EVEL is the enemy of Democracy

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

A phrase which first gained prominence during the American revolution which led to the creation of the USA and remains extremely relevant today.  It is one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy, and any attempt to undermine it should be resisted as undemocratic.

If a citizen is required to pay tax to the state then the state must return the compliment by giving that citizen a vote to choose their representative in the legislative process.  And that representative must have the right to comment and vote upon all measures which determine how the citizen's money will be spent.  Simple enough, eh?

Which is why the Westminster government's proposals for English Votes for English Laws, aka EVEL, is fundamentally undemocratic.

It's not as if I have any objection to votes on strictly England-related matters being restricted to English representatives.  That seems fair, sensible, and points the way towards a fully federalised UK.  Or it should do, but that's not what EVEL proposes.

And it's interesting to see that while there is much in the mainstream media about the 'disgraceful' behaviour of the SNP in deciding to vote against the repeal of fox hunting in England, now postponed by a Tory government lacking the courage to risk an embarrassing defeat, there is no comparable anguish expressed when English MPs vote down SNP proposals for greater powers to be added to the Scotland Bill.  Even though the SNP, with 50% of the national vote at the General Election, has a much stronger democratic mandate that the Tories and their 35%....

EVEL proponents like to compare the proposals with the situation in the Scottish parliament.  English MPs are unable to vote at Holyrood, but Scottish MPs can vote at Westminster.  At a simplistic level this sounds a vaguely convincing argument, ignoring the fact that this isn't just a comparison between apples and pears, more like matching a fruit against a JCB.  And therein lies the problem.

English MPs do have a say on which laws can be passed in Scotland.  They are part of the process that decided what powers, and budget, Holyrood is able to exercise.  But once that decision has been made those powers and that money are devolved to the control of Holyrood.  It is a comparable process to the central government block grant handed to local authorities.  And nobody is saying that Westminster representatives should have a say in the running of a county council or London Borough, are they?

For EVEL to become properly democratic it requires a similar arrangement.  An allocated sum of money, and the relevant powers, devolved to a body responsible for administering them.  In other words, an English Parliament.  Failure to do so means that, even where the legislation concerned only has direct impact on England, it is UK taxpayers money that is being spent.  And if that's the case then my opening statement, that fundamental democratic principle, is being trampled over.  Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs MUST have the right to vote on these matters if the monies involved come from their constituents taxes.

Whether or not this fact is owned up to, it's likely that the current EVEL idea will collapse through it's own incompetence.  Westminster legislation is a jumble of laws which apply not just to different countries within the union, but different combinations of countries as well.  Good luck sorting that lot out in a hurry....

There are only workable two answers to the West Lothian Question.  A fully federal UK.  Or a break up of the UK.  If the Tory government prefer the latter, but aren't prepared to admit it, then EVEL might well be the best way to achieve it.

The proposals are unfair to Scotland.  They're unfair to England.  And, worst of all, they are wholly undemocratic.  The coming months are a challenge to some of the most basic principles of how we seek to run our society.