The West Lothian Question was originally raised by the Scottish opponent of devolution, Tam Dalyell, who was the Labour MP for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian. His question was:
For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate...at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
In other words how long can the English tolerate the Scottish telling them what to do, while the Scottish would tolerate no such interference? This question was originally raised in the 1970s, but it was essentially a moot point. After all the Scottish narrowly missed out on their new parliament and so the English had just as much say over the Scottish as the Scottish had over the English.
In 1998 that changed when the Scottish and Welsh voted for their own devolved assemblies. Again this was not a big issue except when there were a couple of large backbench revolts over purely English matters when the government relied on Scottish MPs. For the first two Labour terms the Labour Party had more English votes and MPs than the Conservative Party, along with an (almost) English Prime Minister who sat for an English seat. However in 2005 this changed. The Conservatives picked up more votes in England, even if it was by a tiny margin of around 20,000 although they still had fewer seats. Scottish ministers sitting for Scottish seats were starting to hold English only portfolios such as health and transport and then Tony Blair was replaced by Gordon Brown who had spent all his life in Scotland, represented a Scottish seat and had a very obvious Scottish accent.
The West Lothian question was still on the back burner as David Cameron looked like he was going to win the election. However he did not. Instead he has to govern with the Liberal Democrats. If there are any big backbench revolts on English only matters the margin of victory for the opposition could be Scottish Labour MPs.
There is another issue, and that is money. A Scottish person receives a far larger amount of central government spending per head. On top of this there is a massive over-representation in parliamentary seats.
So in the middle of a difficult term will David Cameron try to stoke English nationalism by calling for only English MPs to vote on English laws? Don't bet against it.
Follow Stephen Canning on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephencanning
That parliament could then debate and legislate on England-only questions.
The West Lothian Question should be resolved, its continuing shadow serves nobody's interests well.
Once its been settled, I'll need a new I.D. ... a small downside ;-)
Are you serious, or simply choosing to view the issue through your own narrow prism? In case you didn't know, in the past four general elections, when a total of 249 Scottish constituencies have been contested, the Conservative party has won...three seats. They currently have one, out of fifty nine. Yet they form the government of Scotland. If that's not interference, then please, explain to me what is.
Until you understand that politics is about the progressive improvement in the lives of people and is not a competitive sectarian endeavour then if I were you, I'd stay quiet. You know, the great Mexican writer Juan Rulfo wrote for years before deigning to be published; the reason being because he wanted to be sure of having something to say. By waiting, he subsequently inspired most of the novelists who formed the Latin American boom because what he eventually wrote carried such weight and force anyone who read him couldn't fail to be impressed.
Do politics a favour. Until such times as you know for definite that what you say, suggest or do will have a positive impact, leave it alone.