The interesting thing about the lapsing of Scotland’s tax-varying powers is…….. No, just joking, I think 3 posts in a row is enough on that subject for now. Not that it’s necessarily time to move on but it may be time for a short break at least. (And yes, I know the power hasn’t lapsed, earlier error(s) on that score to one side)
A great hip-shaking man once said that we need a little less conversation and a little more action and so it will prove with regard to the great debate over tuition fees as a vote on the issue that has sent many a student into a foaming frenzy is drawing ever closer.
While frustrated Lib Dems are quite free to question what Labour’s alternative policy would be, you don’t enter into a powerful coalition only to point fingers at the other side when the going gets tough so Labour are equally free to vote the coalition proposal down. So, putting things simply, were the vote on tuition fees to be split by the parties of the coalition against everyone else, then, as I understand it, the result would be as follows:
For – 363
Conservatives – 306
Liberal Democrats – 57
Against – 286
Labour – 258
DUP – 8
SNP – 6
Sinn Fein – 5
PC – 3
SDLP – 3
Greens – 1
Others – 2
With students south of the border already successfully targetting Lib Dem MPs to make good on their signed pledges to oppose rises in tuition fees (through the unfortunately named ‘decapitation strategy’), the result of any future vote may well come down to what the Scottish MPs decide to do.
Needless to say, Scottish MPs do not have many constituents who will be affected by these changes (although it could be argued that Scotland would receive less money if England goes ahead with this plan for fees) so, following that logic, Scottish MPs should really abstain from the vote. However, it is unlikely to work that way in practice with the many Labour and SNP MPs expected to vote against the proposal and David Mundell (bless) expected to vote in favour. That leaves the 11 Scottish Lib Dems MPs in an even more awkward position than their southern colleagues and, even more awkwardly, quite possibly holding the balance of power.
It is therefore worthwhile to examine in detail what the position on tuition fees is for each of the Scottish Lib Dem MPs:
Charles Kennedy/Menzies Campbell – An open and shut case. The former Liberal Democrat leaders have stated unequivocally that they disagree with the “direction and thrust of the Coalition’s approach to tuition fees” and “would find it very difficult to abstain”. In what is a startling example of the change in direction that the Liberal Democrats have taken from recent past leaders to the current incumbent, it is clear that Kennedy and Campbell will be voting against Nick Clegg’s preferred result.
Mike Crockart – The newly-installed Edinburgh West MP is said to be considering his position as aide to Michael Moore as he wrestles with the “difficult” decision having signed a pledge not to raise fees. Looks likely to abstain or vote against.
Malcolm Bruce – Has said that he is “very sympathetic to the students’ cause” but has not yet stated how he will vote.
Alan Reid/John Thurso/Robert Smith – The latest explanation for not yet providing a decision from these Lib Dem MPs is a mix of waiting and seeing, wanting time to study the proposals and wanting as progressive a solution as possible. All perfectly valid points of view for such a complicated vote to have to make but this trio will have to go down as undecideds for now.
Alistair Carmichael – As Deputy Chief Whip, the Orkney & Shetland MP is largely expected to vote in favour of the increase to fees in what is, geographically, the most extreme example of the West Lothian Question in action. Indeed, the Daily Mail reports that he is at the forefront of a deal that would see backbenchers abstain and Minister vote in favour.
Jo Swinson – Has valiantly put her head above the parapet early and explained in fine detail why she will be voting in favour of a fee increase alongside the coalition.
Michael Moore – Cannot vote against the coalition’s proposals without losing his job and neither Nick Clegg nor David Cameron would want a third Scottish Secretary in such quick succession. Will surely vote in favour.
Danny Alexander – Given that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had written before the election that the Liberal Democrats should abandon their pledge on tuition fees, it will come as no surprise that the MP representing Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch, & Strathspey will vote in favour of increasing fees.
So, I make that to be:
2 Scottish Lib Dem MPs against
5 Scottish Lib Dem MPs undecideds
4 Scottish Lib Dem MPs for
It’s a mixed bag but the complications do not stop there. The next vote on tuition fees is largely expected to take place before Christmas and one of the biggest issues in the Holyrood campaign will be whether Scottish students should pay fees north of the border. Is it feasible for a constituency to have a Scottish MP voting in favour of English universities charging up to £9,000 a year in fees while the Scottish MSP of the same party and for the same constituency is campaigning for no fees to be applied in Scotland?
The West Lothian Question is a problem that won’t go away. There have been many proposed solutions to the anomaly, two of which came from either side of the coalition Government.
As far as I can make out, The Conservatives Party’s proposed solution is ‘English votes for English laws’ (as included in its manifesto) and the Liberal Democrats’ proposed solution is a form of federalism where England would have an English Parliament within which it would make its own devolved decisions. Both solutions would dictate that Scottish politicians, now and then, should not have a say over how other nations within the UK will conduct its own affairs.
So, for me, there are two and a half reasons why Scotland’s Liberal Democrat MPs should not be voting in favour of increasing tuition fees in England – (1) their party’s proposed solution to the West Lothian Question precludes them from having a say, (1.5) it would reduce the money going to Scotland and, more pertinently, (2.5) they signed a pledge promising not to.
I’m not going to talk about something as unseemly as ‘decapitation’ but, well, let’s just wait and see what all of our Scottish MPs contribute to this vote, and why, particularly unpredictable the Lib Dems.
#1 by Erchie on November 22, 2010 - 9:16 am
Hi
I think your vote count may be slightly off. If i remember correctly Sinn Fein don’t vote in westminster, because they would have to take an oath of allegiance to HM, so those 5 votes don’t “count”
#2 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 9:32 am
Thanks Erchie. It was only meant to be a crude calculation though, I did well enough remembering to remove the Speaker!
