Talk:West Lothian question

message: This, according to the commentators, makes the current situation unequal, and the premise behind the West Lothian question correct.
Where exactly is the evidence for this? I've never heard anyone use arguments, in fact I've never heard anyone use an argument linking the Sewel convention and the WLQ, delineating the "unfairness of situation". Evidence and clarification is needed before it can be replaced into the article. Unlike the criticism of the premise of the WLQ (which actually exists). I'm not entirely sure how the Sewel convention makes anything unfair, given that English MP's STILL vote on and legislate on areas under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. 81.157.118.75 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sewel and Unfairness

message: No objection to the proposed merger, but please make sure that the merged article is called West Lothian question and that English question becomes the redirect, not the other way around.  WLQ is the familiar term.  --Doric Loon 17:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: This speech in Hansard - see , points out of course that the situation is not unprecedented.  Northern Ireland had self-rule, and nobody was talking about the "North Belfast question"...
It should also be noted though that Northern Ireland had 12/13 MPs until 1983 - disproportionately less.  Did any pre-Major governments rely (or were felled) by the Northern Ireland vote?  Morwen - Talk 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From recollection Churchill's 1951-1955 government majority would have been wiped out in the Ulster Unionists had opposed, whilst both Wilson and Callaghan in 1974-1979 sought Unionist support to shore up their slender majorities. Gerry Fitt cast the crucial vote in the No Confidence debate that led to the 1979 election and both he and Frank Maguire (when the latter actually turned up - in the 1979 vote he famously came to the Commons to abstain in person!) proved crucial at points, as did various Unionists. In his memoirs of his first government Wilson does express his anger that steel nationalisation and some other GB reforms was difficult to pass in the 1964-1966 parliament because of the Northern Irish MPs (all taking the Conservative whip) made things narrow. However in general the "fewer MPs, equal say" rule seems to have kept everyone reasonably happy. Timrollpickering 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context

message: Please observe proper Wikipedia conventions:
* Label your comments on this discussion page
* If only editing a specific section, just use the edit link on that, it makes the edit histories easier to follow
* Put an 'edit summary' on your edits
* Explain and justify your changes - if you can't fit it in the edit summary then use the discussion page.
* Reverting without an explanation/justification is not acceptable.
* Edits should be 'neutral point of view' (NPOV) - Note that choosing words to present an opinion as fact is POV.
Thanks.
136.2.1.101 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To GlobalTraveller 

message: * Tuition fees directly affected Scottish universities
The relevance of this requires further explaination.
* Many commentators point out that...
This is wording an opinion as a fact.  It is merely an opinion that the West Lotian question is 'logically inconsistant', not a fact.
Also, who are these commentators, and what justifies the use of the word 'many'?  This is not an opinion I've found cited in a multitude of media sources.
* Parliamentary Sovereignty
As a reading of the relevant Wikipedia article would have shown, the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty (like the Sewel Convention a constitutional convention rather than a written law) was already shaky under Scottish Law. In particular, see MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. As recently as 2004, Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf was challenging the claim of Westminster to Parliamentary sovereignty, making the claim here that it is a 'fundamental tenant of the UK consitution' extremely weak.
::The section giving background to Parliamentary Sovereignty was removed - the key issue for the debate here is that the Westminster Parliament clearly does still have the power to pass legislation for Scotland - as was clearly stated in the Scotland Act and referenced in the article. Interestingly, the question of exactly what the situation would be if both parliaments passed conflicting legislation is considered by some constitutional lawyers to be open - the law didn't say which parliament was supreme, merely that Westminster can still legislate... 136.2.1.101 17:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I'm actually wondering how anyone could think that a motion could be passed - by the Scottish Parliament - without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I think there was a lack of understanding of the Sewel Convention here - there's a great Wikipedia article on it, if for some reason the Scottish Executive webpage (see external links in the article) offends. 136.2.1.101 17:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits 

message: According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, 'impinge' means 'to trespass upon, to have an effect by limiting in some way'.  The Sewell Convention does not affect the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they always have the option of not using it.
136.2.1.101 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impinge 

