Parliament without Scottish MPs: how would it have looked different since 1997?


An analysis, with code and data, of which Commons votes would have had different results, if Scottish MPs’ votes hadn’t been counted since 1997.

By Richard Taylor and Anna Powell-Smith.

Humble address in the House of CommonsPublicWhip is a wonderful thing. Founded and still run by independent volunteers, it contains the results of every House of Commons vote since 1997, scraped from the official web pages and presented as simple structured data. Here at mySociety, we’ve used it to power TheyWorkForYou for many years.

Most recently, it helped our staffer Richard create the new voting analyses on TheyWorkForYou’s MP pages. Want a quick, simple summary of your MP’s voting history on same-sex marriage or climate change, or on any of 62 other major issues? You’ll now find the answer on your MP’s TheyWorkForYou page, all based on PublicWhip data.

But here’s the most exciting thing about PublicWhip. If you know how to get around its slightly forbidding exterior, it contains a treasure-trove of data on MPs’ voting patterns, all structured, openly-licensed and ready for anyone to analyse.

A data challenge

Recently, while discussing the upcoming Scottish referendum, Richard posed a question to Anna: could PublicWhip data tell us which House of Commons votes would have had different results, if Scottish MPs’ votes hadn’t been counted?

This is interesting because if the Scottish people vote “yes” to independence on September 18th, we may see (probably not as soon as 2015, but perhaps soon thereafter) a House of Commons without Scottish MPs. No-one really knows how such a Parliament would be different.

While it was widely reported that that Scottish MPs’ votes carried the decision to introduce student tuition fees and foundation hospitals in England, those were just two high-profile votes. To our knowledge, no-one has published a comprehensive analysis of all votes that were carried by the Scottish MPs.

The results

Anna chose to accept Richard’s challenge, and to use PublicWhip data to carry out this analysis. You can see all their code, and the data they produced, on GitHub.

The headline finding is that only 21 votes (out of nearly 5000 since 1997) would have gone differently if Scottish MP’s votes hadn’t been counted. This surprised Anna, who expected more.

Secondly, if there’s any visible pattern, it’s that English MPs seem to have a stronger civil-libertarian bent than their Scottish counterparts. High-profile votes on 42-day detention, “glorifying terrorism”, allowing the Lord Chancellor to suspend inquests, and on control orders: according to Anna’s analysis, all would have gone differently if Scottish MPs had not been in the chamber.

Other than that – Anna comments – the key finding is perhaps the absence of any other strong trend.

Here is the full list of votes that would have gone differently – click on the date to see the full vote details on PublicWhip. If Scottish MPs hadn’t been in the chamber:


  • 5 Sep 2014 The majority of MPs would have voted to send the Affordable Homes Bill to a Select Committee rather than a Public Bill Committee.
  • 29 August 2013 The majority of MPs would have voted to agree that a strong humanitarian response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria was required from the international community, and that it may, if necessary, require military action. (You may remember that David Cameron called MPs back from their summer break to vote on this, and MPs rejected the motion.)
  • 29 Jan 2013 The majority of MPs would have voted against postponing a review of the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies until 2018 and against delaying a review of the effect of reducing the number of MPs.
  • 31 Oct 2012 The majority of MPs would have voted against calling on the UK Government to seek a real-terms cut in the European Union budget.
  • 24 Apr 2012 The majority of MPs would have voted to require products containing halal and kosher meat to be labelled as such.
  • 24 Feb 2010 The majority of MPs would have voted for restrictions on the amount of carbon dioxide electricity generation plants are permitted to emit.


  • 9 Nov 2009 The majority of MPs would have voted against allowing the Lord Chancellor (a minister) to suspend an inquest and replace it with an inquiry and against allowing the use of intercepted communications evidence in inquests.
  • 8 Dec 2008 The majority of MPs would have voted to immediately starting the proceedings of a committee of MPs to investigate the House of Commons procedures in light of the seizure by the police of material belonging to Damian Green MP.
  • 12 Nov 2008 The majority of MPs would have voted to require membership of new regional select committees to be determined taking account of the proportion of members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region and for at least one member from each of the three largest parties to be on each committee.
  • 11 Jun 2008 The majority of MPs would have voted against extending the period of police detention without making any criminal charges of terrorist suspects from 28 days to 42 days.
  • 2 Jun 2008 The majority of MPs would have voted to require the National Policy Statement to contain policies which contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
  • 15 Mar 2006 The majority of MPs would have voted against a proposed timetable for the Parliamentary consideration of the Education and Inspections Bill.
  • 2 Nov 2005 The majority of MPs would have voted against making glorifying the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism an offence.
  • 2 Nov 2005 The majority of MPs would have voted to make the offence of Encouragement of Terrorism only apply to cases where an individual intended their actions to encourage terrorism.


