UK Government plans to introduce English votes for English laws (Evel) in Westminster could see an end to the Barnett Formula, according to constitutional experts yesterday.
Giving evidence at the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into Evel, senior vice-principal at the University of Edinburgh, Charlie Jeffery, said scrapping the Barnett Formula would be the ultimate conclusion of proceeding with Evel.
“If one were to think seriously and in the round about an institutional representation of England in the UK political system, then you have probably got to get rid of the Barnett Formula,” he said.
“Pretty much every inquiry that has been launched by whatever legislature around the UK in the last 15 years has suggested that the Barnett Formula is problematic.”
He added that Barnett was unique in the world for its methodology of using Westminster spending decisions to calculate how much Scotland should be allocated to spend on its own devolved choices.
“There are two things that you can infer from uniqueness,” he said. “Either it is a brilliant invention that nobody else has ever come up with, or it is not necessarily something that is entirely fit for purpose.”
When the committee’s chair suggested Barnett was protected by “the vow”, Jeffrey replied: “I wonder about the constitutional status of the vow.”
It was, he said, just a front page of a newspaper.
Sir William McKay, a former clerk of the House of Commons and chair of the commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons, who was also giving evidence to the committee, said there was a “stronger political need” for Evel “than a practical need.
He also warned that legislating for Evel, rather than amending the standing orders of the House of Commons would be “a dog’s breakfast” and warned that “everybody would be in the courts” if a mistake is made.
Speaking after the debate Dundee MP Chris Law, who sits on the committee, said: “English Votes for English Laws puts forward an absurd solution to the UK’s current constitutional inequalities and it is clear that the proposals need to go right back to the drawing board so that they can be examined properly.”
He continued: “The Tories cannot be oblivious to the flaws of Evel or to the hypocrisy of pursuing these proposals – which would effectively establish an English Parliament within the UK Parliament – after they opposed every single amendment put forward to strengthen the Scotland Bill.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here