message: I think there's not going to be an agreement as to where the facts lie on the matters discussed above, and therefore I've included what is (hopefully) a short summary of each side of the argument worded as opinions.  I don't think this should be edited much longer, as this counter-argument to WLQ is beginning to dominate the article in a way in which (to judge, for example, by mentions in press articles on WLQ) just isn't warranted.
Mauls 17:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the recent edits of the article by Mauls, as they present the criticisms of the WLQ, but they do bear a striking resemblence to many of the arguments that were in the initial article, before they were unjustifiably removed and edited - which I presume was for "political-point-making" convenience, rather than what a coherent and two-sided analysis of this problem would dictate. The counter argument to the problem presents itself naturally when the true facts of the matter are laid down - whether people like it or not - English MP's vote on Scottish issues, with stunning frequency - which is the ENTIRE point of the West Lothian question  - ie that English MP's have NO ability to vote on Scottish issues. I guess this is the point which perturbs many people, and why there has been conflict. Globaltraveller 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing opinions 

message: Possibly a contentious word, but is used by the Government to describe the current voting situation, hence should be included as fact (i.e. a non-biased source has been cited)
Mauls 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Anomoly' 

message: I've included a quote from the Tory's relevant spokesperson summing up the argument that the WLQ is an actual issue - it sums up this situation without presenting it as settled fact (because it's attributed as the statement of a politician)
Mauls 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow Constitutional Secretary 

message: Ensuring balance, etc.
Mauls 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it also sums up the argument that Globaltraveller was making too. Hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise. Mauls 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plus one from Falconer 

message: This was taken from the 'principal considerations' bit, as I didn't really see how it fitted in. I felt that it was just a repition of the question, though if someone feels it's key then please suggest why it should be there/how it could read better.
'Those who agree with the concenrns of the West Lothian Quand that one of the often requested 'answers' to the West Lothian question would be a constitutional convention that Scottish MPs not vote on laws for England and Wales when the Scottish equivalent is dealt with by Holyrood.'
Robdurbar 09:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually removed:
and that one of the often requested 'answers' to the West Lothian question would be a constitutional convention that Scottish MPs not vote on laws for England and Wales when the Scottish equivalent is dealt with by Holyrood. This, according to the commentators, makes the current situation unequal, and the premise behind the West Lothian question correct.
The first sentence is one of the oft-requested answers to the WLQ (see the English Tory part etc) - although it is more a parliamentary procedure, rather than a constitutional convention-  so isn't stating anything controversial. The last sentence (emboldened), however, is absolute nonsense and pure POV. It was removed before (see above) because it is a baseless political opinion, without reference. Globaltraveller 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Section

message: This page currently states that 59 scottish MPs in westminister (down from 72) yet the BBC article givin when refering to the vote on  top-up fees states that 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted for the issume, 1 Scottish Conserative abstined, 10 Scottish Lim Dims voted against, as did the 5 SNP Mps. This gives a total of 62 Scottish MPs. I am not sure if this is all the Scottish MPs since the article states '46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government' not that all 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with.
Futhermore, even though the current paragraph seems correct (if we allow English to mean not Scottish): 
:...was passed only due to Scottish MPs voting in favour of these respective sections. The majority of English MPs voted against
It does not IMHO discribe the issue fully. The story here is that the majority (perhaps all) of the Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, the majority (again this could be all but I can't confirm because the numbers don't add up) of the non-Labour Scottish MPs voted against. As Alex Salmond correctly put it "Top-up fees only went through because of Tony's Tartan lobby fodder of Scots Labour MPs" --OoberMick 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fairly clear to most people, that more non-Scottish Labour MP's voted for top-up fees than Scottish Labour MP's did.Globaltraveller 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm pre 2005 there were 72 Scottish MPs. Even if all 26 other Scottish MPs had voted against (and some abstained) the majority amongst Scottish MPs still exceeds the overall majority. It's quite clear the bill would have failed if Scottish MPs had not been allowed to vote on a matter that in Scotland is devolved to Holyrood. Timrollpickering 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arithmetic and the BBC 

message: The section on English Devolution suggests that the proposed elected regional assemblies would have had legislative powers. There is however no mention of this in the relevant white paper: http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/511/YourRegionYourChoiceRevitalisingtheEnglishRegionsASummary_id1139511.pdf  These assemblies would have simply had limited power over economic development and housing. Valueofnothing 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional Assemblies

