul 2, 2008 · A Conservative government would restrict the voting rights of Gordon Brown and other Scottish MPs at Westminster in an attempt to overcome a ...
[48]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/716499/population-figures-by-country/
[49]
Mid-2024 population estimates - National Records of Scotland (NRS)
Aug 14, 2025 · Between mid-2023 and mid-2024 the population increased by 40,900 people (0.7%). Figure 1 shows the annual population change for each year since ...<|separator|>
[50]
[PDF] 4813 North East referendums.qxd - Electoral Commission
On 4 November 2004, people in the North East of England voted in an all-postal referendum on the establishment of an elected regional assembly. In two-tier ...
[51]
North-east voters reject regional assembly - The Guardian
Nov 5, 2004 · The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, tonight experienced the bitter taste of defeat after the north-east overwhelmingly rejected his ...
[52]
challenge of devolved English governance and the rise of political ...
Aug 6, 2024 · In this article, we analyse the core drivers of the English devolution agenda to understand its impact on the future trajectory of British politics.3.1 Economic Drivers · 3.3 Socio-Economic Drivers · 4. Political Spatial...
[53]
The Triumph of EVEL: What next for the English Question?
This attempt by the governing party to address the 'West Lothian Question', and to frame its response as a key part of its answer to the question of English ...Missing: federalism mismatches<|control11|><|separator|>
[54]
HAGUE BINS ENGLISH PARLIAMENT PROPOSAL | Local ...
William Hague, leader of the Conservative party, has scrapped plans to campaign for an English parliament despite supporting the idea at the Tory.<|separator|>
[55]
England-only MP votes needed for English legislation, commission ...
Mar 24, 2013 · Commons should restrict rights of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs to influence purely English legislation, ministers told.
[56]
[PDF] Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for ...
The BSA time series shows a marked growth in those strongly agreeing that Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws, and the FoES findings indicate an even.
[57]
[PDF] English votes for English laws - Parliament UK
Nov 2, 2016 · This issue is known as the West Lothian Question. It forms part of a larger 'English Question' which encompasses public concerns in England ...
[58]
Support for creation of a new English Parliament along the lines of ...
Would you support or oppose the creation of a new English Parliament, along the lines of the existing Scottish Parliament?
[59]
'English votes for English laws' plans unveiled - BBC News
Dec 16, 2014 · Barring Scottish and Northern Irish MPs from any role in English and Welsh bills and limiting England-only bills to English MPs. Allowing only ...
[60]
[PDF] The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill - Parliament UK
The Deputy Prime. Minister then announced in June 2004 that the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions would proceed to hold referendums ...
[61]
Referendums on Regional Assemblies - House of Commons Library
Jul 19, 2004 · This paper looks at the policy background to the draft Orders for the conduct of three regional referendums due to be held on 4 November 2004.
[62]
Mayor of Greater Manchester | Institute for Government
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was established in April 2011 using powers under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act ...
[63]
Devolution - Greater Manchester Combined Authority
The mayor chairs the GMCA and was first elected by Greater Manchester voters in May 2017. Subsequent deals built upon this innovative agreement, including a £6 ...
[64]
We need a proper constitutional convention, and the Irish have ...
Sep 19, 2014 · The only solution to the West Lothian question that makes sense in theory is substantial devolution of powers to regions within England.
[65]
English Devolution White Paper - GOV.UK
Dec 16, 2024 · Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve: growth, more joined-up delivery of public ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[66]
Everything you need to know about metro mayors | Centre for Cities
Jun 11, 2025 · By devolving strategic powers over housing, transport, skills and planning to highly visible and accountable leaders operating at the scale ...
[67]
Regional mayors | Institute for Government
Jul 7, 2025 · The specifics of the powers of MSAs vary from place to place but typically include aspects of transport, skills, housing, and local ...
[68]
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - Hansard
Sep 2, 2025 · This Bill also gives ambitious planning powers for mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure, working alongside parliamentarians and local ...<|separator|>
[69]
The new English question? - Institute for Government
Sep 16, 2014 · The prospect of further devolution to Scotland and the home nations makes decentralisation in England more likely – but far from certain.