Pretty basic adjustment to take out SF though so will perhaps rectify. Cheers!
#3 by Chris on November 22, 2010 - 11:31 am
Also Scottish MPs are affected if their constituents wish to chose to go to University in England. They will still be their constituents and the options to go to a Uni down south should not be cut off from them.
#4 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 2:16 pm
I did reflect that in my choice of language Chris but Scots also go to universities in China, France, Sweden etc and we don’t decide how they spend their money so forgive me if I think it’s a bit of a moot point beyond the valid (if simple) philosophy of ‘more money for English universities = more money for Scottish universitiesâ€
#5 by Malc on November 22, 2010 - 2:41 pm
We’re not in a union with China or France though.
There’s a more basic point that you are missing though, whether or not Scottish students (as constituents of Scottish MPs) go to English universities. If English universities can charge up to £9,000, then they will be better institutions quickly (assuming some of the money is reinvested in facilities and, crucially, staff). Scottish universities won’t be able to compete – and staff from up here – like your NHS doctors going private – will follow the money, leaving our universities worse off. This impacts on our students – falling standards, both in the fact that the universities here don’t have the same levels of funding and because their staff are perhaps of a lesser quality.
For me, that legitimises Scottish MPs voting on the issue.
#6 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 3:25 pm
Well, we are in a union with France but not one that involves having a say over the other’s domestic budget. And, similarly, the UK union is arranged such that England doesn’t have a say over how Scotland spends its education and budget and Scotland shouldn’t have a say over England’s, as both the Conservatives and Lib Dems agree going by their proposed solutions to the West Lothian question.
I agree with your point though that the advancement of English universities and colleges to the direct detriment of Scottish equivalents allows Lib Dem MPs to have a vote, but only against the proposals. I do not see how, through either the pledges, the impact on Scottish universities and/or through the West Lothian question, any Scottish Lib Dem MP could bring themselves to vote in favour of these proposals. Hence my waiting and seeing with baited breath what these undecideds decide to do.
Abstaining is just about fair game I reckon.
#7 by Daniel on November 22, 2010 - 4:00 pm
Still increasing fees in England will hurt access for Scottish students even if it is free at the cost of access.
A relatively small number of Scottish students go down south as it is when £3,000 fees and the requirement for Advanced Highers are considered. Higher fees in England will just make it more difficult for Scots to go to English Universities and more tempting for English students to go to Scotland, further limiting choice.
#8 by Dubbieside on November 22, 2010 - 11:33 am
Jeff
What you need to remember with the present Lib Dems, is take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Or for that matter any pledges they signed.
If you watched Cable spinning like a top on TV yesterday you will get a flavor. Did this finish off any creditability he had left?
The Lib Dems sacrificed any creditability they had on Cleggs desire for a ministerial position, and their atavists know they are going to get their rewards in May 2011.
In 2010 a vote for Lib Dems was a vote for the torys, in 2011 a vote for the Lib Dems will be a vote for Labour. If you want a Labour government vote for it, cut out the middle man.
As David Steel might have said “just go home”
#9 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 3:32 pm
“Just go home” – I like it.
I thought Vince’s argument was very weak indeed and it’s a genuine shame that he’s not carried his cult hero status into Government. I think he is genuinely reconciling two opposite positions on a daily basis but I don’t see how he can keep his old beliefs and principles while being Business Secretary for a Tory-heavy coalition.
I feel for him, but this fence he is trying to straddle is just too wide.
#10 by Daniel on November 22, 2010 - 12:40 pm
I emailed Michael Moore MP months ago and despite having been in the same office and semi-working for him for quite I while still no response. As you said he has to vote in favour but I would have been interested in a response!
Arguably the coalition should be able to implement one of the proposed strategies as Labour have the most influence to lose in England. Still being Westminster we’ll probably pootle along with the status quo.
#11 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 3:30 pm
I would’ve emailed my Lib Dem MP too Daniel but I have since moved away from the area. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for an explanation from them, even if they are the Scottish Secretary and have a busy plate.
My expectation is a bit of pootling along too but wasn’t one of the biggest concerns for Tory activists/backbenchers this WL question? Maybe that’ll be the driver behind a long overdue solution….
#12 by Daniel on November 22, 2010 - 4:08 pm
I’d assume if it was high in their list of priorities it would have made it into the constitutional reform bill, which i’m pretty sure it hasn’t/won’t. I wonder at the level of disagreement between the coalition partners, of all issues this has to be one of the least polarised. Politically I can’t imagine an English Parliament being created any time soon… primarily for financial reasons?
Can you imagine the uproar from Labour MPs if nearly 20% (41/258) of them could no longer vote on English matters! I suppose it’s fundamentally reasonable… not that I like the idea of it giving the Conservatives an actual majority when it came to English matters!
#13 by Exiled Nat on November 22, 2010 - 3:30 pm
The problem with devolution is it is incompatible with anti-discrimination laws.
Regardless of place of birth, everyone is a citizen of Britain. To impose fees by way of place of birth is akin to saying “only whites should pay fees”.
That is why Scots MPs will always have a vote at Westminster. British votes for British parliament.
Of course, independence removes the inherent discrimination as a state is empowered to do the best for it’s own citizens. A devolved parliament is simply creating different forms of discrimination, and is unsustainable in the long term, it benefits no side.
#14 by Marcus Warner on November 23, 2010 - 8:57 am
I am not au fait with arithmetic, but would it not be a wonderful/awful irony if the ConDems get this ‘England only’ law using Scottish Lib Dem votes to allow it to pass?