- This topic has 28 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have never held much store in the West Lothian question – afterall there is NO English parliament. It is a British parliament.
Thats extraordinary. How can you not set much store by something you clearly haven’t understood in the slightest?
I have never held much store in the West Lothian question – afterall there is NO English parliament. It is a British parliament.
Thats extraordinary. How can you not set much store by something you clearly haven’t understood in the slightest?
Oh, I understand it fully, Clive ! Don’t you worry your little St George socks about that – and I also fully understand the East Lothian question.
I know that English members cannot vote on Scottish matters but unlike you, I see the bigger picture. Those insignificant parochial "matters" don’t really hold much interest to "English" parliamentarians anyway. However.. and
I quote:
Re Scottish Parliament :" No sovereign status on the Scottish Parliament is conferred, and the act has not changed the status of the Westminster Parliament as the supreme legislature of Scotland, with Westminster retaining the ability to override, or veto, any decisions taken by the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster Parliament remains the sovereign body; power is devolved rather than transferred to the Scottish Parliament. "
As a consequence, the ability of all Westminster MPs to vote on Scottish legislation has not been legally diminished by devolution, as made clear by Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which states that the legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament do …not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
"….the official line of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which has never held back from recruiting English members, is that a Scot is, simply enough, somebody who lives in Scotland. At least, that was the definition proffered by its former leader Alex Salmond."
http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/s … ge14c.aspx
article seems to date from 2000-2004 when Swinney broke Salmond’s leadership, but is it an accurate description of who now gets to vote in a referendum?
does the Scottish diaspora get no say ?
For me the people who should vote are the people who will be directly affected by any legislation or taxation imposed by a Scottish parlaiment. So, everyone residing in Scotland at the time of the vote would seem the best (if less than perfect) method of establishing voting rights.
isn’t that a very transient way of addressing what is presented as a deeply historical matter ?
in the words of the previously linked article:
" …where does it leave native born Scots who live abroad? Or children born to Scots parents overseas? … Do patrimony and matrimony count for nothing?
What if you own land in Scotland, inherited or bought, and still keep homes in London and Provence? Does that also make you English and French? There are plenty of examples of wealthy individuals who maintain property in more than one country. Does that then give them multinational status?
And if you serve, or have served, with a Scottish regiment, does that automatically make you a Scot? Or does it make you British? And there we have the crunch of it. Under the Act of Union you could be both.
As the cracks appear in Britain’s fabric, nothing is nearly as certain as it was before. No wonder our politicians, who have brought this upon us, shy clear of the questions. "
if it is to be a decision made on a transient voter base, then from HK (where incidentally the place names tend to be Scottish rather than English, a reminder of which element of the Brits was responsible for the Opium Wars and Empire) it all has the look of a massive ego-trip by one Scottish politician, an ego-trip indulged and manipulated by others in order to kill Labour party representation at Westminster.
fair comment?
…….an ego-trip indulged and manipulated by others in order to kill Labour party representation at Westminster.
Well anything that kills Labour party representation anywhere cannot be at all bad!!!
As I once told a Labour party canvasser who had the bravery or temerity to knock at my door, "if voting was compulsory and you were the only party standing I still wouldn’t vote for you."
I have never held much store in the West Lothian question – afterall there is NO English parliament. It is a British parliament.
Thats extraordinary. How can you not set much store by something you clearly haven’t understood in the slightest?
Oh, I understand it fully, Clive ! Don’t you worry your little St George socks about that – and I also fully understand the East Lothian question.
I know that English members cannot vote on Scottish matters but unlike you, I see the bigger picture. Those insignificant parochial "matters" don’t really hold much interest to "English" parliamentarians anyway. However.. and
I quote:
Re Scottish Parliament :" No sovereign status on the Scottish Parliament is conferred, and the act has not changed the status of the Westminster Parliament as the supreme legislature of Scotland, with Westminster retaining the ability to override, or veto, any decisions taken by the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster Parliament remains the sovereign body; power is devolved rather than transferred to the Scottish Parliament. "
As a consequence, the ability of all Westminster MPs to vote on Scottish legislation has not been legally diminished by devolution, as made clear by Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which states that the legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament do …not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
That’s semantics H….
