Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scots MPs may lose right to vote on English bills

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 July 2008
THE Conservatives' long-awaited response to the discrepancy between English and Scottish MPs' voting rights will be laid bare today, when Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor, launches his Democracy Taskforce report.
Mr Clarke is to propose stripping Scots MPs of the right to vote at the crucial committee stage of bills if the legislation is on devolved matters that only apply to constituents south of the Border.

His proposals in the report, Answering the
Question – Devolution, The West Lothian Question and the future of the Union, fall short of the creation of an English grand committee proposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary. Some activists claim Mr Clarke's proposals still give Scottish MPs too much power.

The report is to be launched in London today by Mr Clarke and Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary. Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who first pointed out the constitutional anomaly, leading it to be called the "West Lothian Question" after his seat at the time, said the detail of the proposals was vital.

"It could be the least-bad option bit in the least-bad patchwork," he said. "But the final problem remains that if you have the spending departments in one part and the Treasury in the other, then you will get difficulties."

One source said it was "broadly an anorak's solution" for people familiar with House of Commons' procedures.

David Mundell, the Tory shadow Scottish secretary, said: "It's about delivering an English solution to an English issue. I think the West Lothian Question is wrongly characterised. It isn't a Scottish issue; it's an English issue.

"This is really about bringing a fairness and equilibrium to the devolution settlement across the UK. It says that matters across England which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly should be determined by English MPs without the need to have an English parliament, which I believe there is no demand in England for."

The proposal will mean only MPs for English – or English and Welsh – constituencies are involved at the committee stage of draft legislation passing through parliament.

A source said: "All MPs would have the opportunity to vote at the subsequent stages, but a convention would be established whereby they didn't overturn the committee's decisions.

"What many people don't understand is that the Commons can overturn any Scottish Parliament decision because of the Scotland Act, but it chooses not to."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2008 9:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

01/07/2008 00:06:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

syntax,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 00:10:52
Shame, however, the real mistake was to use a real life person. I've registered with a totally false name, address, email - the lot. NEVER give 'real' details (yours or anyone elses) on the internet - for any reason !! Even filling in forms I always lie....

Just change your persona and come back !! It's also wise to use a false IP address (since that can be used to track back to you. Look on the interenet how to set up an anonymous IP...... nuff said.
3

subrosa,

01/07/2008 00:11:00
# 1

I do wish you'd stop posting this nonsense. It causes genuine posters like myself to ignore the thread.

But of course that's your point isn't it?
4

Highland Mighty©,

01/07/2008 00:16:07
3. Just complain about it and get him banned.

He's obviously not right in the head and he'll get bored and go back to his colouring in eventually.

As for the article.....seems fair to me. What's good for the goose and all that!
5

ThomasP,

01/07/2008 00:30:25
It won't matter. By 2010 Scotland will be Independent all together.
6

Dileas,

01/07/2008 00:34:11
While English MPs are considering English issues, perhaps Scots MPs could consider Scottish issues.

This would remove the need for the Scottish parliament, thus resolving a number of problems!

Of course, it would be preferable to vote in new Scots MPs first - the present Labour bunch are fit for nothing, as the whole UK has found to its cost.
7

ThomasP,

01/07/2008 00:36:43
7 Dileas.

Or we could scrap Scottish MP's and transfer all powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Then that would stop the cross border rows and either country being led by the other.
8

Highland Mighty©,

01/07/2008 00:39:42
6. Yep, all the indicators are there.

The 25% support from multiple polls, same as pre-election;
The 19% support for independence if 'additional powers' is given as an option (which got 36% of the vote);
The 38% support for the status quo (TWICE as many as pro-independence);
Only 1% of the population has bothered to look at the SNP's much-publicised National Conversation;
Less than 0.01% of the population have actually posted something on the SNP's much-publicised National Conversation;
Less than 1% of the population have signed any pro-independence petitions.

Yep, the people are just screaming for independence. Screaming, I tells yer.
9

ThomasP,

01/07/2008 00:44:48
9 Highland Mighty.

You and I could go through hundreds of different polls that range from 5% for Independence to as much as 90% for Independence.

We shall have to wait till 2010 for the referendum to discover the truth.

As usual the Unionists will say no because they know they will loose.
10

Highland Mighty©,

01/07/2008 01:06:42
10. 90% for independence??! Let me guess, an online poll on the SNP website?

