|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Apr 26, 2015 5:01:36 GMT 1
First of all, yes some parties will gain from English/Welsh votes for English/Welsh laws, some parties gain from not having English/Welsh votes for English/Welsh laws.
So now that we've got that out of the way, is English/Welsh votes for English/Welsh laws the right thing to do.
For me, it definitely is. At the moment, a Scottish-based MP can vote on English/Welsh issues, while an English/Welsh-based MP can't vote on Scottish issues. Even a Scottish-based Westminster MP can't vote on Scottish health, education or law, since they are decided by the Scottish parliament.
There are also some issues which are only English, and not Welsh, like issues to do with the health service, since the Welsh government runs Welsh healthcare.
The arguments that the opponents to English/Welsh votes for English/Welsh laws (EVEL) use are the there are far more English MPs than MPs from the rest of the country. When we counter that argument by reminding them that in a democracy each person should have the same amount of influence, and there are far more people living in England, they'll say, but Scotland's a nation. Oh right, so because they regard the Scots as an entirely different ethnic group (never mind that half of Scotland has English ancestry and half of England has Scottish ancestry) then Scots should be able to influence English matters, while the English shouldn't be able to influence Scottish matters.
Another thing; in what way would the Scottish people suffer from English Votes for English Laws? Why is it important to the people who live north of the border to have influence over English health and English education?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 22:42:50 GMT 1
You are correct, there are many anomalies not only in English/Welsh and England/Scotland voting. It's a situation which is brought about by many governments "tickling around" with the constitution.
Both main parties have has the tread very carefully. Labour have many voters and hold seats in both countries, so devolution is a careful balancing act. The Tories are also in a quandary, there whole ethos in keep United Kingdom together.
In the past, the good old days (so many peoples might say) laws affecting Scottish/Welsh people were debated in the commons. There was no means of doing anything else.
This has come to the fore, as there is a real prospect of after the next election the SNP/Plaid Cymru will hold the balance of power.
Could this be a result of the politics of compromise?
Maybe we should look at Scottish education and health as they are better than England with no university fee. I'm sure they don't want to be in the some position as the Welsh. This government starving it's health service to attempt to blame Labour controlled finances. All it appeared to do is turn people to Plaid cymru.
What would you think would be better for England, Labour win and SNP/Plaid Cymru hold the balance of power, or Tory win and UKIP hold the balance?
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Apr 27, 2015 7:39:10 GMT 1
What would you think would be better for England, Labour win and SNP/Plaid Cymru hold the balance of power, or Tory win and UKIP hold the balance? I don't really want to talk about parties in this thread, since this thread is very specifically about English/Welsh votes for English/Welsh issues. On that issue, the best thing for the English would be that the Scots voted in MPs who pledged not to vote on English issues. I believe the SNP have promised this, so as such, that would be good for the English. However, it is very unsatisfactory that English people have to rely on Scottish MPs choosing to refrain from voting. We don't need to build a new English parliament building, we don't need a few hundred new members of an English parliament - a simple new law banning Scotland-based MPs from voting on English-only issues would be a cheap way of effectively doing the same thing. And again, does it help Scots that they can interfere with issues that they aren't involved in? Take this example; in Scotland and in England fox hunting is illegal - I'm against fox hunting, but have Scotland-based MPs got the right to vote on whether it should be re-legalised in England? Not at all, and why should they - they wouldn't want England-based MPs to be involved in such a decision in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 15:38:19 GMT 1
It would be good if Scottish and Welsh MPs would pledge not to interfere with bills that don't affect them.
I can see one big problem, don't forget these are MPs, would I believe them? Would anyone believe them?
