Why Scotland is tearing the Tories apart

The name of Charles Stewart Parnell may not mean much nowadays; but his ghost stalks Westminster. Memories of the parliamentary mayhem caused by the 19th-century Irish nationalist leader have been invoked during momentous discussions inside the Conservative Party over how to resolve the English Question. Apart from the adulterous affair with Kitty O’Shea that ended his career, Parnell is most remembered as the champion of Irish Home Rule. He was able to deploy the 80 or so Irish MPs to prop up whichever government, Liberal or Conservative, was prepared to meet his demands. And the reason why Parnell’s name is on the lips of Tory MPs today is that they fear history is about to repeat itself.

The modern Parnell, of course, is Alex Salmond, standing for Westminster once again after resigning as Scotland’s First Minister. It is an analogy that he relishes: Salmond has for some years been happy to compare himself with the Irish leader who in the words of William Gladstone “set the Home Rule argument on its legs”.

Recent opinion polls indicate that the Scottish National Party may win dozens of seats at the general election, though Gordon Brown was desperately trying to forestall such an outcome yesterday with a range of pension and welfare promises that a future Labour government could only deliver with English taxpayers’ money. But what if the polls are right and the SNP trounce Labour? This opens the potential for a Labour/SNP coalition government that does not have a majority of seats or votes in England. What mechanism can be devised to stop them imposing laws and additional expense on England that the English do not want?

This conundrum was raised by David Cameron within hours of the Scottish referendum last September. “We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard,” he said. “The question of English votes for English laws - the so-called West Lothian question - requires a decisive answer.”

Today, we will hear what that answer is - but whether it could be called decisive is another matter entirely. For a start, the Prime Minister’s hopes of resolving this issue on a cross-party basis were scuppered when Labour declined to take part and the Lib Dems insisted upon other constitutional changes, such as proportional representation, that the Tories would not concede. But the Conservative position was less than clear. William Hague, the Leader of the Commons, set out three proposals for consideration. Option 1: all stages of laws relating only to England (or England and Wales) would be determined by English/Welsh MPs only; Option 2: only English/Welsh MPs to consider relevant bills during their committee and report stages, but all MPs to vote on the final bill; and Option 3: all MPs to vote on Second Reading but only English/Welsh MPs to consider relevant bills at committee stage and to have an effective veto in a separate “legislative consent” vote before Third Reading.

Option 2 was swiftly discarded leaving two quite distinct approaches. Option 1 is straightforward but does not retain the role for all MPs inherent in Option 3 - a crucial difference that has triggered a big row inside the party. Option 3 is favoured by the Tory grandees and, by extension, Number 10. It has been championed by, among others, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Kenneth Clarke, Sir George Young and Andrew Tyrie. Sir Malcolm’s paper to the backbench 1922 committee setting out what he called a “positive, cautious approach” said the Tories “should be looking for a solution that is fair, rather than perfect”.

His paper added: “We must avoid, therefore, adopting a nationalist solution to a unionist problem. In order to reconcile our objectives with minimum disruption to existing arrangements, it is imperative that whilst ensuring that MPs for English constituencies are given a decisive influence on matters directly relevant only to their constituents, the right of non-English MPs to debate, influence and retain involvement in this legislation should be retained to the greatest reasonable extent.”

The problem with this approach is that it opens up the Parnell threat: the possibility that a large SNP presence at Westminster could interfere in English matters to further the cause of separatism. In other words, what on the face of it looks like a “unionist” solution will hasten the Union’s demise by deepening resentment among the English. This point was made by the constitutional academic and Tory peer, Lord Norton of Louth, in his paper supporting Option 1, which he said was the only approach that would actually deliver English votes for English laws with “certainty and transparency”.

Lord Norton said this option “is the least damaging to our constitutional arrangements, essentially working within them rather than challenging them”. He added: “Allowing MPs representing English seats to be outvoted in a process which is untested and not easily understandable to people outside the House (and probably not those within it) is likely to fuel rather than reduce the resentment of voters in England.”

This fundamental disagreement has triggered a stand-off in the Conservative Party between the Tory establishment and the rank-and-file that has echoes of David Cameron’s ill-starred bid to clip the wings of the 1922 committee when he became Prime Minister. The party hierarchy claims opinion in the party is “evenly balanced” and Mr Hague will therefore today announce that Option 3 has been chosen as the party’s preferred position. One Option 1 supporter told me: “We are facing a fait accompli - once again the peasantry is being told what to do.”

The central problem with the policy that has been chosen is that it seeks to preserve the Union in a form that is hard to rationalise now that more devolution has been granted to Scotland (and yet more still is promised by Labour). In the past, when all MPs could vote on any matter (and the Scots objected mightily to having unwanted legislation foisted upon them) the essential principle was one of equal treatment. But that has not applied since devolution in 1998 and is even less the case now. For good or ill, the Union relied on legislative symmetry. If that concept is to be sustained now that decisions in Scotland are taken on different basis, so they should be in England, too.

Since Mr Cameron’s September demarche, the intention has been to stage a Commons showdown on English votes for English laws before the election. But this may not now happen. Perhaps Mr Hague will judge there is a chance of getting support from some Labour MPs who would otherwise not back a complete ban on Scottish votes. But some backbenchers are unhappy with having the policy decreed by the Tory hierarchy and want a secret ballot to establish which of the two options really does have the backing of most Conservative MPs. The last thing the Tories need is a Commons vote in which they are themselves divided.

Just a few months ago this looked a strong position for the Tories. It is now causing the sort of consternation that would have been music to Parnell’s ears.