There is no shred of evidence of any growing support for independence. Salmond and you young 'uns have been trying to make us all angry with the UK with some astonishingly silly statements and claims...

...yet the polls have not budged an atom. Not a speck. Not a grain. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Oh no, there is one polling company, out of all of them, that does show 'growing support' but as it is on its own and its analysis cannot be independently assessed, well it's just not worth the paper its written on.
11

ThomasP,

01/07/2008 01:08:17
Highland Mighty.

"There is no shred of evidence of any growing support for independence."

Of course you say that. You are a UNIONIST.
12

,

01/07/2008 01:46:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

democracy,

Scottish Borders 01/07/2008 02:54:06
Yes, Dileas and Highland Mighty, I actually agree with everything you say, the SNP are a bunch of losers and want Scotland to be an Independent country, what a stupid idea that is!
Surely they MUST realise that it is the most natural thing in the world, wishing your nation to be governed by a foreign country, doesn't most people???
14

Royster,

01/07/2008 04:01:36
Scrap Holyrood and hold an immediate referendum on independence.
15

democracy,

Scottish Borders 01/07/2008 04:22:25
The Union setup at Westminster has MPs voted in by their constituents from all 4 countries regardless of whether they since have attained an assembly or parliament. When Westminster sits, deciding on policy for the UK, then all MPs have a vote, regardless of whether it has no particular bearing in the other 3 countries who have their own legislative powers.

If a decision is made to adopt a second level of MP who cannot vote on English matters, then they are denying the existence of the Union as it was meant to be. So the only other option to resolve the matter, is to change the existing set-up to one of which would produce, or at least resemble, a federal arrangement.
16

Jack Q. American,

01/07/2008 05:01:00
As an American of neither English nor Scottish stock, I have no dog in the independence argument. However, I would like to make a few points to those seeking independence:

1) Under the Vienna Convention of Succession of States, Scotland would be a newly-independent state. That means, under international law, it would not automatically be a member of NATO, the EU, the UN, or other membership organizations. (Yes, the SNP claims otherwise; the treaty does not support the SNP interpretation.) Scotland would have to apply for membership in all three, and Westminster (the actual successor state to the UK under the Vienna Convention) would have a veto on new members in all three. This gives Westminster tremendous leverage in negotiations on the details of how Scotland secedes.

2) Neither the Shetlands nor the Orkneys have ever given even a quarter of their votes for an SNP member to either Westminster or Holyrood. It seems likely that, even if Scotland voted for independence, they would not. This gives Westminster plenty of political cover for keeping these territories in case of Scottish secession from the Union . . . and, of course, the petroleum-rich areas associated with those islands.

3) It certainly looks like the Tories will control Westminster come 2010. The Tories are unlikely to be gracious in negotiations over Scottish independence; instead, they are likely to try to extract maximum benefit for England from the above facts.

Is independence worth it anyway? Only you can decide that. But don't assume you'll have either EU membership or the North Sea oil in independence; there is no guarantee of either.
17

mr angry,

ayrshire 01/07/2008 05:47:40
#17 And you obviously have no clue how things work in the UK or Europe,or are more likely a deluded Unionist idiot.
18

LEAL,

01/07/2008 06:06:54
The Scottish people will decide which organisations our country belongs to.If any organisation doesnt want us,we will manage quite well with out them.
17
There is absolutely no chance of the Shetlanders and Orcadians choosing to be English rather than Scottish.
19

james 1st,

hamilton 01/07/2008 06:55:52
#17 the shetlands and orkneys are legally scotlands territory
do we need to belong to nato or the un, the only countries likely to attack us is england or perhaps the usa to steal our oil
20

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 07:01:18
#17

Cauld kale rehet.

You are either rather new to this debate, or you have just read the Big Unionist Book of Scare Stories.

None of your points are either original nor valid.

You have merely rehashed the same facile and supine tactics as have been employed by the cringe tendency for decades.