[70]
Richard Ritchie: What the great Commons debates on devolution ...
Jul 4, 2020 · He is Enoch Powell's archivist and is a former Conservative Parliamentary ... Even today, when the number of Scottish MPs has been reduced to 59 ...
[71]
Boundary Commission announces plan to cut Scottish MPs - BBC
Oct 13, 2011 · Big name Scottish MPs are finding out how they will be affected by plans to cut the size of the UK parliament.
[72]
Call to scrap review of Scots Westminster constituencies - BBC
Oct 16, 2017 · Plans to cut the total number of MPs at Westminster from 650 to 600 would see the number of Scottish seats fall by six, from 59 at present to 53 ...Missing: West | Show results with:West<|separator|>
[73]
Sunday trading and the limits of EVEL | The Constitution Unit Blog
Mar 10, 2016 · Had Scotland's 59 MPs not participated in the division, the government would have won by 21 votes. The Sunday trading vote highlights an ...Missing: reduce | Show results with:reduce
[74]
Scotland constituency changes branded outrageous ... - The Guardian
Oct 20, 2016 · SNP and Scottish Labour condemn proposals that will cut number of Westminster constituencies from 59 to 53.
[75]
Number of seats in the House of Commons since 1801
Jul 30, 2024 · The United Kingdom is currently divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies. One Member of Parliament in the House of Commons represents a ...
[76]
BBC Politics 97
A future Tory government could hold a further referendum to reverse devolution if a Scottish parliament is a disaster, Conservative leader William Hague has ...
[77]
Proposals for the devolution of further powers to Scotland
The Scotland Act 1998 states that the powers of the Scottish Parliament do not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for ...<|separator|>
[78]
The West Lothian Question: the answer is not the solution
Sep 24, 2014 · Indeed on the question of the Scots being fair minded, the SNP already don't vote at Westminster on matters that concern only England. Labour ...
[79]
[PDF] Scotland and Devolution - UK Parliament
Jul 29, 1997 · The paper gives a critique of that Act and looks at developments since 1979, culminating in the final proposals of the Scottish Constitutional ...
[80]
The evolution of devolution: 25 years of the Scottish Parliament - BBC
Sep 28, 2024 · The King and Queen are at Holyrood this weekend to attend a celebration marking 25 years since the Scottish Parliament was “reconvened”.
[81]
Humza Yousaf claims 'every Scottish Conservative' agrees with ...
Apr 21, 2023 · Humza Yousaf claims 'every Scottish Conservative' agrees with David Frost call to reverse devolution. Frost, a Tory peer, claimed his party ...
[82]
Tory peer's suggestion of rolling back devolution condemned by ...
Apr 20, 2023 · He added: “It's clear Westminster's repeated attacks on Scotland are a deliberate, co-ordinated attempt to reverse devolution, roll-back the ...
[83]
Scottish Conservative chair condemns Tory peer's attack on devolution
The chairman of the Scottish Conservatives has said he “fundamentally disagrees” with calls by Tory peer Lord Frost to “reverse” devolution, insisting the ...
[84]
Reversal of devolution is just as possible as Brexit, warns expert
Feb 13, 2024 · Scottish devolution could come under threat if gaps between Edinburgh and the rest of the country are not addressed, an expert has claimed ...
[85]
Scottish independence referendum - Results - BBC News
Scotland has voted against becoming an independent country by 55% to 45%. Should Scotland be an independent country?
[86]
A Fresh Start with Independence: The macroeconomic framework of ...
Oct 8, 2025 · The latest statistics which include estimates of all international and intra- UK trade flows for Scotland, including exports from and imports to ...
[87]
Scotland's leader aims for independence referendum push in 2023
Nov 29, 2021 · ... referendum on secession in 2023. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the independence campaign, stalled by the pandemic, “will resume in ...
[88]
EU Referendum Results - BBC News
The UK has voted to leave the EU by 52% to 48%. Leave won the majority of votes in England and Wales, while every council in Scotland saw Remain majorities.
