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

[Bold Seagull]

Slightly off topic but I cant help but think that the whole argument over voting rights is a bit disingenuous, surely what people fundamentally care about is money and power, the conservatives see this as a great opportunity to gain more power due to the number of Scottish Labour MPs and there is a growing feeling amongst English right leaning MPs and Right leaning voters that England is being 'done-over' and the extra £1600 a head funding to Scotland is unfair. Quite frankly as people have pointed out the Scottish vote in parliament is not huge proportionally so I couldn't care less about that. All I care about is that funding in the Union is based on need and not nationality, I want there to be extra funding to people living in deprived areas irrespective of whether they are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, if that means Scotland maintains additional funding levels great, if it means that they lose some of the £1600 a head funding so be it.

Completely agree. I also believe further devolving to our major Cities and possibly regions should be a natural progression to maintaining a vibrant varied economy, and allowing money to be allocated and spent where it is most needed.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Oh, has he? It's not in the text of the speech he gave this morning which is quoted in full in the link I gave, but he may have said that in other speeches which I haven't read.

I may have got that wrong.......

 

[beorhthelm]

Scotland, Wales and NI are minority representatives in the UK Parliament. Their say over matters is already dwarfed by the number of English constituencies, and in my view, their opinion is valid on decisions within the UK even if those decisions don't impact their own country.

The West Lothian question is really about how the devolved country deals with this, not the other way round.

your view is at odds with 99% of people who ever discuss this subject. it is patently unfair for a Westminster MP to vote on a matter that has no affect on his constituents, because that matter has been devolved to a national parliament. a Scottish MP can vote for cuts in expenditure or new laws imposed on the Department of Health, while in his constituency those cuts and law would not be applied.

 

[KingKev]

your view is at odds with 99% of people who ever discuss this subject. it is patently unfair for a Westminster MP to vote on a matter that has no affect on his constituents, because that matter has been devolved to a national parliament. a Scottish MP can vote for cuts in expenditure or new laws imposed on the Department of Health, while in his constituency those cuts and law would not be applied.

This

 

[KingKev]

You're making a nationalistic determination. The Scottish MP in Westminster has no voting right on an issue decided in Holyrood and vice versa. There is no 2 votes as the Scottish MP is not making a vote that determines the outcome in Scotland on a devolved issue.

Scotland, Wales and NI are minority representatives in the UK Parliament. Their say over matters is already dwarfed by the number of English constituencies, and in my view, their opinion is valid on decisions within the UK even if those decisions don't impact their own country.

The West Lothian question is really about how the devolved country deals with this, not the other way round.

You are wrong. This is about representation and not nationalism. Scottish MPs get to vote on issues where the determination of Westminster is not applicable to their own constituencies because Hollyrood has the sole power to make law in that area. Therefore Scottish MPs, representing Scottish voters, currently have the power to make laws for England without any fear of the impact on their own constituents. That is frankly madness and must be stopped ASAP. Scots effectively do have two votes on a range of issues today - one vote in Hollyrood for themselves and one in Westminster to determine what happens in England (and the rest of the UK). That is clearly undemocratic and a perversion of the principles of representation.

 

[Bold Seagull]

your view is at odds with 99% of people who ever discuss this subject. it is patently unfair for a Westminster MP to vote on a matter that has no affect on his constituents, because that matter has been devolved to a national parliament. a Scottish MP can vote for cuts in expenditure or new laws imposed on the Department of Health, while in his constituency those cuts and law would not be applied.

Can we not debate this without ridiculous statistical claims!? It's clearly not had 99% agreement, and never likely to. It's a nearly 40 year old question which still hasn't been properly answered or has any kind of consensus.

I'm happy to see the underlined happen. I've already stated why.

 

[beorhthelm]

Can we not debate this without ridiculous statistical claims!? It's clearly not had 99% agreement, and never likely to. It's a nearly 40 year old question which still hasn't been properly answered or has any kind of consensus.

I'm happy to see the underlined happen. I've already stated why.

i accept that you are happy, i just don't believe anyone would agree with you. hence my "99%" to make a point (you are clearly in the 1%). i have never heard or read anyone with your position that it is fair and right. as far as i can tell, the reason the status quo has persisted was it was originally a fairly minor issue and they didn't want to create two classes of MP, and more recently the Scots held great sway in cabinet under Labour when they devolved more power.

now we have the matter come to a head, the government is proposing further devolution and the English MPs are saying its time to sort this issue, or they'll vote down the devolution. Cameron obviously knows this is the case and its wrong to carry on with the pretense, so is going to address it up front rather than face a defeat or last minute revision. Parliament's authority in action.

 

[looney]

Just devolve to a federal sytsem and be done with it.

When Blair got in he said is objective was to destroy the Tory Party. By that I assume he mean't the full scale gerrymandering as proposed by charter88. What he over looked was that mature democracies wont be dicked around indefinetly(Labour and tory councils have got the boot from Doncaster and Tunbridge Wells by the Libdems for example). Its all kind of backfiring on him, mayors, devolution etc. If the Jocks cleared of a Tory hegemony wouldn't last long for the reason given above.

What Politicians crave is more power, which means taking the decisions which means fewer decisions for individuals. Labour are the worse at this but the other 2 parties are not far behind.


What I would like to see is more referendums and recall voting systems in place. This shower of power crazed crooks need bringing to heel and i would vote accordingly.

