Re: West Lothian Question
Was vaguely amused to see David McLetchie on television last night, agreeing
with Tommy Sheridan on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Firstly, what outdated traditions are these?
Your views regarding Unionism, loyalty to monarchy, and assumed sense of
Britishness. Such modes of thinking are gradually being swept away, yet
you clearly feel the need to hold onto them. As I would assume you are aware,
it will not be possible for us to agree on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Secondly, the Conservatives have not been removed, not in the least.
Whichever way you attempt to paint it, you cannot deny that Tory support here
has dropped significantly in recent years. I would say so much so as to make
them of lesser importance in Scottish politics, and not yet a viable option for
voters. Would also say that is enough to warrant use of 'for the most part'.
Re: West Lothian Question
I understand that the Welsh assembly is, at last, supposed to be getting a substantial increase in powers (thanks to the Richards Commission findings, although I have also heard that good old Labour has decided to ignore most of it) so that it's more than a glitzy version of the Welsh Office.
When this happens I'll be fully supportive of Welsh M.P.s no longer voting on English matters (although I believe there are a few who do so already out of principle). It's also the time that Scottish M.P.s must stop voting on purely English matters.
Until then I say let the constitutional craziness reign (after all, the Labour party really needs its hordes of Welsh and Scottish M.P.s right now).
Edit: POST 1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*the happy dance*
Re: West Lothian Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Umm, come on mate, the fact that the UK parliament (which contains MPs for England but also scotland wales and NI) voted to establish the Scottish Parliament cannot really be used as an example justifying scottish MPs voting on matters relating only to England. Apart from anything else the westminster vote was the only way to establish the Scottish parliament.
I'm sorry, but the response was to your question:
Quote:
Is there a post 1997 example of English MPs voting on a matter that affected only Scotland?
The Act was still passed in 1998 via the backs of English MPs. Maybe it wasn't the best example I could have provided, but what about further Acts passed in Westminster, such as the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004?
These are two further examples of Acts which were passed in Westminster with English MPs voting on them. I suppose that is is alright, then? Just beacause they aren't as controversial as the other bills we might as well, well, ignore it? :inquisitive:
Quote:
Because I happened to know about the HE bill as I had to advise on it at the time, and I don't know about the others and haven't got time to look them up. "Relate to" Scotland isn't the point though, it would have to be "relate EXCLUSIVELY" to Scotland. No one is saying the UK parliament legislating for the whole of the UK raises a West Lothian question (or a west Sussex question as I suppose it would be here)
Sorry, but what is your point? Are you saying that an Act passed in Westminster shouldn't even be voted on by Scottish MPs at all unless it fully and exclusively relates to Scotland? So if the Act, even if it does relate to Scotland in any small way, they should all just well keep the hell clear of it?
Sorry, but that doesn't really rub. As is just stated, the HE Bill did contain some issues that did relate to Scotland. Even if they were minuscule, they still did relate to Scotland. So the Scottish MPs, legimately still had a stake in it.
Sorry, but your argument would carry much more water if the HE Bill didn't even contain anything about Scotland at all. But it did.
Quote:
Sure, sure, and by exactly the same argument we could repeal the Statute of Westminster 1931 and start legislating for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland again. I know the argument exists, and I know on one view it is technically correct legally (though there are other views), its just in the real world it won't work. The basic problem with the answer is the WLQ isn't a legal question, its political question.
O.K. I see your point, but who knows what the future may bring. Perhaps if the Tories win the next general election they might consider abolishing it. Who knows?
The legal question, political question, whatever; the Scottish Parliament still exists at the behest and pleasure of Westminster.
Quote:
And now, the pedantry:
Because its not true, I'm afraid. The GLA has no legislative power. It doesn't even have much executive power. In effect its a rather puny county council. But if it WAS true I would be perfectly happy to ask the West Hampstead question just the same as we ask the West Lothian question.
Sorry, but I am under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that London's Assembly, while not an a regional assembly is a directly elected one under the proportional representation system with a Mayor. It also has a subtle difference to a Regional Assembly in provincial parts of country. It also has power over certain affairs in London, like for instance, Transport, Education and Environment, which were devolved to this directly elected assembly. Like in Scotland and Wales, its powers can be given to, or taken away from this assembly by the UK government.
Quote:
59 Scottish MPs, pop 5.078m, 1 MP per 86,000 population
528 English seats, pop 50.1m, 1 MP per 94,900 population.
Sorry, but who is being pedantic here?
Your facts while in a sense, strictly true, can also be taken much further.
For the UK there are 646 Westminster constituencies in total. Correct?
In England there are 529 Westminster constituencies in total. Correct?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make up the rest of the constituencies: A grand total of 117 all together. Correct?
It really doesn't take a mathematian to tell that England takes up the lions share of the constituencies. If you actually total up England's share of constituencies in comparison with the rest of the UK, they actually make up around 82% of the total. O.K?