[89]
Analysis of the EU Referendum results 2016 - Commons Library
Jun 29, 2016 · This House of Commons Library Briefing Paper analyses the results of the referendum on EU membership held on 23 June 2016. The highest vote ...
[90]
How might Scottish independence affect the costs of international ...
Feb 18, 2022 · The rest of the UK is by far Scotland's biggest trade partner, accounting for 61% of Scottish exports and 67% of Scottish imports in 2017. These ...Missing: internal percentage
[91]
[PDF] Overview of the UK Internal Market - GOV.UK
Mar 22, 2022 · (b) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in contrast to England, trade more with the rest of the UK than with the EU or the rest of the world.
[92]
Scottish public spending deficit grows as oil revenue drops again
Aug 13, 2025 · It found the difference in 2024-25 was £26.2bn, which was up from £21.4bn in the previous financal year.
[93]
Government expenditure & revenue Scotland 2024-25 - gov.scot
Aug 13, 2025 · It estimates the revenue raised in Scotland and the cost of public services provided for Scotland. Part of. Economy statistics · View supporting ...
[94]
English votes for English laws - The House of Commons Library
Jun 20, 2017 · This House of Commons Library briefing paper outlines the effect of changes made to Standing Orders on 22 October 2015 to implement the ...
[95]
'English Votes for English Laws' - UK in a changing Europe
Jun 28, 2021 · And our own research confirms that – despite large volumes of legislation being 'certified', and 43 Commons votes held under EVEL rules – in no ...
[96]
One year of EVEL: evaluating 'English votes for English laws' in the ...
Nov 28, 2016 · During the first year of EVEL's operation, the Speaker certified provisions of nine bills – around half of all bills eligible for ...
[97]
How did the Commons respond to the covid-19 pandemic?
Mar 24, 2025 · The April 2020 suspension of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) was made permanent on 13 July 2021. The EVEL process added an extra stage ...
[98]
English Votes for English Laws - Hansard - UK Parliament
Jul 13, 2021 · Gentleman in that I opposed EVEL before it had even been proposed. As a good Catholic, I would be expected always to oppose evil. John Redwood.
[99]
Commons scraps English votes for English laws - BBC
Jul 13, 2021 · The government's motion to remove the English votes for English laws procedure in the Commons was approved without the need for a formal vote.
[100]
[PDF] English Votes for English Laws - rescinding Standing Orders
Jul 12, 2021 · The English votes for English laws process is described in the MPs' Guide to Procedure.
[101]
Five years of 'EVEL' | The Constitution Unit Blog
Oct 23, 2020 · ... April, the EVEL procedures have effectively been suspended due to the pandemic. As a consequence, when MPs voted on secondary legislation ...
[102]
Plans to scrap English votes for English laws - BBC
Jul 8, 2021 · A system which gives English MPs an effective veto on laws which only affect England should be scrapped, the government says.Missing: abolished | Show results with:abolished
[103]
The English question - UK Parliament
However, MPs representing seats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can debate and vote on legislation affecting England.
[104]
Scottish referendum: What is the 'English Question'? - BBC News
Sep 19, 2014 · Didn't it used to be called something else? Former Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Yes, it used to be known as the "West Lothian Question". The phrase ...Missing: exact quote
[105]
Scottish Devolution - BBC Politics 97
The "West Lothian" question - covering the impact upon subsequent voting at Westminster - may be of more importance to electors in England. It may be valuable ...
[106]
Blair's bombshell: How Scottish devolution blew up the British ...
In 1998, the British Parliament fulfilled an election promise that then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair had made in 1997 and passed the Scotland Act, ...Missing: revival | Show results with:revival
[107]
[PDF] Brexit and Devolution: A New UK Settlement or the Break-Up ... - FES
May 15, 2025 · The Brexit vote and pending EU withdrawal have exposed further fissures in the UK's unwritten constitution and political structures. The UK is, ...
[108]
Devolution at 25: how has productivity changed in the devolved ...