message: The key considerations section seems only to apply to legal matters. Yes, Westminster could overrule anything put out by Holyrood, but to do so would quickly propel the nationalists into power. Surely political considerations should be covered as well?--Nydas 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political considerations are covered quite well in the article. Westminster could overrule Holyrood (it retains the sovereign ability to) and if it did it may or may not propel parties into power which support independence - ie it is hypothetical, and in the grand scheme of things irrelevant in an encyclopaedic article, basically. The point being of course, English MP's still vote on devolved Scottish issues (and they do so frighteningly frequently), which is what the section is trying to elucidate. It may not suit some who claim the WLQ to be the major constitutional problem, that it (quite frankly) isn't, but it is true, accurate and balances an article which is very significantly affected by POV issues. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not in the business of creating novel interpretations of the UK's political structure, no matter how 'true' they are or how 'wrong' the other people are. I'm assuming that there are prominent adherents as per WP:NPOV who agree with what you're saying here. --Nydas 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is not a novel interpretation it should be possible to point to commonly accepted reference texts, as per WP:NPOV. --Nydas 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Key Considerations

message: Has anyone got access to the debate of 14 November 1977, as recorded by Hansard or the quality press at the time? It is pretty clear from the material I have managed to Google that some kind of contrast was made between the powers of the respective MPs for West Lothian and West Bromwich, but, somewhat infuriatingly, every single source seems to paraphrase the key section, rather than just giving us the actual quote.
Would someone be able to hunt down the key sentences from the 1977 debate?
Out of interest, in 2000, Dalyell said:
*"In the period 1976-9... the proposals were hammered out on the anvil of parliamentary debate... and found wanting. How could it be that the Member of Parliament for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting West Bromwich but not West Lothian? For how long could the MP representing Blackburn, West Lothian, vote on education affecting Blackburn, Lancashire, but not the very same matters in Blackburn, West Lothian? How long could the MP representing Linlithgow, in Scotland, vote on local government in Liverpool, but not in Linlithgow? Twenty-two years have gone by, and the answer has there come, none."
--Mais oui! 06:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansard - 14 November 1977 

message: I like the thing about the Lord Chancellor proposing that people simply drop the question.  Was this meant simply as a joke, or was this more serious?  I'd like to see at least a small statement on it.  Nyttend 23:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is that in some people's mind there is no real problem (the UK constitution is historically full of anomalies and "unfair bits") but that banging on about it is conducive to English nationalism. The partisan in me would note that the people who mainly argue this are Blair and Falconer, whose party benefits from the current arrangements. Timrollpickering 09:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop asking the question... 

message: I have to say I'm a bit confused by the article. The question was posed in 1977, but the body of the article essentially starts with devolution in 1998. The situation that Dalyell decries sounds like one that would have been created by devolution, rather than precede it. Some background on the constitutional situation in 1977 would be helpful for those of us less than intimately familiar with the topic. Thanks.Armandtanzarian (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If the act establishing the Scottish Parliament was passed in 1998, Dalyell couldn't have in 1977 alluded to that - what was he alluding to then? The article should tell, and it should tell before getting to the Scotland Act 1998. --Thrissel (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both correct, and those are excellent questions. I think I may have found the answer. does this entry answer it? see Local government areas of Scotland 1973 to 1996. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context and history. 

message: Letter to Sir George Young MP I removed this dead link. Does anyone know to what it was referring? ShedPlant (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to Sir George Young MP 

message: This is significant:
* 'Vaz: Next Home Secretary must understand England and Wales'
Mr Vaz appeared to suggest that he would not favour Alistair Darling replacing Jacqui Smith at the Home Office saying that Ms Smith's successor must "understand the issues that confront people in England and Wales."
Asked if Mr Darling would make a good Home Secretary, Mr Vaz said: "It's very important whoever is Home Secretary is able to understand the issues that confront people in England and Wales because I think Scotland has it's own minister to deal with Home Affairs issues and I would hope it was someone who would undersand those issues".
--Mais oui! (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee cast doubt upon whether a Scottish MP can be Home Secretary 

message: I removed the line about the Act of Union setting a minimum number of 45 Scottish MPs, as this seems to have been repealed some time ago - compare the original text and the current version (section XXII). — sjorford++ 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the number of Scottish MPs 

