Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

English Votes For English Questions-A promise from the PM?



Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
It isn't about extra politicians. It is about equality and rights. How can it be equal and just for somebody from Inverness voting on legislation that does not impact on their own constituents as they have the devolved responsibility and accountability but does impact on every person in England but somebody elected in say Penzance to represent Cornwall can't vote on the same issue that affects residents of Inverness? It has been wrong since devolution came in. It does not make second class MPs. It makes each MP in the Union equal. The devolution of further powers to Holyrood has further highlighted the injustice and inequality of the West Lothian issue and it has been fudged for years. Labour will want to keep the status quo as they would need the 41 labour MPs to help pass legislation on the English.

Yep, spot on, this plus many other issues.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,989
Goldstone
The Scottish Parliament will still be separate from the Scottish MP's represented in Westminster. What we're effectively saying is that they will neither be voting on matters in the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament rendering them effectively powerless which isn't democratic.
That seems like a mental way to look at it. There are some matters in Scotland that MPs don't get a say on. So Scottish MPs are powerless on those matters for their constituents, and you're saying 'let's at least give them control over other England' as if that makes up for it. That's ridiculous. The Scottish MPs are not powerless, as you put it, they are simply powerless on devolved issues, as they should be.
 


withdeanwombat

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2005
8,690
Somersetshire
I think he said it would be a cross party initiative, if that will make any difference?

Depends. Which party do you consider to be the cross one ? The one most likely to be cross would be Labour, in this instance, so the initiative may be long in coming.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,546
Fiveways
And if Labour had 40 seats in Scotland and Wales And an overall majority of 1, it could push through legislation affecting just England that the majority of English MPs objected to through the use of votes that represent citizens that have no moral or logical interest in the matter. That is the point - the fact that there are fewer Scottish, Welsh and Ni MPs than English ones is of no consequence here. There are fewer MPs representing Sussex than there are other parts of the UK - that's because the population of Sussex is small by comparison. The pertinent issue is that Sussex does not have law making powers within its own borders to the same extent that Scotland etc do - and so allowing representatives of citizens that control their own destiny on certain issues to vote on the how the self-same issues will be addressed in a different jurisdiction is indefensible.

Yes, Scotland does have some powers, granted by devolution. Yes, these are going to be extended. But no, what the Tories have made clear they'll offer is 'English votes for English MPs'. This will not grant powers to Sussex. Labour, and maybe even the Lib Dems, might be bold enough to devolve power to counties and cities but, rest assured, the Tories won't. Cameron stood on the steps of Downing Street yesterday, bleating on about 'Our Kingdom', and then demonstrated that he's more concerned with Little England. A bit like Farage: UKIP, my posterior; more like EIP.
 




Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
I really don't want an English parliament. Not so a bunch of wanky nationalists can be elected.

So not keen on an English parliament where MP's can decide our issues the same as the Scottish, Welsh, NI, can decide their own issues.
So you would be quite happy for Swansea fc, Celtic and Ballymena United F.C. plus about 107 more clubs to vote on BHA issues then...........
I believe that a vote on an English issue re our Uni fees was defeated in parliament by 3 votes......about 110 Scottish,NI and Welsh MP's voted, so our students did not get a deal comparable to that afforded in Scotland...just one example.
 
Last edited:


As long as Cameron plays his cards carefully, he will control this debate. The Labour Party's argument that the Scottish MPs are "United Kingdom" MPs falls flat, as they are easily open to the accusation that the great majority of those MPs are theirs - without them they will struggle to hold a majority in the House of Commons. Cameron has to ensure that the question of further Scottish devolution is progressed - he cannot be seen to go back on his word. By combining it with a promise to resolve the West Lothian question - and to portray the Labour Party as avoiding the issue - he will be seen as taking an equitable approach to the various issues involved.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,546
Fiveways
As long as Cameron plays his cards carefully, he will control this debate. The Labour Party's argument that the Scottish MPs are "United Kingdom" MPs falls flat, as they are easily open to the accusation that the great majority of those MPs are theirs - without them they will struggle to hold a majority in the House of Commons. Cameron has to ensure that the question of further Scottish devolution is progressed - he cannot be seen to go back on his word. By combining it with a promise to resolve the West Lothian question - and to portray the Labour Party as avoiding the issue - he will be seen as taking an equitable approach to the various issues involved.

