Talk:West Lothian question

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

EVEL

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)

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)

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

Does no one care about this?

There has been no real updates to this talk page for like 6 years. There's no progress of addressing English devolution in a proper, mutually agreeable consensus-based manner. Even EVEL has been repealed. There doesn't seem to be any news in the recent months either.

Why is this subject treated like a thing of a historical past when the anomaly is alive and well to the present? 2600:1012:A023:5968:8272:96DD:BEF5:54D4 (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess no one cares! 172.56.234.240 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1012:A023:5968:8272:96DD:BEF5:54D4 This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for lamenting the lack of any progress within the article subject. If nothing has changed, then there is no particular reason to change what the article says. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No one seems to care, either in news/UK political discussion or in Wikipedia!

I like how there's been basically zero updates to this article or its talk page for years and yet you swoop in when this comment happens! 172.56.234.240 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Any updates on Wikipedia would need verifiability. If there are no reliable sources for it, we cannot add the information.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and no one is required to edit. If you want to update the article, you may do so with reliable sources, as long as your edits conform to Wikipedia's policies. Cheers, x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 22:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@172.56.234.240 The whole point of comments on the talk page is to facilitate discussion and action. You cannot add unsourced "facts" about things that haven't happened to the article. A billion things haven't happened, but by adding them as "facts" you are suggesting an opinion that you, personally, think they could or should. Wikipedia is not here to express your opinion. The only fact is that there is no significant change or debate about this presently, otherwise there would be new sourced content that might be added.

But you are quite correct; Wikipedia doesn't care, because Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion.

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

BBC quote misleading?

The BBC quote claims "MPs for English constituencies having no influence on affairs which were devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland" might be true but misleading, as surely MPs for Scottish constituencies, too, have no influence anymore on affairs which were devolved to Scotland, or do they? Unless they would be automatically be part of the Scottish Parliament as MSP. ~2025-31183-77 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)