Come back when you are better informed and have something of interest to contribute.
21

donald,

glasgow 01/07/2008 07:09:55
English will lose right to rule Scotland.
22

The Tin Man,

01/07/2008 07:20:04
Correct idea. The only reason that Scots MP's have been allowed to vote on English / Welsh / NI matters after devolution has been because it suits the Labour party.
23

eric,

01/07/2008 07:37:16
17 That applies to England as well.When England becomes an independent country,
24

,

01/07/2008 07:55:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

The Tin Man,

01/07/2008 07:57:26
#25 Bob Christie

SNP MP's already abstain from voting on English / Welsh / NI issues. Dissallowing the other Scots MPs from voting on such matters would not really amount to a hill of beans for anyone apart from Labour.
26

,

01/07/2008 08:02:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

TerryH,

England 01/07/2008 08:19:25
#28 "Dissallowing the other Scots MPs from voting on such matters would not really amount to a hill of beans for anyone apart from Labour."

Actually it would amount to a great deal. If this measure was in place ten years ago England would not have Foundation Hospitals, the "Stop Working Class Kids from going to University" Act (top up fees) and more recently the Planning Act that effectively means England gets nuclear power stations.

I won't rest until we have an English Parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one. That or independence.
28

The Tin Man,

01/07/2008 08:37:38
#29 McMadman

Why should you think I am a 'Unionist'? All I said was that Scots MP's should not be allowed to vote on legislation that does not effect Scotland. It is an SNP policy, after all. I think it is only fair, and I don't think that it would lead to the dissolution of the union.
29

Alan B,

01/07/2008 08:49:53
It seems Ken Clarkes proposals are a complete cop out. Scottish mps should not vote on english only matters period.

However to do this the mess of the sp needs to be sorted out. There are to many areas that are fudged. Labour created a sp in so many ways to stop nationalism rather than actually a scottish parliament that would benefit scotland.

The biggest area that needs sorted out is the funding/fiscal position. Giving scotland fiscal autonomy would be the best solution.

The other curve ball for clarkes commission is the Calman commission. Clarkes solution is weak but based on the weak scottish parliament. If Calman does mean that the scottish parliament because worthy of its name and obtains considerable more powers then clarkes proposals become obsolete before they have ever been implemented.
30

Skyrat,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 08:55:35
I've no problem with Scottish MPs not voting on English only matter, when they are, in fact, English only matters and do not have any implications for Scotland.

#17, please be quiet, you're talking garbage (see how I used an American word to make it easy for you to read?)

1. Do you really believe that, if Scotland wanted to become part of EU, they would turn us away? I don't think so. Same goes the UN. As for NATO, you can keep your nuclear alliance thank you very much.

2. Orkney and Shetland are part of Scotland. End of story.

3. I believe you're possibly right. But what they want and what they get are two different things.

I find it a bit galling that an American comes on here and asks "is independence worth it?". Why don't you go back to 1776 and ask them if it is worth all the hassle.
31

Alan B,

01/07/2008 09:21:05
#Jack Q. American

U say scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU. History tells use that the only precedent was Greenland. Had to negotatiate to leave the eu when it achieved home rule from Denmark.
32

danbob,

01/07/2008 09:28:11
17# Congratulations on writing an intelligent and factual post. However you will have to get used to the insults from the nats, who just like to have their ears tickled by Salmond and his like.
33

Alan B,

01/07/2008 09:47:43
#danbob

How is it factual?

Do u honestly think scotland would not be allowed into the UN?

The snp position rightly or wrongly as i understand it does not support membership of NATO.

The only precedent we have for the EU is greenland which suggests he is wrong.

One thing about unionists is they do not want to see the best for scotland. It is all about trying to put obstacles in place rather than looking at the big picture of what would be good for scotland. As such many unionists like urself come accross as more how can we keep the union together rather than what is best for scotland.

His comments about shetland and orkney are silly. They are part of scotland.

"The Tories are unlikely to be gracious in negotiations over Scottish independence"
Why. It is much more likely that many tories will seek a good relationship with scotland. It would not be in their interests to do otherwise.
34

danbob,

01/07/2008 10:02:16
No Alan 36# we are not saying that, Scotland will be allowed to join the UN but will have to apply to join. The same could be said of the EU. The last EU president also made that clear. Although he allowed the row to drop and diplomaticaly side stepped the issue after the row it caused. There is no doubt that Scotland will play a big part and will be welcomed but the the EU place we have at the present will go to the biggest trading partner which is England and Wales.
35

Alan B,

01/07/2008 10:04:53
#danbob

What does it matter if scotland has to apply to join the UN?

