Why did non-English MPs vote?

[Castiel]

The West Lothian question causes controversy in British politics. Polls suggest that Scottish voters are agreed that the situation is unfair.

For example, English students are required to pay "top-up" tuition fees, while Scottish students are not. The legislation imposing top-up fees on English students passed by a small majority of 316 to 311. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish students would not have to pay.

rather apt example...

 

[jas72]

Yes, because not allowing scottish and welsh MPs to vote is not on devolved matters is going to cause problems, especially for Labour, as they rarely achieve a majority in England, and rely on over-represented Scotland and Wales to ensure they have a working majority.

Likewise, in 2010, parliament would not have been hung for votes counting only English seats.

I'm still all in favour of full fiscal and legislative automony for Scotland and Wales, I think it would work out beneficial to all one way or another. Of course, I would expect the major partner to get the best deal in any asset split, and any national public sector work to be returned to the home area...

LOLOL Whitehall ?

How much wealth is created in London alone due to it having the parliament there?

How many civil servants work in Scotland (where labour is cheaper I may add) compared with Whitehall?

You can't have an even split like you suggest after 300 years of existance.

Hopefully I won't live to see the day since it will be a right mess and I don't think at the moment Scotland has the critical mass in terms of right minded politicians and statesmen to lead them anywhere but crisis.

 

[Biohazard]

rather apt example...

You could pull that out with any vote.

It doesn't mean it actually hinges on the Scottish contingent, you could factor that down to the Welsh, or the Libdem nae sayers, or rebels etc.

It's all very well conducting an argument blaming the Scots because the numbers fit, but unless they actually caused an aggravation its crying for crying sake.

Either be a single unified country or given them a referendum on independence and abide by the outcome. Simple solutions are the best solutions really.

I agree.

I didn't want devolution mainly.

I wanted a complete split from the off.

Problem being, Westminster has run scared from this happening for 50 years, in fact they have done as much as they can to hinder the process using whatever tools available. Including eventially the 'devolution trap'.

 

[Castiel]

You could pull that out with any vote.

It doesn't mean it actually hinges on the Scottish contingent, you could factor that down to the Welsh, or the Libdem nae sayers, or rebels etc.

It's all very well conducting an argument blaming the Scots because the numbers fit, but unless they actually caused an agrivation its crying for crying sake.

I wasn't blaming anyone, merely pointing out the nature of the example in wiki. Don't take everything so personally.

I don't mind if the devolved nations want independence or not, if they do then we should give them the opportunity, if not then we should have a single unified nation, not this halfway house we currently have, it is divisive.

The problems with representation can be addressed in other ways with regional assemblies that are represented in parliament or any number of other ways I would suspect.

Where we diverge is that you are of the opinion that the majority will vote for independence, and I think otherwise. This is not a point worth arguing over as it is entirely a matter of opinion.

 

[Biohazard]

I wasn't blaming anyone, merely pointing out the nature of the example in wiki. Don't take everything so personally.

I'm not taking anything 'so personally'.

It was simply the way I constructed my sentence.

I don't mind if the devolved nations want independence or not, if they do then we should give them the opportunity, if not then we should have a single unified nation, not this halfway house we currently have, it is divisive.

Westminster does not want these opportunities to arrise.

If it was a vote to remain in the UK, the pre-devolution status quo could not be rolled back in.

You would have all the problems again, or percieved wrong doings that you can do nothing about politically.

If its a Union the people want then its a Union they get, but I can't see people voting en masse for a system they resoundly rejected.

The problems with representation can be addressed in other ways with regional assemblies that are represented in parliament or any number of other ways I would suspect.

But, it doesn't fit with the political plan.

'Subserviant' nations, and little political power. It just isn't Wesminster's area of choice. Hell, look at our voting system as the example of that.

Where we diverge is that you are of the opinion that the majority will vote for independence, and I think otherwise. This is not a point worth arguing over as it is entirely a matter of opinion.

You are having an argument yourself here.

I've said nothing like that here, nor have I ever claimed the masses would vote for independence so I really don't know what script your mashing up here.

I'm not going to argue it as you are right it is a matter of opinion, one I've not claimed or shared but if you want to argue with yourself don't let me get in your way.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not taking anything 'so personally'.

It was simply the way I constructed my sentence.



Westminster does not want these opportunities to arrise.