message: I've read the Scotland Bill debate from 14th Nov 1977 and the Wales Bill debate from the 15th. Nowhere in these debates does Powell say his famous quote:
"We have finally grasped what the Honourable Member for West Lothian is getting at. Let us call it the West Lothian question."
Where does this quote come from? It's certainly not from the Scotland Debate or the Wales debate and therefore the opening of this article makes no sense. After Tam Dalyell speaks with is famous lines about Blackburn Lancashire and Blackburn West Lothian, Enoch Powell does not respond at all!
This article is completely misleading in suggesting that Powell coined that phrase in the Commons after listening to Dalyell. This did not happen. 
Steve-g (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enoch Powell quote 

message: Can someone explain how this situation can be described as a paradox?  Seems inappropriate.
94.197.14.248 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, well I removed it.  Seems like it would violate impartiality anyway since it implies that the situation is somehow contrary to intuitive thought. 92.41.37.49 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Paradox'? 

message: This article is looking too much like a platform for English Nationalism.  It would be a better page, allow for a better understanding and probably be more supportive of the issues raised if the page was laid out in five sections shown below - or some variation.
1) It should be made clear what the question was; who asked it and why.
2) Explain the British political system at the time of the question.  Explain that the discrepancy allows non-English MPs to swing close votes (but only by approximately 10%).  Mention that Scotland is ultimately subject to Westminster (as is England, Wales and NI) even if this power is rarely abused.  Perhaps mention that MPs are often expected to vote with the party rather than as individuals and some Scottish MPs do abstain on English matters such as the lone Tory in Scotland.
3) Give the  top up fees as an example of where the issues have been more than academic.
NB for editors not for page.  Remember that Scottish students pay top up fees in both England and Scotland but receive funding from the SAAS up to the maximum of one year at a Scottish university (about £1820); English students are charged the exact same as Scottish students but without the funding from the SAAS.  The SAAS define Scottish and not Scottish as the persons permanent address i.e. if someone moves permanently from Scotland they get nothing and if an English person moves over the border permanently they will receive funding (within certain time periods); there are other restrictions such as repeat years and age and only for the first undergraduate degrees.
4) Explain developments in British politics since the question.  Devolution and all that.
5) Mention the opinion of British citizens (English and non-English) through opinion polls.  Mention none of the three main parties have any plans to alter the system; however minority parties including the English Democrats (0 seats) and somewhat bizarrely the SNP (6 seats) are wishing a change in the status quo.
Proper sources all round and it would be a good and insightful article into British politics.
Not that it matters but I am not a Scottish nationalist nor a staunch British unionist.  Neither do I believe that there are many supporters of the inequality pointed out by the WLQ outside of the Labour party - and certainly not in Scotland where it is seen as unfair and something of an embarrassment - who benefit most from the issue raised.212.183.140.60 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliance on primary sources is part of the problem. They are fine for detail, but not for the overall structure of the article. Pittock's The Road to Independence? devotes three pages to the question. The House of Commons Library produced a very substantial briefing paper, available , all 40 pages of it. There are many similar materials available. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested tidy-up 

message: There is an English analogue to the West Lothian question; the Church of England is an established church only for England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; yet Westminster has some control over its affairs. This is not merely a regional issue but also a sectarian issue, since English MPs who are not Anglican, or who represent constituencies with mostly non-Anglican populations, can vote on the same basis as Anglican ones. I imagine the Ecclesiastical Committee members are all Anglicans, which is a sort of partial answer to this particular West Lothian question. jnestorius(talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article were a smidgeon less relentlessly recentist, this would already be covered. One pre-devolution example of the WLQ in action came when Scottish Labour MPs (including Tom Johnston and David Kirkwood) helped to vote down the 1928 Prayer Book. It smacked far too much of popery for our boys, raised as they were on stirring tales of Presbyterian valour from the pages of Howie's Scots Worthies. If there were more on the WLQ, as it wasn't called at that time, in relation to C19th Irish Home Rule, that would help too. Most of the wizard wheezes lately proposed to solve the WLQ were fully considered by Victorian parliamentarians. This is well covered in, e.g. Bogdanor's book on devolution. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of England 

