Scottish Devolution 1979

[mishery]

In 1979 a referendum took place on Scottish devolution. Even though the "Yes" camp got the majority of votes, it only represented only 32.9% of the whole electorate (i.e. including those that didn't vote). Due to the ‘Cunningham amendment,’ which was included in the bill for the devolution vote, if less than 40% of the electorate voted ‘Yes,’ then the devolution bill would not be passed, so it was not passed.

WI either the amendment had not been included in the bill or voter turn out had been better and the balance of votes remained the same? How would have this affected the general election in '79? Would Maggie have still got in? If she did, what would the eighties in the UK been like with Maggie in number 10 and a devolved most-likely socialist government in Scotland?

Would the ‘West Lothian’ question been solved, that is, the question of whether that Scottish MPs in the UK parliament should not be allowed to vote on English matters when the English MPs would not be able to vote on Scottish matters in the new Scottish Parliament?

 

[Matthew Craw]

Well, IMHO the "West Lothian Question" has always been something of a red herring, as English MPs CAN still vote on Scottish matters; the power is devolved, not given up.

Most likely thatcher would move to eliminate the Scottish Parliament when it began to obstruct her policies, leading to a more poweful Scottich nationalism, unwilling to accept any compromise short of total independence.

 

[mishery]

Well, IMHO the "West Lothian Question" has always been something of a red herring, as English MPs CAN still vote on Scottish matters; the power is devolved, not given up.

I agree in part. It has been used as a way to muddy the waters but I think there are real problems with this issue, for example in areas that are expressly under control of the Scottish parliament.

Most likely thatcher would move to eliminate the Scottish Parliament when it began to obstruct her policies, leading to a more poweful Scottich nationalism, unwilling to accept any compromise short of total independence.

Yes, this is what I am wondering about. Could it turn violent? How would this interact with N. Ireland, given the affinities of the Unionists to Scotland? How would violent Scottish nationalism relate to violent Irish nationalism? Would it bring down Margaret Thatcher? Given her influence on British politics this would change things greatly (No Maggie - no New Labour). Full independence for Scotland would mean many fewer labour MPs. What about Wales?

 

[Matthew Craw]

I agree in part. It has been used as a way to muddy the waters but I think there are real problems with this issue, for example in areas that are expressly under control of the Scottish parliament.

Event hese areas are still under London's control. The constitutional position is not that there are now several Parliaments in the UK, each with their own rights and powers but rather that the Westminster parliament is allowing lesser bodies to carry out some of its functions on its behalf, they can still be overidden at any time.

 

[Matthew Craw]

Yes, this is what I am wondering about. Could it turn violent? How would this interact with N. Ireland, given the affinities of the Unionists to Scotland? How would violent Scottish nationalism relate to violent Irish nationalism? Would it bring down Margaret Thatcher? Given her influence on British politics this would change things greatly (No Maggie - no New Labour). Full independence for Scotland would mean many fewer labour MPs. What about Wales?

I doubt it would turn violent; the Scottich greviance is mostly constitutional, without much sense of actual oppression behind it, not that we don't have a huge cip on our shoulder about the English.

Maybe somefar iout fringe groups try some minor acts of violence (letter bombs etc.) but I doubt it would go farther than that unless Thatcher grossly mishandles the situation, and my feeling is that there are enough senior, sensible Scottish politicians in London to prevent this.

 

[mishery]

I doubt it would turn violent; the Scottich greviance is mostly constitutional, without much sense of actual oppression behind it[\QOUTE]

I agree (I lived in Scotland for 20 years). But I think any nationalist feeling, given the right set of circumstances can get nasty. I guess I am trying to come up with a scenario where it does turn violent.

I guess I would start with Maggie dissolving the Scottish parliament. This is followed by mass demostrations. Perhaps a demostration gets violent and
the demostrators try to storm the Scottish office, the police are overstretched and command breaks down. Several TV crews film a demonstrator being beaten to death by the police. Then it turns out that the police were English, brought up to Scotland to boost numbers. And a cycle of violence begins...

 

[Yellmic Wigwawa]

If Scottish Devolution had been accepted in 1979, then the SNP MPs would have voted against the Tories' vote of no confidence in March 1979, and the General Election would have been held at a time more in line with the labour Party's wishes.

The Tories would still probably have won, but with a much smaller majority, possibly even a minority government. It is hard to see how Mrs T. could have brought in her radical programme without a clear majority in the Commons. Also, would the Labour Party have split in the early 1980s? Would the pitiful Michael Foot have been chosen leader? Would the laughable Neil Kinnock ever have followed him? It is hard to see how a politician as talentless as Kinnock would ever have become leader of a party with any serious hope of office.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The West Lothian Question wil never be solved because it cannot be unless a truly federal Britain exists and that would need MAJOR legislation

If Scotland had devolution the charter or whatknot would outline areas of governance it was paramount in - if Maggie tries to infringe these she is breaking the law. OK, that may not stop her but she would to engineer a constitutional crisis similar to what Blair forced on N Ireland recently in order to reclaim powers for Westminster

Scots would hate her more maybe

Bugger, I dunno, why am I answering this one. I'm too ignorant... Damn, but the idea seemed interesting

Hope someone posts more intelligent stuff than me soon

Grey Wolf

 

[Matthew Craw]

If Scotland had devolution the charter or whatknot would outline areas of governance it was paramount in - if Maggie tries to infringe these she is breaking the law.

Grey Wolf

I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear, but that isn't the legal position. Westminster still has unlimited power to legislate on devolved matters, the scottish Parliament merely does so on its behalf, as its agent and can be over-ruled at any time with no legal or constitutional difficulty.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear, but that isn't the legal position. Westminster still has unlimited power to legislate on devolved matters, the scottish Parliament merely does so on its behalf, as its agent and can be over-ruled at any time with no legal or constitutional difficulty.

Sorry, I don't understand how that is so ? I know fuc all, I'll admit, but can you prove it with something ? As far as I understood once Westminster devolved power it could only get it back by declaring the devolution in hiatus

But buggered if I know anyting for sure

Grey Wolf

 

[Matthew Craw]

To anyone who still cares (if anyone ever did), my understanding is that the system I outlined above is simply what devolution means; it's how a devolved power structure is different from a federal one.

If you'll insist on an actual source The best one I have is Section 28, part 7 of the Scotland Act in 1998, which declares of the section outlining the new Parliament's legislative competence that " This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".

I suppose it's possible that the 1979 Act was different, I know far less about that (it was three years before I was born), but the general pattern was for the 1998 Act to be more radical than its predecessor and, as I've said, the retention of real power by the central parliament is integral to the concept of devolution.

 

[mishery]

" This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".

.... as I've said, the retention of real power by the central parliament is integral to the concept of devolution.

That may well be the constitutional case, but I suspect that in the case of Westminster overruling the Scottish parliament, this would be seen as undemocratic by many Scots. Especially if it is a Tory Westminster overruling a Labour Scottish parliament.