It is a formality.
36

Alan B,

01/07/2008 10:12:03
#danbob

On what legal basis do u base ur belief about the EU.

As i said the only precedent is Greenland.

The issue for both scotland and the rest of the EU is not membership but the terms of membership.

Scotland has far fewer meps and representation that other similar small countries. That would be expected to go up inline with other countries.

Would the uk be cut. Becuase of the size of immigration to england maybe not. Germany was wanting more votes than france as part of the move to give more weight to the populations of countries but backed down.

In many way the difficulties will be more for the rest of the uk in this matter.

The other issues are:-
funding.

Given scotland financial position will it be a net contributor or receiver.

Again the rump uk will have to renegotiate its position. The rebate is under threat.

In many way the rump uk could be the biggest loser.

Opt outs.
Scotland would probably lose the opt out. Social chapter we already opted back in anyway. Euro, scotland should join anyway. The biggest issue will be the transitional arrangements.



37

Alan B,

01/07/2008 10:12:45
sorry "The issue for both scotland and the rest of the EU is not membership but the terms of membership."

should have said

The issue for both scotland and the rest of the UK is not membership but the terms of membership.
38

James.com,

01/07/2008 10:16:06
A recent example are Tuition Fees for University. The English MPs voted against them, but Labour brought them in for England only, with the votes of Scottish Labour MPs.Scottish Labour MPs are of course very popular in England!
39

danbob,

01/07/2008 10:16:22
Alan 40# look up and read the EU constitution and you will see why this issue may unfold.
40

danbob,

01/07/2008 10:22:23
41# One of, if not the main reason why Brown will be wiped off the face of the political map at the next election. He is such an idiotic power mad control freak he couldn't see the writing on the wall when labour did that.
41

Alan B,

01/07/2008 10:28:35
#43 danbob

It was under blair that the tution fees were introduced to England.

Does not make it right. But neither the tories or labour have the answer.
42

Alan B,

01/07/2008 10:32:00
#danbob

1) the eu constitution is dead.

2)the lisbon treaty is the first time that the eu will specify that member states can actually leave the eu.


The fact is it is unlikely scotland will have to reapply for membership (not impossible but very unlikely). The much bigger question as i said is the terms of membership. (Snp views that they could tear up cfp are unlikely.)

It is more likely the rump of the UK could suffer difficulties in renegotation if france and germany are in such a mood. Unlikely though.
43

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/07/2008 10:41:50
I can see the sense in this but find it all a bit ironic.

Since 1707 it has been acceptable for English Mp's to vote overwhelmingly on Scottish only legislation and anyone who complained about this was slapped down as a nationalist troublemaker

Now here we are and somebody has discovered that Scots Mp's voting on English only matters is a bit of a problem!

aye times are a changing!
44

john z,

edinburgh 01/07/2008 11:31:39
Number 17,

As an American you are talking piffle.

Do you seriously believe the points you raise are new??

As regards the oil, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil, especially,

'The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction[7][8]. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland[9]. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.'

Do you think nobody in the SNP has ever checked them out. Alex Salmond is a damm sight more competent than the criminal you have in the oval office.

Go back to watching Oprah..or whatever...
45

karinxxx,

01/07/2008 11:37:10
"What many people don't understand is that the Commons can overturn any Scottish Parliament decision because of the Scotland Act, but it chooses not to"


yeah we are fully aware of that and its time that was changed so it cant happen. Or are they giving us a hint what we will see under a tory government.
46

lulach mac gille coemgain,

01/07/2008 12:04:45
Scots MPs may lose right to vote on English bills

That’s some spirit oh Union eh ?
47

Stephen_Gash,

Carlisle England 01/07/2008 12:45:32
David Gordon Mundell (born 27 May 1962 in Dumfries) says he believes there is no demand for an English Parliament. Much in the same way that Gordon Brown believes there is no appetite for not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
This is why neither Scotsman will allow a referendum on on each of their beliefs.
Neither of these Scots has a mandate in England.
48

,

01/07/2008 12:52:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Stephen_Gash,