Nov 19, 2024 · Within the UK, Scotland and Wales both gained devolved governments following referenda held in 1997, with votes in favour reaching 74.3% and ...Missing: flaws tensions
[109]
Scottish referendum: Salmond to quit after Scots vote No - BBC News
Sep 19, 2014 · Alex Salmond is to step down as Scottish first minister after voters rejected independence. He will also resign as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
[110]
Nicola Sturgeon calls English votes plan 'unacceptable' - BBC News
Jul 12, 2015 · Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon calls UK government plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on legislation for England "unacceptable".
[111]
Sunday trading: Tory MPs eye 'unholy alliance' with SNP and Labour
Mar 8, 2016 · Whitehall sources accused the SNP of hypocrisy for intervening in the vote, because it only relates to England and Wales and the reforms already ...
[112]
Nicola Sturgeon: fox hunting vote to pressure Conservatives
The SNP decision to vote against the UK Government's proposed changes to fox hunting laws ... hypocrisy”, claiming the Government had been “thoughtful and ...
[113]
The SNP's attitude to English votes for English laws is as hypocritical ...
Oct 23, 2015 · The SNP's attitude to English votes for English laws is as hypocritical as it is tedious ... SNP members more often than it does English MPs.
[114]
Poll results - What Scotland Thinks
Poll results: Scotland Scotland flag. Featured: How would you be likely to vote in a UK general election (asked ...
[115]
[PDF] What staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland. - GOV.UK
The UK Government estimates that the long-term financial benefit of staying in the UK is worth £1,400* every year to each person living in Scotland. More ...
[116]
An independent Scotland: what would be the options for economic ...
Oct 19, 2022 · Scotland's net fiscal balance fell by just over 10 percentage points: from 22.7% of GDP in 2020/21 to 12.3% of GDP in 2021/22.
[117]
Deliver us from EVEL? Is the government right to abolish 'English ...
Jun 27, 2021 · The UK government is preparing to abolish the 'English Votes for English Laws' standing orders in the House of Commons.
[118]
Deliver us from EVEL? Is the government right to abolish 'English ...
Jun 29, 2021 · According to a recent report in The Times, the UK government is preparing to abolish the 'English Votes for English Laws' standing orders in the ...
[119]
Brexit Reflections - Europe's West Lothian Question
Jun 27, 2016 · Many on the Leave side are suggesting that the UK will retain access to the single market in one way or another and that there may not even be ...Missing: post- strains
[120]
Brexit and the English Question - Oxford Academic
The chapter examines Brexit and the English question, arguing that Brexit should be understood as a result of the ongoing demotic process in England.Missing: equality | Show results with:equality
[121]
Brexit and the English question - University of Edinburgh Research ...
... West Lothian question-is also an inadequate response to ever-increasing nationalistic views. To address this situation post-Brexit, Tierney concludes that ...
[122]
Robert Brett Taylor: The West Lothian Question, EVEL and the 2017 ...
Jun 13, 2017 · The West Lothian Question refers to the problem of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being able to vote on English-only issues by ...Missing: restrictions | Show results with:restrictions
[123]
The Connection between Brexit and Attempts to Find an Answer to ...
Sep 3, 2025 · The article constitutes an attempt to deal with the paradox contained in the West Lothian Question (known also as the English Question) which ...Missing: influence | Show results with:influence
[124]
Supreme Court judgment on Scottish independence referendum
Nov 23, 2022 · In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish ...
[125]
The contribution of the defence industry to UK regions
Sep 12, 2025 · The defence industry is estimated to contribute around £10 billion to £15 billion a year to the UK economy, mostly in South East and South ...
[126]
[PDF] The Defence Pound in National and Local Prosperity - RUSI
May 9, 2025 · UK defence spending currently benefits the economy and society through several of its attributes, from providing a national supply base ...
[127]
[PDF] Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st ...
Jan 20, 2022 · attempt to answer the West Lothian Question. It is widely accepted that the procedure used was flawed and the repeal of the EVEL standing ...