Three hundred years ago, the English and Scottish parliaments ratified a treaty providing for permanent union between the two countries. But can the Union survive asymmetrical devolution? Scotland now has her own parliament, subordinate to Westminster, but with wide powers over her domestic affairs. England, however, by far the largest component of the Union, with 85 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, has no parliament to protect her interests.

 

This means that a vote on, for example, prescription charges or university tuition fees in England can be carried by the votes of Scottish MPs. English MPs, by contrast, cannot vote on health or education in Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament has decided to abolish both prescription charges and university fees.

 

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Scottish Secretary, told The Observer last week that he proposes to remedy this imbalance by delegating English legislation to an English grand committee on which only English MPs would sit. Non-English MPs would then adopt a self-denying ordinance by refraining from voting on English legislation when it comes to the floor of the House.

 

The Rifkind proposal undermines the principle of collective responsibility according to which a government must command a majority on all of the issues that come before Parliament, not just a selection of them.

 

See article here : http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...2204917,00.html

 

 

Sounds a great idea

 

Why should Scots be allowed to vote on English matters yet English not allowed to vote on Scots matters

 

Sooner this is bought in the better

sounds like another waste of ££££

 

save the money and scrap perscription charges here too!!

should they just bin the union while there at it <_<

Those objections could be surmounted easily though. So the funding of the Scottish parliament depends on English expenditure. Well change it then, don't use it as excuse to deny English voters the same rights as the Scottish and Welsh! What's the point of a union if it's not going to be a happy one? And it won't be happy whilst one group has more power than another.

 

These concerns are not just going to fade away. If unaddressed it's simply going to result in increasing dissatisfaction. So why not start putting in place measures which make an English parliament feasible rather than doing nothing and then using it as an excuse later down the line?

Edited November 6, 200717 yr by Shoat

Sounds a great idea

 

Why should Scots be allowed to vote on English matters yet English not allowed to vote on Scots matters

 

Sooner this is bought in the better

 

Couldn't agree more. Beside the fact that for almost 300 years english mps decided Scottish matters or failed to make proper time to debate them, the sooner Scotland is independent the better.

 

I would also point out that Scotlands 59 mps can hardly decide english matters when england has 500+ mps

Of course the present arrangement is a total nonsense (and inherently unstable). You can't have a 'semi-federal' arrangement which only applies to 3 of the 4 countries of the UK and not the other. You're either a federation or you're not.

 

I must admit though that all the gnashing of teeth from down south about MPs from outwith England deciding on English affairs causes me much hilarity. For 300 years Scotland had to endure MPs from outwith Scotland deciding our affairs. It's not so great is it? But then I didn't see much concern for our welfare when the Tories were imposing policies on Scotland when they had hardly a single MP north of the border....

 

Anyway, nothing will happen to address the West Lothian question while Labour remain in power at UK level. If the Tories get in it will be a totally different matter. If the Tories are smart one of the first things they should do is prevent Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs voting on matters which solely concern England. I wonder what that would leave all those Scottish Labour MPs to do of a day? :P

 

Interesting times ahead. For Scotland's sake I would actually love if the Tories got in at Westminster while the SNP were in power at Holyrood. That would force some decisions to be made instead of continuing with this half-way house that satisfies no-one. -_-

Alot of Nationalism in Scotland and England atm. But i cant see the break up of the United Kingdom tbh, be interesting how Scotland would cope without English money if it did vote for independence ;) Would Scotland have it's own Millitary for instance? Would it join the Euro? So many questions that the SNP need to answer.

Edited November 12, 200717 yr by Joey Deacon

I wonder how England would cope without our oil revenues ;)

Alot of Nationalism in Scotland and England atm. But i cant see the break up of the United Kingdom tbh, be interesting how Scotland would cope without English money if it did vote for independence ;) Would Scotland have it's own Millitary for instance? Would it join the Euro? So many questions that the SNP need to answer.

 

Of course Scotland could survive without England, this kind of arrogance annoys me, do you think Scots are more stupid than any other small nation?

 

Of course we would have our own military, and like the Irish we may join the euro, or we may decide to stay in monetary union with England, but that would be a matter for the Scottish people in a referendum.