Carlisle England 01/07/2008 12:53:04
Big Eye. Let's get something clear. Without a Scottish Parliament the English would have no problem with Scottish MPs voting on English matters. Top-up fees etc would exist across the whole of the UK, with the votes of Scottish MPs forming the majority. That's what the Union was all about. We were all in the same boat. Before devolution Scotland was well over-represented in Westminster because of the disparity in size between England and Scotland. It is still over-represented now in the number of MPs.
Scotland had its own Grand Committee which didn't work for it which is why you were given the option of a referendum on having your own parliament. We in England want the same courtesy extending to us and not have Scots telling us we don't have an appetite for our own parliament.
50

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:02:05
"33 Skyrat,Edinburgh 01/07/2008 08:55:35
I've no problem with Scottish MPs not voting on English only matter, when they are, in fact, English only matters and do not have any implications for Scotland."

The big assumption here is that there is such a thing as "English-only" legislation. In my opinion there can be no such thing - any legislation carried out in England will have an effect on Scotland in politically, socially and economically. At the very least all legislation would involve spending decisions - why should England only decide what England gets yet it is the whole UK that decides what Scotland gets? Clearly issues such as the decision to raise the school-leaving age and introduce a bill to guarantee an apprenticeship for all who want one will have a knock-on effect in Scotland.

This is just one of the assumptions that make the West Lothian question such a complete red herring.

Another assumption is that English MPs have no say over what happens in Scotland. That is not true - the Westminster Parliament still controls the budgetary purse strings. It is they who have kept the Barnett formula; it is they who have the power to decide Scottish expenditure - all the Scottish Parliament is doing is prioritising how that expenditure is made.

Gladstone tried to implement a policy of stopping Irish MPs voting when dealing with Irish Home Rule - it was found to be completely unworkable.

In any case - taking the logic of the English-only brigade to its fullest extent - should only London MPs be voting on Bills such as the Crossrail Bill?



51

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:02:55
Can anyone define for me an issue that could be described as English-only?

One reason why any piece of legislation would have an effect beyond England is because of the dominance of England within the Union. It has over 80 per cent of the UK population, over 80 per cent of the GDP and over 80 per cent of the seats at Westminster.

English MPs effectively set the level of public expenditure in other parts of the UK, and levels of taxation too (apart from council tax and the currently unused Scottish parliament three pence in the pound tax supplement). Decisions that at first glance appear to impact only on England in practice have a knock-on effect around the UK.

The answer is not an English Parliament either. An English Parliament would have exactly the same faults as the existing Westminster Parliament - it would not be long until regions such as the South-West would be looking for devolved powers. An English Parliament would be as distant from the English people as the UK Parliament undoubtedly is. Merely removing the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would ignore the fact that there is of lack of trust in politicians in general.

The issue for me is that power is centralised in Westminster itself - that is the nub of the problem - an English Grand Committee or English Parliament is not going to solve that problem.

Personally I don't go along with this "settled will of the people" nonsense - devolution or rather decentralisation is not a static process but an on-going one.
52

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:03:15
Even the SNP (who don't vote on some "English-only" legislation) recognise that some so-called "English-only" legislation does have a knock-on effect - that's why they voted on the Higher Education Bill.

Their reasoning was that changes in expenditure on higher education in England and Wales would impact on Scotland’s block grant—and thus on the level of public expenditure in Scotland. This had previously been explicitly recognised by the Royal Commission on the constitution, which stated that:

“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

That is my argument - English MPs already have a say on Scottish Expenditure by setting our budget - the Scottish Parliament decides how said budget should be prioritised.

PS Can any Nats explain to me how the SNP decides what is "English-only" legislation when it comes to voting at Westminster?
53

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:03:37
The only way this proposal could seriously work is if there is a complete separation of Scottish and the rest of the UK's taxation and expenditure. Most proposals for "fiscal autonomy" still include an aspect of UK-wide taxation and that would still impact on an expenditure of "English-only" legislation ie unless there were ring-fencing, monies garnered by the UK exchequer from Scotland could still end up paying for "English-only" legislation. Personally, I think that trying to separate out taxation is too complicated. It would better if Scotland had complete fiscal autonomy with UK-wide services being paid for by some kind of reverse block grant mechanism.

The whole issue is a minefield - one just has to look at out historical experience with the Irish question to realise these matters are not easily resolved.