 

[Bold Seagull]

i accept that you are happy, i just don't believe anyone would agree with you. hence my "99%" to make a point (you are clearly in the 1%). i have never heard or read anyone with your position that it is fair and right. as far as i can tell, the reason the status quo has persisted was it was originally a fairly minor issue and they didn't want to create two classes of MP, and more recently the Scots held great sway in cabinet under Labour when they devolved more power.

now we have the matter come to a head, the government is proposing further devolution and the English MPs are saying its time to sort this issue, or they'll vote down the devolution. Cameron obviously knows this is the case and its wrong to carry on with the pretense, so is going to address it up front rather than face a defeat or last minute revision. Parliament's authority in action.

Political scientists like Guy Lodge, Dr Meg Russell and Oonagh Gay say 'it is a question without answer'….perhaps you should expand your reading a bit?

I may as well just copy and paste this for expediency…

What do critics of the West Lothian question say?

They argue that making second-class MPs would undermine the entire purpose of the universal franchise: that everyone's vote is equal. It damages the principle of collective responsibility too: why should a talented Scottish MP not run a UK department?

MPs regularly vote on policies which affect other constituencies and not theirs. They also vote on going to war in a country they don't represent or spending money in countries they never visit. And the Tories only complained because they were losing out, some say.

But one of the most politically charged issues is whether downgrading Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs plays into the hands of nationalists who want to show that Westminster is hostile and England-dominated. The Commons is, after all, the institution which most binds the UK into one. This, in part, is why no one has really wanted to answer the question.

 

[KingKev]

Political scientists like Guy Lodge, Dr Meg Russell and Oonagh Gay say 'it is a question without answer'….perhaps you should expand your reading a bit?

I may as well just copy and paste this for expediency…

What do critics of the West Lothian question say?

They argue that making second-class MPs would undermine the entire purpose of the universal franchise: that everyone's vote is equal. It damages the principle of collective responsibility too: why should a talented Scottish MP not run a UK department?

MPs regularly vote on policies which affect other constituencies and not theirs. They also vote on going to war in a country they don't represent or spending money in countries they never visit. And the Tories only complained because they were losing out, some say.

But one of the most politically charged issues is whether downgrading Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs plays into the hands of nationalists who want to show that Westminster is hostile and England-dominated. The Commons is, after all, the institution which most binds the UK into one. This, in part, is why no one has really wanted to answer the question.

It's not been sorted because until now it has been largely hypothetical. Virtually every ruling party since 1974 would have had a majority in the HoC regardless of the distribution of Scottish seats. This is much less likely to be the landscape for the mid-term, particularly where Labour is the largest party. So it needs sorting - and I say that as a left-leaning individual who is fearful of a potential swing to the Tories on English issues if the predominantly socialist/social democratic Scots MPs cannot vote on them.

 

[KingKev]

I really don't see the point in all this English votes for English matters. Currently the UK parliament is 650 seats: England 533, Scotland 59, Wales 40, NI 18. It is massively skewed to England anyway - hence the Scots, Welsh and NI wanted their own assemblies and further powers.

As you've stated, this really has nothing to do with Scottish MP's voting on English issues and everything to do with party representation.

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

But one of the most politically charged issues is whether downgrading Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs plays into the hands of nationalists who want to show that Westminster is hostile and England-dominated. The Commons is, after all, the institution which most binds the UK into one. This, in part, is why no one has really wanted to answer the question.[/I]

i could probably read wider, of course. but the argument put forward doesn't address the issue, it ignores it: there's no English parliament as a counterbalance. if we are to retain the current Westminster + national parliaments, we must address the issue, not in terms of "downgrading" the Scottish MP's, but recognising they aren't involved in some areas. it doesnt make them a second class MP, it recognises they have a different mandate. thier constituents have given someone else a mandate to legislate on that issue elsewhere.

 

[Ernest]

You need English MP's in an English parliament with more local party MP's to represent their constituents rather than the tired old Tories, Labour, Libdems etc rather than what they want to try

 

[Soulman]

England should have it's own parliament where ONLY the MP's representing the English constituencies can vote, the same as the Scots, Welsh and NI.
We are the only country in the civilised world that does not have it's own parliament. As it stands over 100 MP's representing Scotland, NI and Wales can vote on English only issues.

 

[Machiavelli]

Pure opportunism by the Tories -- it's got Osborne written all over it. This is designed to make any future Labour government difficult, and will make any reform in educational, health and other social sectors really difficult. Given that it was Labour figures (Darling, Brown and Murphy) that played such a prominent role in saving the Union, and the number of concessions granted in the last two weeks of the referendum campaign, you'd have expected something different from rushing through some constitutional reform in a few months.

 

[Bold Seagull]

England should have it's own parliament where ONLY the MP's representing the English constituencies can vote, the same as the Scots, Welsh and NI.
We are the only country in the civilised world that does not have it's own parliament. As it stands over 100 MP's representing Scotland, NI and Wales can vote on English only issues.

Then we break up the UK we just fought to defend. There is no point in the Union if you believe this.

 

[Soulman]

Then we break up the UK we just fought to defend. There is no point in the Union if you believe this.

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

 

[Eeyore]

The West Lothian question can only be resolved by the formation of an English parliament with the power to decide the major laws for England in the way of the devolved parliaments that have been formed in Scotland and Wales. That would theoreticlly give us a series of government in the form of town councils, local government councils, a council/government for England, a United Kingdom parliament and an European parliament.

This will result in more voter apathy as the water get ever more muddy with elected representatives on multitudinous levels. You may currently know your local MP but I expect you could not name any of your town councillor/ county councillor/European parliament MEP representatives. So we get another bland layer of government that no one really cares about. Does that help ?

I really don't want an English parliament. Not so a bunch of wanky nationalists can be elected.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

You need English MP's in an English parliament with more local party MP's to represent their constituents rather than the tired old Tories, Labour, Libdems etc rather than what they want to try

More politicians? No thanks

 

[goldstone rocks]

More politicians? No thanks

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.