I am totally against fox hurting, and the arrogant people who take part in this cruel barbaric act (not sport). There are more urban foxes than rural now. I'd love to ser the hunt, riding down Westgate Rd, shouting tally hoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Apr 30, 2015 19:15:02 GMT 1
It would be good if Scottish and Welsh MPs would pledge not to interfere with bills that don't affect them. I can see one big problem, don't forget these are MPs, would I believe them? Would anyone believe them? I am totally against fox hurting, and the arrogant people who take part in this cruel barbaric act (not sport). There are more urban foxes than rural now. I'd love to ser the hunt, riding down Westgate Rd, shouting tally hoo. If Scottish Westminster MPs declined to vote on English-only matters that would of course be the honorable thing to do. However, the fact that they can vote on English-only matter if they want is what is so wrong. The Scottish people have their own parliament which decides on issues in Scotland without any outside interference whatsoever/ In addition to this freedom, they have a group of MPs at Westminster interfering with issues in a country (England) that doesn't interfere with those same issues in Scotland. It is a ludicrous situation, which can so easily be rectified by English votes for English laws. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 13:59:32 GMT 1
Yes, it's ludicrous. If Scotland got full independence it would having been different, instead of this halfway house of devolution.
I have agree that English/Welsh/Scottish votes should be only for those law which affect their own counties. That is of course if there is an agreement what law affects which country. Which I have doubt about.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on May 1, 2015 19:10:46 GMT 1
Yes, it's ludicrous. If Scotland got full independence it would having been different, instead of this halfway house of devolution. I have agree that English/Welsh/Scottish votes should be only for those law which affect their own counties. That is of course if there is an agreement what law affects which country. Which I have doubt about. I say if there is doubt about whether an issue affects Scotland, then let Scottish Westminster MPs vote. If it is obvious that an issue doesn't affect Scotland, then don't let Scottish Westminster MPs vote. Take for example (and this is only an example) gay marriage - Westminster passed gay marriage for England, and later the Scottish parliament passed gay marriage in Scotland. In other words that piece of legislation in Westminster didn't concern Scotland and Scottish Westminster MPs shouldn't have been allowed to vote. My point in bring up that example (gay marriage) was to illustrate that sometimes there is no doubt whatsoever that an issue doesn't affect Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 11:02:59 GMT 1
Gay marrige is indeed I good example, but there will be other examples which aren't as clear cut, and that's when the fun (I use the word loosely) will start.
Just going off tangentially, yesterday Cameron said "I have no intention of touching child benefit" Which isn't a confirmation he'll rule it out.
How stupid does he think we are.............well we did vote him in!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on May 3, 2015 12:24:42 GMT 1
The Tories promise to introduce a system whereby a bill which only affected England-dwelling people, would require, not only a parliamentary majority, but also a majority among England-based MPs. In other words a veto for England-based MPs. This could be seen as a watered-down version of English votes for English laws. I say watered-down, because as we see Scotland-based MPs can still vote on those laws, even though English MPs can both vote and, as a group, veto laws which only affect England. For me this is a step in the right direction of redressing the status quo, now that Scotland has its own parliament. And although I don't see why the Tories needed to water the idea down to a veto, I see a lot of symbolic value here - the very fact that England-based MPs are treated as a group, means that there at least would be some sort of English parliament (free of charge, since there'd be no new building or MPs), and that is only right, since Scotland has a parliament. I hope Labour win, but if they don't, then this will be a consolation to me.
"A Conservative government would introduce a system of “English votes for English laws” within a year of winning the general election, David Cameron will promise. If his party wins power on May 7, it would legislate within 100 days to give English MPs a veto over issues which only apply to their constituents, with a view to it coming into force by March 2016." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10199807.html |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 14:06:19 GMT 1
This election is becoming intriguing. OK there's going to be Labour or Tory forming the next government, but if all the prediction are correct, they will both have to "get into bed" with people they are diametrically opposed to.
Both main parties will have make uncomfortable alliances, as they perform "U Turns" and break there promises......................no change there then!!!
I'm not surprised Nicola Stergeon has so much support, she is a proficient politician whilst, Jim Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader is absolutely useless.
|
|