Gladstone’s solution to the problem of Irish parliamentary representation was for an “in and out” answer. But under the detailed examination of the committee stage the proposal disintegrated. Among the various flaws he found was the impossibility of discriminating between “Irish” and non-Irish (described as “Imperial”) issues. Despite trying hard to find a means of doing so, Gladstone was finally forced to concede that:

“it passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”
54

,

01/07/2008 13:03:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:04:24
As the Royal Commission has previously stated:

"“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

Can anyone name a piece of English-only legislation that does not involve the expenditure of public monies?

I can't.
56

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 13:04:51
It should be noted that occasionally even the SNP vote on English-only matters. Here are the most recent cases I have found of SNP MPs voting on English-only legislation:

* Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill — Clause 9 — Review of permitted development orders — 17 Mar 2006 at 13:00 - 2 SNP MPs voted against this clause which was an amendment to the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) - a piece of English-only legislation

* Higher Education — 14 Sep 2004 at 16:00 - 5 SNP MPs voted against the third reading of this bill

* Higher Education Bill — Clause 27 — Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions — 23 Jun 2004 at 16:15 - 4 SNP MPs voted against these sections of the clause

* Higher Education Bill — New Clause 5 — Abolition of tuition fees chargeable to qualifying student — 31 Mar 2004 at 18:15 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this clause

* St. George's Day (Public Holiday) Bill — 27 Oct 2004 at 12:44 - 1 SNP MP voted against

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 1 — NHS Foundation Trusts — 19 Nov 2003 at 02:00 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this clause

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 3 — General Duty of Regulator — 19 Nov 2003 at 16:53 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this amendment

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — NHS Foundation Trusts — 8 Jul 2003 at 16:15 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this amendment

* Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill — 16 Jan 2001 - 1 SNP MP voted against the second reading

* Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill — 7 Mar 2000 - 1 SNP MP voted for an amendment to this bill

By the way I'm not criticising the SNP for voting - in these cases there were quite clearly implications in both legislative and expenditure terms for Scotland.
57

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/07/2008 13:23:13
Gash,

I am all for an English Parliament if thats what the people of England want. the rest of your rant does not make sense Scotland returns 59 Mp's to Westminster in a parliament of over 600 members. Scotland therefore has no chance of winning any debate where the English and Scottish interests are different. This happens often fishing probably being the most obvious issue but there are a large number of others.

That is why we need independence, so we can look after what is important to OUR country without being outvoted ten to one by people representing their countries.

OK?
58

Traquir , Alba,

01/07/2008 14:55:50
Who Cares...

Back to the only real story in town for the next few weeks.

This is pretty interesting will come some encouragement
to nationalist that we will have more that a good
chance of winning Glasgow East.

LABOUR WILL LOSE GLASGOW EAST TO SNP

tinyurl.com/55c9r8

Andrew Rawnsley, PoliticsHome


Labour will lose the Glasgow East by-election to the SNP. That's the powerful forecast of the PHI100, Britain's most authoritative survey of expert and inside political opinion.

The panel's prediction will cause great apprehension within Labour's already frightened ranks because the PHI100 has established a reputation as the most accurate predictor of election outcomes. The politically balanced panel was the first to correctly forecast that Boris Johnson would be elected Mayor of London. The panel, which includes senior politicians and strategists from all the main parties, also accurately predicted the outcomes of the by-elections in Crewe & Nantwich and Henley, forecasting a substantial Tory win in the former and an increased Conservative majority in the latter.

A substantial majority of the panel is forecasting a victory for the Nationalists over the Government in the Glasgow seat which Labour would normally regard as very safe. Most (fifty five per cent) think it will be a SNP win with a narrow majority. A further ten per cent of the panel believe that the SNP will win comfortably.

David Marshall, who has triggered the by-election by announcing that he is standing down on health grounds, enjoyed a Labour majority in the seat of 13,507 at the last general election.

For Labour to lose this seat would be a devastating blow and further shred the morale of the party's MPs, already reeling from the loss of Crewe and a humiliating fifth place in Henley. The position of Gordon Brown would be made yet more difficult.

Not a single panellist responds that Labour will retain the seat with an increased majority. Nor is there a single respondent
59

Traquir , Alba,

01/07/2008 14:56:13
cont.

Not a single panellist responds that Labour will retain the seat with an increased majority. Nor is there a single respondent who believes that the Labour majority will be roughly the same as it is now.

