Obviously it can give the SNP two extra votes in the Scottish Parliament. But it is only two votes, and still far short of a majority. An SNP–Green coalition is not a good deal stronger than an SNP minority administration.

Meanwhile, I am really scratching my head as to why the Greens want to get involved. When coalition talks started, there was a joke (or was it a joke? Was it real?) that the Greens had two conditions. Those conditions were no more nuclear and fewer carbon emissions — which are both already SNP policies anyway.

If the Greens wanted to maximise their influence (as you would assume they would), you would expect them to at least ask for something a bit more radical, like no second Forth Road Bridge. Obviously no deal would be made in those circumstances because it would make both the SNP about as electorally popular as Hitler, particularly in Fife. But it would be a good starting point for the Greens.

But I’ve not heard anything about demands made by the Greens, besides a few “disagreements about transport policies”, which is a bit vague. It sounds like the Greens are giving up a lot for the sake of not a lot of power (because it would still be a minority administration).

I guess both the Greens and the SNP are hoping that the Lib Dems will come to the table. Their original stance was principled, but the fact that they are refusing to even talk about it is beginning to make them look petulant.

After all, as has been pointed out by many people, any referendum on independence would probably be lost. And a multi-question referendum would give the Lib Dems the perfect opportunity to campaign for more fiscal federalism in Scotland. Even though these issues are technically reserved matters, the debate that would be initiated could also open to door to a campaign to resolve the West Lothian Question via a federal solution in Westminster.

Moreover, there is the fact that the SNP and the Lib Dems are so damn similar, apart from the issue of independence. Would it not, for instance, be a good opportunity to implement a form of Local Income Tax, which both parties favour over the current system?

Meanwhile, those rumours that the Lib Dems’ refusal to talk is really being dictated by Gordon Brown don’t go away. I don’t know how true it is. But the very idea makes me quite uncomfortable, and for as long as the Lib Dems refuse even to talk about it, it begins to look true.

Back to the SNP, and Holyrood Watcher has noted how the SNP now face the harsh realities that come with actually being in power. Compromises to be made, and the fact that there are scarce resources (I sense this is a particular weak point for the SNP!).

The one solid Green demand — to go ahead with Edinburgh’s tram scheme — is uncomfortable for the SNP to take on board. And the SNP appear to be learning that increasing spending in one area involves opportunity costs, ie. decreasing spending in another area. Doh! Why didn’t they think of that before?

Update: Just as I finished writing this post, I saw this from Brian Taylor:

So what is this deal? The SNP and the Greens agree that – they won’t build any new nuclear power stations; they’ll introduce a law to cut climate-change pollution year on year (instead of vague longer-term targets); and they’ll “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.”

Ha! In other words, no nuclear and fewer carbon emissions. ie. the Greens have extracted bugger all from the SNP. Oh well. And that wording, “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament” — very weak, don’t you think? The Lib Dems would like to do that as well. It looks to me like this the plan — to bring the Lib Dems on board.

Update: Having read the actual agreement (PDF), it is actually a bit stronger than that. It mentions ‘independence’ and contains a strong hint that a referendum is still on the cards.

“I don’t think there’s a real groundswell for change,” he once said regarding making my vote count. In my letter, after the initial “thank you for your letter” shite, he said:

Regarding Mr Stephen’s first concern [making my vote count], I can confirm that an internal review is currently underway within my Department, which will review the new electoral systems introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. This review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.

The government still maintains that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.

All fair enough, and it will be interesting to find out what the report makes of the current electoral systems used (particularly AMS).

Now the second bit.

With regard to the issue of the West Lothian Question, the UK Parliament is responsible for matters that effect [shouldn't that be affect?] the entire UK, including England. A fundamental principle of the UK Parliament is that all MPs have equal rights, and can therefore vote on any matter brought before them, whether they represent constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.

The vast majority of MPs are against removing this equality, with the House of Commons rejecting a motion in January 2004 which sought to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on matters which did not ostensibly effect Scotland, by 377 votes to 142.

Well that’s all fair enough aswell, because I also happen to think that all MPs should have equal rights. But that’s not what I asked. I asked about how they intended to tackle the problem, and I suggested an English Parliament just to help them along. But they ignored all that. Instead of telling me how they intend to tackle the West Lothian Question, they told me why they’re not choosing a particular way to tackle it.

I’m not too satisfied with that one, I have to say.

It’s a good post, making a lot of interesting points, essentially saying that the West Lothian Question is an issue that’s been blown out of all proportion. But it completely ignores the biggie for me.

Cabinet ministers in charge of devolved issues but elected in Scottish constituencies. John Reid was Health Secretary up until the election. Alistair Darling was Transport Secretary before the election, and he still is now. Neither were held to account for their actions because their actions did not affect Scottish constituents.

The West Lothian Question clearly needs solving. In my mind the answer is simple (albeit easier said than done). In addition to the existing devolved Parliaments and assemblies, set up either regional assemblies in England, or a national English assembly. Give them all the same powers so that everybody knows where they stand. Westminster would then be responsible only for the remaining reserved issues.

As commenters at The Sharpener recognise, though, this would be difficult for a whole variety of reasons. It might also still leave a problem with Northern Ireland. I’m no expert on politics in Northern Ireland, but their assembly is currently dormant. Would the situation I outline above would leave Northern Ireland essentially without anybody having a say over devolved issues?

Incidentally, I’m still waiting for my reply from the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Dear Mr Stephen

I enclose a copy of a letter I have just received concerning the matter I raised on your behalf. As you will see a further letter will follow and I will get back to you once I receive this.

Yours sincerely

Gordon Brown MP

Dear Mr Brown,

[my address]

I refer to your letter of Tuesday 17^th May 2005, addressed to The Department for Constitutional Affairs, about Electoral Reform.

Your letter was received on Thursday 19^th May 2005 and the Minister aims to reply within 20 working days. However, if we anticipate a delay, I will inform you as soon as possible.

I shall also contact you again if, after considering your letter further, it appears that another Department may deal with it more appropriately.

If you would like to speak to someone in this office about your letter…

And so it goes on.

My name is still correct, but now my address is wrong, on each letter, in different ways.

Kudos to Mr Brown for forwarding my letter to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. But I’m kind of amazed that they don’t have a response ready and waiting. I can’t be the only person writing letters about the voting system. Perhaps it’s different with my query about the possibility of an English Parliament.

Dear Mr Stephen

Thank you for your recent letter which I have forwarded to the appropriate department. I will contact you once I receive a reply.

Yours sincerely

Gordon Brown MP

I’m sure you’ll agree, it was definitely worth the wait, and the price of two first class stamps. At least he got my name right.

I think this is what they call “cutting bureaucracy”.

I gave up watching Question Time a while ago, but last night’s edition sounds like it was a real a hoot.

When one audience member asked about the possibility of having an English Parliament, the minister for Constitutional Affairs of all things, Harriet Harman, said, “What anomalies?”

The Campaign for an English Parliament has this, whilst Murky fires off a letter to Harman.

Meanwhile, back on PR, Left out Liberal says:

…all those who are advocating STV are deluded. It may be good, but it’s never going to be acceptable to politicians in this country.

So unacceptable that we’ve already got STV in Scotland.

Update: Make My Vote Count: Question Time, or why I hate career politicians.