Strangely enough, if last year's population stats of the UK are correct, England has around 83% of the entire population contained within it.
Well bugger me!!! Isn't that just amazing? The English are almost fairly represented pro-rata. Imagine that.
So what is your point, again?
*Edit* Opps. Sorry, I just noticed what I wrote in my last post. Instead of 'overdominance' of English MPs, I actually meant to say 'preponderance' of English MPs. My apologies, if that is what you were meaning.
A moot point, where did you get that source with the corresponding English and Scottish constituencies. It's clearly wrong.
The true figures are in the link below.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/...estminster.asp
Re: West Lothian Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
Your views regarding Unionism, loyalty to monarchy, and assumed sense of
Britishness. Such modes of thinking are gradually being swept away, yet
you clearly feel the need to hold onto them. As I would assume you are aware,
it will not be possible for us to agree on this issue.
Yes, butthe matter of unionism, the majority of Scots voted for Unionist parties, so most Scots wish the Union to remain.
Most polls of Scotland and of the UK show the people wish to keep the monarchy, and there is little good reason to abolish the monarchy other than the tiring "medieval" slur...
And admittedly, my sense of Britishness is outdated, I prefer the 19th century ideal of Britishness. The ideal which achieved the largest empire ever to have existed. The ideal which gave Scotland our great parks, state buildings, cities, libraries, fame, trade, various social improvements, spread our culture, and numerous other such things.
Quote:
Whichever way you attempt to paint it, you cannot deny that Tory support here
has dropped significantly in recent years. I would say so much so as to make
them of lesser importance in Scottish politics, and not yet a viable option for
voters. Would also say that is enough to warrant use of 'for the most part'.
Tory support has dropped. That does not mean that it cannot rise again. Their problem is Thatcher and the Poll tax and such. It still rivals the SNP in councils and the Scottish Parliament, however...
Re: West Lothian Question
Malcolm:
it's illogical to say that people who vote for unionist parties cannot be nationalists.
2 examples:
eurosceptics, the SNP adore the E.U. almost as much as the Lib Dems but the SNP have significant overlap with other parties on non-constitutional matters: which is more important? independence from the E.U. or from England?
non-lefties, the SNP love government interference and would no doubt like to replace county councils with workers' conferences. where would you go? probably to the Conservatives (heh, or Labour nowadays).
I think both examples apply to the Scottish Socialist Party too (whom I believe also campaign for Scottish independence).
Then I believe there are "nationalist" factions in the unionist parties too.
And so on and so on
Re: West Lothian Question
As someone else said. England should pullout from the union for awhile and see how the Scot's and Welsh get on. If the Scot's can have parliment then it stands to reason that England and Wales should have them as well.
Re: West Lothian Question
Quote:
As someone else said. England should pullout from the union for awhile and see how the Scot's and Welsh get on. If the Scot's can have parliment then it stands to reason that England and Wales should have them as well.
One of the problems of the West Lothian question is that it encourages English nationalism, which is bad for England, Scotland and Wales. I am sure that Wiki's attempt to downplay it is wrong. Whether Scotland (or Wales or Pimlico) has devolved government is a matter for the whole of the UK, so all MP's voting on it is justifiable, as well as the UK parliament retaining the right to withdraw the devolved government. Note, I am not saying that I oppose devolution: I don't, but I do believe that, as an Englishman, I am entitled to a view; it is not simply a matter for Scotland (Wales or Pimlico).
The issue is one of symetry. The current constitution of parliaments and assemblies gives Scottish electors more control over what happens in England than English electors have over what happens in Scotland. As EA says, this is a political, rather than a constitutional problem. So long as English people don't think that unpopular policies which a majority of English MP's oppose, are being forced on using the votes of Scottish MP's then the WLQ is not a problem. However, if ever that perception develops, especially if the unpopular measures are not introduced in Scotland, the WLQ will need an answer, and the answer must satisfy people living in England that their representatives have fair voting rights on laws that affect England only.
Re: West Lothian Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Malcolm:
it's illogical to say that people who vote for unionist parties cannot be nationalists.
I wouldn't say that they are actually nationalist, simply more open to the prospect of an independent Scotland.
Quote:
Then I believe there are "nationalist" factions in the unionist parties too.
Not quite "factions" just a few rogue members...
Duke of Gloucester: Isn't Pimlico a place in London...?
Re: West Lothian Question
Quote:
Duke of Gloucester: Isn't Pimlico a place in London...?
Yes. There is an Ealing comedy called "Passport to Pimlico" where Pimlico sets itself up as an independent country. I used to indicate that the argument is not specific to Scotland or Wales.
Re: West Lothian Question
Yes yes, and that is a wonderful movie, especially when they stop the underground trains demanding passports...
