THEY came with their placards, their chants and their furry fox costumes. Brian May, the guitarist from the band “Queen”, even made an appearance. And all for nothing. Just as the protest in Westminster against government plans to relax the ban on fox hunting was in full swing, news came through that the vote in Parliament had been cancelled.

The last-minute change on July 14th followed an announcement by the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) that it would vote with other opposition parties against the amendment. This was unexpected: the ban applies only in England and Wales, and the SNP claims to avoid votes not affecting Scotland. The about-turn put the Conservatives—their slender majority eliminated by rebels on their own benches—on track for a defeat.

The drama intensified the debate about the “West Lothian question” first asked in 1977 by Tam Dalyell, a Scottish MP who wondered why, if powers were devolved to Scotland, he should vote on things affecting West Bromwich, in England, but not his own constituents in West Lothian. Coincidentally, the day after the protest MPs were due to discuss a government proposal responding to this very question: English votes for English laws (EVEL).

Cases like the hunting amendment, where Scottish MPs might have altered a decision not directly affecting Scots, are rare, because Scotland elects just 59 of Parliament’s 650 MPs. Between 2001 and 2015 Scottish MPs tilted only 25 of 3,773 votes. And most of these affected the entire United Kingdom. Yet as the government devolves new powers to Edinburgh to curb the pro-independence surge there, the number of such votes will probably rise. Thus last year David Cameron asked William Hague, a former leader of the House, to devise a range of EVEL options.

The version set out by Chris Grayling, Mr Hague’s successor, in the Commons on July 15th went farther than some had anticipated. Although he did not propose to exclude Scottish MPs from votes in Parliament, he would give English MPs a veto over legislation deemed by the speaker not to apply to Scotland, including votes on taxes and on secondary legislation (tweaks to the statute book made by government bodies as part of their everyday activities).

The Tories say this measure will ensure Scottish MPs cannot impose laws on the English. Labour, until recently strong in Scotland, warns that it could slow up the legislative process—and accuses the government of trying to rush through the change without due discussion and scrutiny. In the debate in the Commons, SNP MPs furiously accused Mr Grayling of creating two tiers of MPs in a chamber where all should be equal.

A more compelling criticism of the government’s plans comes from Jim Gallagher, a former civil servant and an architect of Scotland’s devolution settlement. Though amenable to EVEL, he warns that extending it to votes on taxes and budgets is risky. Letting English MPs veto individual bills is one thing, he argues. But allowing them to stymie money-raising and the daily running of the state could enable them to sideline the rest of the United Kingdom. The West Lothian question would be largely solved. But a new quandary would remain: the potential domination of the United Kingdom by its overwhelmingly largest part, England. You could call it the West Bromwich question.