Less than a quarter of the panel (twenty four per cent) predict that Labour will win the seat and all of them think that it will only hold on with a reduced majority.

Left-leaning panellists were slightly more inclined to be optimistic about Labour's chances. But majorities of all types of panellists (left, right, liberal and non-aligned) are predicting an SNP gain at Labour's expense.

One left-leaning strategist says: 'If Labour loses, it's curtains for Brown.'

One right-leaning media panellist believes: 'Losing Glasgow East will be, in a hotly contested category, Brown's worst defeat yet.'

A non-aligned panellist thinks: 'It would beg the question: if Gordon Brown can't appeal to middle England or working class Scotland, who exactly is going to vote for him?'


PHI100 Results: 30.06.08
In terms of percentage majority, what do you think the result of the Glasgow East by-election will be?

An SNP Majority - 65%
An Labour Majority - 24%

I wonder if this is one of the reason that for one Broon is holding an election at lightening fast speed.

I wonder if the Scottish papers will pick up
this story ?

Saor Alba
60

Nikostratos,

01/07/2008 17:30:29
#63 Traquir , Alba,

Congratulations on posting a different comment (the other one was getting a tad repetitive and boring!boring!)

Anyway on the upcoming by election given all the Nationalist noise the only conclusion to draw is a snp win..........So anything less will show how far or near the snp is to it's heart's desire.

I dont have a prediction other than all the nationalist evidence points to a massive win and good bye Gordon.
Whether that will be the final outcome we are all waiting to find out.....This is gonna be a interesting by election which has the potential to herald a new dawn for Scotland or not?

61

TerryH,

England 01/07/2008 18:48:44
How have the SNP performed in this ward before?

Labour have a 13k majority, so if it turns out like Crewe, the SNP should have a 6k majority. If the SNP were already running a reasonable second place, then this could be even better!

Assuming it all goes as we hope, what will this mean for other Wards?
62

MisterN,

Scotland 01/07/2008 21:31:14
59 Fake Fed Just another unionist troll.

"By the way I'm not criticising the SNP for voting - in these cases there were quite clearly implications in both legislative and expenditure terms for Scotland."

Then how the F*ck can you say they are English only matters?

Climate change? Higher Education? the NHS? English only matters? GTF TROLL.
63

MisterN,

Scotland 01/07/2008 21:34:17
58

No of course not because any English local expenditure affects the Barnett formula.
The Tories are going to find it very hard to find legislation which they can ban Scots MPs from voting on.
64

Terrier2,

01/07/2008 22:06:52
6 & 7 - What you are suggesting is the policy of UKIP - the UK independence party. Who would also rid us of the MEPs as well.
65

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/07/2008 22:58:55
#66 Exercise your brain before you post such nonsense:

"Then how the F*ck can you say they are English only matters?

Climate change? Higher Education? the NHS? English only matters? GTF TROLL."

The amendment to the climate bill in fact dealt with an amendment to the existing English Town & Country Planning Act.

Higher Education & health are devolved matters.

The point I was making if you bothered to read the previous posts was that matters that could be perceived as being English-only were not.

Comprende?
66

Jack Q. American,

02/07/2008 05:05:09
1) The Vienna Convention,

Article 2, Section 1(f):

“newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible

Article 17, section 3:

When, under the terms of the treaty or by reason of the limited number of the negotiating States and the object and purpose of the treaty, the participation of any other State in the treaty must be considered as requiring the consent of all the parties, the newly independent State may establish its status as a party to the treaty only with such consent.

That's the relevant international law. Scotland would be a newly independent state, just like Belize in 1981. "The rest", which would have continuity of diplomatic representation, would not be a newly independent state, any more than the United Kingdom was a newly independent state in 1981. As a newly independent state, Scotland would require unanimous consent from the members of the EU to join the EU . . . including "the rest", as the successor state. Claims otherwise are erroneous, no matter how prominent the person making them.

Greenland is non-parallel for the simple reason that it never gained independence; it remains Danish territory, represented diplomatically by Denmark.

That's not a unionist argument; that's an objective, external evaluation of the relevant international law.

2) I only bring up the Shetlands and Orkneys because they provide an excuse (thus, "political cover") for obstruction of Scottish independence and EU membership.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.