  • 28 Feb 2005 The majority of MPs would have voted to give a greater role to the courts in relation to the imposition of control orders.
  • 22 Apr 2004 The majority of MPs would have voted against installing a security screen separating the public gallery from the House of Commons Chamber.
  • 31 Mar 2004 The majority of MPs would have voted against the introduction of variable university tuition fees (top-up fees) of up to £3,000 per year in place of the previous fixed fee of £1,250 per year.
  • 27 Jan 2004 The majority of MPs would have voted against allowing university tuition fees to increase from £1,125 per year to up to £3,000 per year, and against making other changes to higher education funding and regulation arrangements.
  • 19 Nov 2003 The majority of MPs would have voted against introducing NHS foundation trusts, bodies with a degree of financial and managerial independence from the Department of Health.
  • 4 Feb 2003 The majority of MPs would have voted for an 80% elected House of Lords.
  • 29 Oct 2002 The majority of MPs would have voted against starting sittings of the House of Commons on Tuesdays at 11.30am rather than 2.30pm.

In the 1997-2001 Parliament, Anna’s code found no votes that would have had different results.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER! We can’t conclude that all of the above would necessarily have become law if Scottish MPs had not been in the chamber. Bills don’t become law until they have passed through the House of Lords – not to mention the many other forces of history that would have acted differently.

Get the code and the data

You can see the code used for this analysis, and the full datasets, on GitHub. You can adapt it yourself if you want to do your own analyses.

This analysis is the work of one volunteer: we welcome any corrections. Like PublicWhip itself, the whole point is that it is out in open for anyone to analyse and improve.

Image by Catherine Bebbington. Parliamentary copyright image reproduced with the permission of Parliament.


  1. So it’s possible I got the code wrong – but I pulled the data, updated the scripts and in 77% of the votes – had only Scottish MP’s voted it would have gone the same way 4006 of 4907. Maybe we aren’t so different.

  2. It’s interesting that there are several very high-profile votes on the list.

    There are several things which will affect this analysis. The first is “pairing” – the practice of two MPs who know they will vote different ways on an issue both deciding together to not turn up and stay in their constituencies or do something else. This means that unless a vote is going to be close, many MPs simply don’t vote. I suspect Scottish MPs, due to the distances involved, pair a lot.

    Scotland is predominantly Labour and Lib Dem. If there was a parliament where a government was in power with the support of one of those two parties and with a majority less than the number of Scottish MPs of that party, then there would have been a lot of votes going the other way – in fact, an entirely different government. Looking back to 1997, the only time this was true is with the current coalition – which, if Scottish MPs were not present, would be a majority Conservative government.

    • Scottish MPs are less likely to rebel.

      “Constitution Unit researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons between May 2005 and June 2007. This revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.”

      Why rebel against something that has absolutely no bearing on your constituents?

      The West Lothian Question makes a mockery of democracy.

  3. The other question is “how frequently would the rUK have had a different government?” I think there are three general elections (1950, ’66, and ’74) that Labour won narrowly, that would have gone to the Conservatives. Two of those Labour governments didn’t last long, though.

  4. The SNP already abstain from voting on English, Welsh, and Northern Ireland matters. So there is a difference between the (legitimate and interesting) data presented here and the full potential effect of the West Lothian Question.

  5. The parliament in Westminster is supposed to be for the whole of the UK, comparable to a federal government. Legislation should be general, and not involved in specific decisions concerning cities/states/counties. Devolution is the process of allowing the regions to make their own decisions based on local democracy.

    However, politicians want centralised control of everything so that they can be re-elected. Mrs T allowed some devolution but only to those who could be bribed or coerced to do her will; not much has changed since then.

    Solutions are more difficult, like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Samples:
    * Fix the number of MPs (one per Commons seat)
    * Extend jury service to appoint members of parliament by lottery.
    * Limit an MP’s tenure to two 5-year terms.
    * Severely restrict party patronage – but how?