Scotish MP’s CAN vote on things in the "British Parliament" that ONLY concern the rest of Britain (ie do NOT concern Scotland). English MP’s can NOT vote on things that only concern Scotland.
Therefore, the West Lothian question is not fair on MP’s representing places other than Scotland.
Value Is EverythingIn 1979, the Scottish people ( and residents ) were given the chance to to vote on Independence. The BRITISH Government of the time moved the goalposts and put a percentage cap on the result. Although the majority voted in favour, not enough did, therefore it was vetoed.
The same will happen in 2014. The majority will vote in favour – but with Cameron and his cronies already insisting on a cap to the voting age. No 16 or 17 year olds they say – which would of course return an overwhemimg YES for independence vote. That chance, they cannot take.
My own view is that after the vote is counted in 2014, the majority will have voted for independence (again ) but that the legal wheels of Westminster will be set into action and the British parliament will once again find a way for the status quo to remain.
What is the alternative to a "percentage cap" on the result?
Of course there needs to be a significant majority.Say 51% vote for Scottish Independence so Scotland gets idependence.
Then, in another year’s time 51% want to go back to being "British". So we welcome you all back with open arms? Only to find another year goes by and 51% want Independence again!Value Is EverythingIt is generally recognised that Alex Salmond is a very popular chap in Scotland. When he had a break from leader popularity in independence / The anti-English Party (SNP) went down. To vote for independence because of one man seems more than a little odd.
And to want the vote delayed so as to have it on the 700th anniversary of bannockburn is also trying to use History to create History. Attempting to get Scots voting for independence for the wrong reasons.
Value Is EverythingIf Scotland votes for Independence it can keep the Monarchy, no problem. Very sorry, but (imo) Scotland can not be allowed to keep the Pound; not even on a temporary basis. The Pound is the "British" currencey. Not Scottish, not English, Welsh or Northern Irish.
With the Euro, we’ve seen how a decline in one country’s standing means others (with the same currencey) have NO option but to step in to bolster the Euro. If Scotland makes a hash of independence it could effect the Pound. Leading to Britain (what’s left of it) with no option but to step in.
Where as if the pound is in trouble and it is not Scotland’s fault… Scotland won’t step in to bail it out. It won’t be in their best interests to do so. They’ll be off to the Euro double quick. The Slippery Salmon: "Oh sorry Britain, the pound was always going to be temporary anyway".
Value Is EverythingI thought this was an election about Scottish independance until putting BBC Scotland on to see a special Question Time type of debate. There seems a totally different agenda on "regional" TV, when they don’t think the rest of us Brits are watching. It came over as an anti-English/anti-Tory campaign, with the SNP member blaming the English/Tories for anything and everything. With any negative about the yes vote portrayed as "scaremongering".
Alex Salmond may be a charasmatic individual, well liked; with David Cameron the complete opposite. But unfortunately for the former, this is a vote to sever ties with the rest of Britain forever; not what the SNP are trying to make it in to – a personal popularity contest.
We saw from the Euro/Europe how countries without their own currency find it difficult to get out of a reccession. With stronger countries needing to bail out others with the same currency, otherwise they all go down with the sinking ship. If an independant Scotland WITH the Pound is hit by a reccession – then it will hit the pound and England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be forced to intervene – effectively coming to the rescue of Scotland. Where as, if it were the other way around – Scotland does not have the financial clout to aid a failing (rest of) Britain. And… if it looked as if we were heading for trouble, the SNP would jump ship to their preferred option anyway – the Euro; leaving the rest of us drowning.
I wish there was an alternative, but the only way Scotland can keep the British Pound is with a massive (and I mean massive) insurance policy paid to England, Wales and Northern Ireland every year. Something which Mr Salmond’s "Manifesto" does not allow for.
Scotland is a beautiful country with wonderful, welcoming people, who make an outstanding contribution to Britain. We would be weaker without you.
Please stay with us Scotland!
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.