If it was a vote to remain in the UK, the pre-devolution status quo could not be rolled back in.

You would have all the problems again, or percieved wrong doings that you can do nothing about politically.

If its a Union the people want then its a Union they get, but I can't see people voting en masse for a system they resoundly rejected.



But, it doesn't fit with the political plan.

'Subserviant' nations, and little political power. It just isn't Wesminster's area of choice. Hell, look at our voting system as the example of that.





You are having an argument yourself here.

I've said nothing like that here, nor have I ever claimed the masses would vote for independence so I really don't know what script your mashing up here.

I'm not going to argue it as you are right it is a matter of opinion, one I've not claimed or shared but if you want to argue with yourself don't let me get in your way.

Calm down, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. Have a spot of lunch and relax a while. I'd spot you if I were closer.

 

[Hilly]

The biggest issue we have is that England doesn't have it's own Parliament. Our rules and legislations get run through the UK Parliament. The Welsh and Scots get their own Parliament, why don't we?

 

[Dolph]

The biggest issue we have is that England doesn't have it's own Parliament. Our rules and legislations get run through the UK Parliament. The Welsh and Scots get their own Parliament, why don't we?

Because Labour created devolution, and knows that without the Scottish and Welsh votes it couldn't hold England?

 

[Orcish-Horde]

I meant I doubt the majority of people will think it through and consider the long term implications. Our Celtic brothers will no doubt vote due to chips on shoulders. Conversely the English may well vote as they're sick of the handouts etc.

I just don't like the idea.

Your Celtic neighbors voted against as, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The knock on effect is that they to will start charging following England's lead. Westminster's policys don't stop at the English border, England has a greater say in it's Celtic neighbour's lifes than they will ever have in Englands.

 

[the_r_sole]

mp's represent the people in their respective areas, so looking at the vote it's not a surprise that tory policy isn't getting supported by areas that didn't vote tory...

 

[Fr0dders]

Because Labour created devolution, and knows that without the Scottish and Welsh votes it couldn't hold England?

We have a winner !!! *ding ding ding ding*

 

[Haiku]

Oh you English, you're all so chippy.

I have no problem with the English wanting to make their own decisions, in fact it's a position I entirely empathise with. It's obvious though, that barring certain MPs from certain votes would be an unworkable muddle. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if one party had a UK majority but not a majority in England. Who would form the government? One government would be unable to pass domestic legislation and the other would be impotent on UK issues, like defence. Clearly another solution is needed.

 

[weescott]

The English don't like the Scot's voting on matters that don't concern them? Fair point. There should an English devolved government. The British government should be left to decide things like foreign policy and wether we need aircraft to put on our aircraft carriers.

It could be worse. You could have a government that you didn't vote for.

 

[Hilly]

Because Labour created devolution, and knows that without the Scottish and Welsh votes it couldn't hold England?

Correct.

However, it doesn't solve the issue of England not having it's own Parliament. Which is something I believe must happen for us.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The Barnett Formula has already given the oil revenue back one way or another...

Maybe, it's extremely difficult to find numbers that are not seriously questionable though. However I'm not ultimately convinced it matters all that much, past grudges and quibbles should remain that way, there's no benefit to looking back and blaming someone here - effectively my view is that the situation is as it is so what can we do to make it better for everyone (if you'll excuse the extreme obviousness of the statement)?

Devolution is a horror show of a halfway house.

Either be a single unified country or given them a referendum on independence and abide by the outcome. Simple solutions are the best solutions really.

I'd be happy enough with a referendum (on many topics), even if only to shut up anyone who claims a "silent majority" for their views. More seriously though while my preference is to remain as a Union I believe Scotland could survive and eventually thrive alone but whether the (probable) years of fragile status to establish a solid ruling system and economy are worth it is something that I entertain serious doubts about.

I'd just like to see a more equitable split in income and expenditure. The barnett formula favours scotland and wales over england, while failing to take into account significant 'welfare' spending in the form of state employment for national agencies and for defence (which is definitely used as welfare employment in Scotland).

It has been a while since I've looked at it properly and it's not directly related to the Barnett formula but is it not the case that almost everywhere barring London is in fact a net recipient of tax spending compared to what it pays. It may be worth devolving London, too many people here think that it is the only place in the British Isles to begin with, maybe we should simply cement that view.