message: Escape Orbit has objected to my insertion of " (Although presently the number of Scottish MPs is higher than the standard ratio.)" He asserts that "It is suggesting that if the NI example was followed, Scotland would have below the standard ratio. The fact that Scotland currently has a higher ratio is not the point."   However, it is exactly the point.  Looking at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82358.stm (which I'll add as a cite if you like) shows that the proposition being discussed at that point was that Scotland should move to (or towards) the same ratio of MPs to population as England from its current position of more MPs per head than England.  There is no mention in the BBC article of a lower ratio for Scotland even being discussed.  As I stated in my original edit, the comparison with NI is misleading because NI had a _lower_ ratio of MPs per head than England.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I would suggest that the mention of NI is removed entirely (being unsourced apart from anything else) and the paragraph changed to reflect what your suggested cite says about the ratio being reduced to that in line with England.   If there are any sources to be had that suggest it is reduced further, with mention of the NI precedent, then it can be added.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the number of Scottish MPs 

message: This article goes into a huge amount of superfluous detail that no one is interested in about the McKay Commission being set up, and then doesn't even bother to say what they decided. Richard75 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done.  I'll refrain from making any snarky comments about DIY.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what did the McKay Commission say? 

message: I have proposed that English Votes on English Legislation be merged back into this article, from which it was recently extracted. The issues covered there are an integral part of this article's domain.
Please discuss at Talk:English Votes on English Legislation.
Onanoff (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The article states: "Carswell and Hannan write: "All the fields of policy currently within the purview of the Holyrood Parliament should be transferred to English counties and cities (thereby, incidentally, answering the west Lothian Question)"
This is very unlikey. You would not have a criminal justice system, national curriculum, student tuition fees, for different counties or cities. Nor would the National Health Service be replaced by numerous health services for tens of counties and cities. (Coachtripfan (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased powers for English counties and cities 

message: The lead paragrap implies that EVEL and WLQ are the same issue. I feel that this is misleading as EVEL is only one possible solution to overcome the WLQ along with an English parliament / assembly or regional assemblies within England. I propose to change the lead from "The issue of English votes for English laws (EVEL), commonly known as the West Lothian question, refers to whether MPs " to "The West Lothian question, refers to whether MPs" Rude-boy-wayne (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed and have rewritten the lead section accordingly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WLQ is not the same as EVEL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on West Lothian question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505212550/http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Sewel/Introduction to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Sewel/Introduction
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can there please be a total be organisation of this article and also a brand-new section put it in to highlight that on 22 October 2015 there was a debate followed by vote in the House of Commons which was passed by 312-270 which gave the go-ahead for English votes for English laws and a new procedure for laws only affecting England within the United Kingdom which could be written as a solution to the West Lothian question itself. (46.64.128.107 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a section explaining the new procedures within the House of Commons and also we need to set up a new stand alone article for the soon to be formed  English Grand Committee and how it will effect the process of passing legislation from now on in. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  New article -  English Grand Committee - now live Rude-boy-wayne (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article needs a lot of work, to be honest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please have more information regarding developments since the 2015 UK General Election and some quote from both sides of the argument that have been spoken by various people and MP's. (46.64.128.107 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 22nd 2015 House of Commons Vote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on West Lothian question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609215243/http://www.toque.co.uk/witan/docs/DTF_Answering_the_Question.pdf to http://www.toque.co.uk/witan/docs/DTF_Answering_the_Question.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609215323/http://www.toque.co.uk/witan/docs/ClarkeVRifkind.pdf to http://www.toque.co.uk/witan/docs/ClarkeVRifkind.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102063652/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02586.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02586.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on West Lothian question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504080045/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk:80/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980304/debtext/80304-26.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980304/debtext/80304-26.htm#80304-26_head2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Very unclear article.  One looks in vain for a clear, concise explanation of what the current situation regarding EVEL is, i.e. what the new parliamentary procedures put in place after 2015 involve. 86.174.248.89 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point. The difficulty partly arises from the fact that EVEL is only a part of this article, rather than having an article in its own right that begins with a definition. There was an English votes on English laws stub created in 2005, which grew to something like start class before it was merged here in 2006. English votes for English laws was created as a redirect to that page before it was changed to point to here in 2006. At that time EVEL was merely a proposal rather than an implemented policy. The EVEL section of this article grew over the years to the stage where it appears to have enough content to be an article in its own right, so I've added split tag. Does anybody object to the English votes for English laws section becoming an article? Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

text: as no objections received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: EVEL