Well, I see it very differently. It was pure opportunism. This isn't just my view, but is also the view expressed in most of the editorials this morning. And I can assure you, they and I don't agree too often.
To attempt to steamroller through major -- although highly limited, selective and deliberately partisan -- constitutional change in such a short period of time will not only ensure that the next Scottish referendum will be sooner, it will also ensure their exit from the United Kingdom too. Although you could say the same thing about the possible EU referendum.
 




Well, I see it very differently. It was pure opportunism. This isn't just my view, but is also the view expressed in most of the editorials this morning. And I can assure you, they and I don't agree too often.
To attempt to steamroller through major -- although highly limited, selective and deliberately partisan -- constitutional change in such a short period of time will not only ensure that the next Scottish referendum will be sooner, it will also ensure their exit from the United Kingdom too. Although you could say the same thing about the possible EU referendum.

Of course it was opportunism - that's what politics is most of the time, and it is practised by politicians on all sides of the debate. However, that doesn't invalidate the argument.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
Not sure what you mean. Scotland, Wales and NI have their OWN Parliament/Assemblies......England does NOT have it's own Parliament, how would England having the same as the other 3 break up the UK.

Just one example: Just think, without the votes of MPs representing Scottish constituencies we would have no Top Up Fees and No Foundation Hospitals in England. Yes, those MPs overturned the vote of English MPs on those matters, although Scotland is not affected

They are assemblies for the countries that are underrepresented in the Union Parliament. 650 seats breaks down as England 533, Scotland 59, Wales 40, NI 18. So Power is devolved to those that can never actually overrule the English MP's even if voting together. Why does England need a separate assembly when it already controls 82% of the UK Parliament!? There just no need for it.

In the cases you refer to, even if the 117 MP's from Wales, Scotland and NI vote against something together, it still requires 209 Englishman to vote that way as well, which is still 40% of the Englishman in Parliament.

There are many more cases of MP's voting on matters that don't effect their own constituents this isn't limited to Scottish MP's voting on matters their devolved parliament deal with. England isn't under represented in the UK parliament - this really is the major point about devolving power to those under represented.
 
Last edited:


Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
They are assemblies for the countries that are underrepresented in the Union Parliament. 650 seats breaks down as England 533, Scotland 59, Wales 40, NI 18. So Power is devolved to those that can never actually overrule the English MP's even if voting together. Why does England need a separate assembly when it already controls 82% of the UK Parliament!? There just no need for it.

In the cases you refer to, even if the 117 MP's from Wales, Scotland and NI vote against something together, it still requires 209 Englishman to vote that way as well, which is still 40% of the Englishman in Parliament.

There are many more cases of MP's voting on matters that don't effect their own constituents this isn't limited to Scottish MP's voting on matters their devolved parliament deal with. England isn't under represented in the UK parliament - this really is the major point about devolving power to those under represented.

Perhaps take a look at the Barnett Formula an West Lothian question. Per head given it is NI, Scotland,Wales and England in that order.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,264
They are assemblies for the countries that are underrepresented in the Union Parliament. 650 seats breaks down as England 533, Scotland 59, Wales 40, NI 18. So Power is devolved to those that can never actually overrule the English MP's even if voting together. Why does England need a separate assembly when it already controls 82% of the UK Parliament!? There just no need for it.

under represented? they are generally over represented, you should go an have a look at the size of the constituencies. theres 30 odd from Scotland, Wales and NI with smaller populations than the smallest in England. i see what the root of your view is though, you are looking at the collective national blocks. why? in the UK parliament they shouldnt matter, we should look at them as individual MPs with the same vote.

in terms of common ground, there far more linking the MP from Glasgow with say Liverpool than Edinburgh or Orkney. and there's far less linking MPs from Liverpool with Mid Sussex or Kensington. there's little reason to see that the English MPs will vote as one, because they dont. they vote along tribal Left/Right, Labour/Tory lines based on old class and modern affluence lines. clearly "the English" do not control parliament otherwise we wouldnt have the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula etc to cause problems, because the English MPs do not vote in a block against the other nations.

so with this view we come back to the equity of the MPs vote and see that its not right, one MP due to being returned from English city doesnt have any input on Scottish healthcare, while the Scottish city MP does have input on English healthcare. its just not right and time it was fixed.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here