Cut Scotland loose – then we’ll have a fair voting system - The Times

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

If the English don't want the Scotch and the Scotch don't want the English there seems little point in fighting to keep it together. It seems unlikely that if they split that a war will ensue, the only (very) difficult bit would be splitting the assets and liabilities.

I must have missed this. Since when did the English want an independent Scotland ?

It's only a minority of whingers from The Conservative and Unionist Party (to give the Conservatives their full and proper name), who are bleating about not winning the election. The irony.

IveSeenTheLight

lilac_lady wrote: »

We would need a referendum to see if we Scots wanted to be cut loose. Personally speaking I wouldn't. A lot of Scottish people are not Nationalist orientated.

I personally would want Scotland to be cut loose.
As discussed above, there is only one conservative seat in Scotland, yet it appears we are to be governed by the Conservative party.

Only when Scotland is "cut loose" will the Scottish vote really count for democracy in Scotland

youluckypanda

I'm actually speachless after reading this post.

LydiaJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The obvious answer is English devolution, either England as a whole or with regional government. There is already partial devolution for London.

Westminster is the UK parliament, not the English one.

As long as we don't have to pay for salaries for two lots of MPs - UK ones and English ones. And we certainly don't want to start paying for hordes of regional MPs.

Some kind of "English votes for English laws" arrangement ought to be possible, though. When the Westminster parliament is dealing with issues that affect the whole Union, all the MPs can vote. When they are dealing with things that only affect England (things like education that have been devolved to the Scottish parliament) then the English MPs can vote but the Scottish ones can't. Welsh and NI MPs ditto, although to make it work properly you might need to rationalise things so that issues are either devolved in all cases or in none - having some issues devolved to Holyrood for Scotland but governed in Westminster for Wales would complicate matters.

You wouldn't need two sets of English MPs (as you have Scottish MPs and MSPs) because the English and British governments would both be in London. But you could have two cabinets (each smaller than the current one) headed by a UK Prime Minister and an English First Minister. They'd be dealing with different issues and wouldn't need to be the same party. After all, we've got along OK for a while now with a Scottish First Minister who's a different party from the British Prime Minister. Whereas in Wales the First Minister has been the same party as the Prime Minister but they've each got on with their separate jobs.

It seems to me that it was inevitable that the West Lothian Question would become a lot more pressing when and if England had a different majority in Parliament from the Union as a whole. Sir Humphrey - from a Civil Service point of view, do you think something like that could be made to work? Obviously it was never going to be put in place while the UK had a Scottish PM and Chancellor, but it might be easier under Cameron (who's English) with or without Clegg (who may have various European bloodlines mixed in, but is certainly English as opposed to belonging to any other member of the Union).

Shakethedisease

Obviously it was never going to be put in place while the UK had a Scottish PM and Chancellor, but it might be easier under Cameron (who's English) with or without Clegg (who may have various European bloodlines mixed in, but is certainly English as opposed to belonging to any other member of the Union).

Gosh, wouldn't want to be substituting the words 'Scottish' and 'English'.. for 'White' and 'Black' or 'Jewish' and 'Irish there !

Might sound a bit 'racist' otherwise... Clegg being ok cos he may have European bloodlines ? :eek: That does sound pretty bad actually. Bloodlines are a pretty far right of centre matter for comment. Cameron himself has a long-standing Scottish 'bloodline' ( his dad for one).

You had a UK PM and a UK Chancellor. You have the same now.

You wouldn't need two sets of English MPs (as you have Scottish MPs and MSPs)

Yes you would. You'd need UK MP's and specific elected MEP's (English). And the same devolved parliaments that NI, Wales and Scotland have. It would probably cost the same as all the above to put it in place.

LydiaJ

You may have read it as racist, but that's not how I meant it.

Brown and Darling were never likely to adopt any kind of "English votes for English laws" system because you'd never get the holders of two such powerful posts putting themselves in a position where they weren't allowed to vote on stuff. Not because of anything to do with their identity as Scottish people, just their position as MPs for Scottish constituencies.

As for Clegg and his mixed European ancestry - it doesn't make any difference to me where his parents and grandparents came from. It was just that since there's been discussion about it in various papers recently, I was aware that just to describe him as English wouldn't be entirely accurate. I've always had a problem with simplifying things if it compromises the accuracy - I need to get over it maybe.

My point was merely that it's reasonable to suppose that English leaders in the UK parliament may take a different view of the West Lothian question than Scottish ones. Although all credit to Tam Dalyell for pointing the thing out in the first place.

I also don't think it's racist to object to Scottish politicians using Scottish MPs' votes to push through legislation that inflicts disadvantages on English people that Scottish people don't have to put up with - like university tuition fees and prescription charges. On the other hand it obviously would be racist to object to Scottish politicians contributing to legislation that affects the whole Union, but then that's not what I said and not what I think.

If I expressed myself badly and came across as anti-Scots, I'm sorry. It wasn't meant that way. I just think laws should be made by representatives of the people the laws will affect.

Can you justify why it would be necessary to have specific elected MEPs (English, not Euro, as you pointed out yourself)?

new_home_owner_3

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I personally would want Scotland to be cut loose.
As discussed above, there is only one conservative seat in Scotland, yet it appears we are to be governed by the Conservative party.

Only when Scotland is "cut loose" will the Scottish vote really count for democracy in Scotland

yeah likewise the english people have been ruled by a labour government which mainly have seats in scotland and wales and we have had that for the last 13 years, you have had it for a few hours and your moaning.

heres the map of the last election in 2005, how can us has english people let the people of scotland and wales who keep on bleating about indipendance dictate who rules are country. No wonder they all voted labour free prescription and higher funds for university places.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/2005UKElectionMap.svg

LydiaJ

Err.. no. The map may look as though England was very blue in 2005, but that's because Tories do better in large rural constituencies, whereas Labour get more of the densely populated, geographically small urban ones. Labour easily had a majority in England in 2005 as well as in the Union.

In 2005 results were like this:

England
Lab 286 Con 194 LD 47 Others 2
Lab majority of 43

Scotland
Lab 41 LD 11 SNP 6 Con 1
Lab majority of 33

Wales
Lab 29 LD 4 Con 3 Plaid 3 Others 1
Lab majority of 18

But now in 2010 they look like this:

England
Con 297 Lab 191 LD 43 Green 1
Con majority of 62

Scotland
Lab 41 LD 11 SNP 6 Con 1
Lab majority of 33

Wales
Lab 26 Con 8 LD 3 Plaid 3
Lab majority of 12

ETA I didn't forget NI, but since they have a completely different selection of parties from the rest of the Union, they wouldn't have added anything relevant to the list.

Shakethedisease

Can you justify why it would be necessary to have specific elected MEPs (English, not Euro, as you pointed out yourself)?

You answered the question yourself.

I just think laws should be made by representatives of the people the laws will affect.

LydiaJ

I have not answered the question. If you google "English votes for English laws" you will see that there are a variety of suggestions of how this could be achieved, many of which do not involve separate MEPs, just the same set of MPs meeting much of the time as a UK parliament to deal with UK issues, but some of the time without the Scottish (and Welsh where relevant) members to deal with English issues. Indeed, we already have a situation where SNP Westminster MPs do not vote on legislation that doesn't affect Scotland. They abstain voluntarily, on principle. Why could not such a thing be enforced for all Scottish MPs?