The West Lothian Question

[Guest Bilo]

What is the answer to the West Lothian Question?

 

 

For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate ... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelandexercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

 

It's a question that's likely to be asked more often as more powers are devolved to Holyrood after yesterday's referendum result, and the options are many.

 

What does FT think is the answer to the West Lothian Question?

 

Is the UK about to become a more federal state with devolved Parliaments in England, and Scotland, alongside the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies or is the status quo going to be maintained? I personally don't think the latter is an option, the advantages of devolved power in Scotland has caused much resentment south of the border and this can only grow over the next few years as Scotland decides more of its own destiny. It's an issue parties will have to take seriously if English voters are not to be alienated, especially given Farage's championing of the possibility of an English Parliament today. 

 

It's doubtful the issue will disappear, no matter what the true make-up of an English Parliament would be.

 

A tough question and should make for a good debate.

 

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

Quite simply: Scottish MPs get no say on matters in England which they deem necessary for them to have full control of up North.  Seems fair.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Someone said today that England needs it's own elected leader, a first minister. You know, first, like, prime... no... wait...

[ADK]

Regional assemblies is the way to go. More localisation. A federal UK.

[Fox96]

I'm for power to the regions, most definitely

[DJ Barry Hammond]

None of the above... although I don't really know what the answer is.

I'd rather have the country / uk ran on an executive committee style basis. You have candidates that run for particular roles she as chancellor / health / education ministers etc and people vote for who they think is best suited for the role.

Those incumbents would get 5 years in the role, after which they'd face another vote. You'd stage the setup of the roles so half would end mid term - meaning elections every 2 and a half years.

Of course, this is very far removed from party politics and would never happen... but it's an idea!

[Vicki Vixen]

Most Scottish MPs are Labour, so imposing this change would simply result in a power shift towards the Tories. Therefore unless this change is accompanied by a review of constituency boundaries, I am strongly against it.

[lavrentis]

We need less devolution because we need less government.

[Webbo]

Most Scottish MPs are Labour, so imposing this change would simply result in a power shift towards the Tories. Therefore unless this change is accompanied by a review of constituency boundaries, I am strongly against it.

Labour created the Scottish assembly because they thought they'd be in power there forever. If more devolution means Labour suffering in England so be it. What's good enough for Scotland is good enough for England.

[breadandcheese]

Most Scottish MPs are Labour, so imposing this change would simply result in a power shift towards the Tories. Therefore unless this change is accompanied by a review of constituency boundaries, I am strongly against it.

Party politics ahead of equality for the nations of the UK?

[Guest]

Party politics ahead of equality for the nations of the UK?

 

Equality for the nations of the UK?

 

What is that supposed to mean?

 

As for the question: We have too many layers of useless beaurocrats and politicians now. We don't need more. It's just more expense and more wasted money.

 

If there are concerns for certain areas by all means limit the votes to the representatives of those areas but be careful if  the cost is to be carried by all.

 

Local representation is ideal but impractical - maybe mps should be forced to have lived for some time in the area that they are to represent.

 

Removal of party politics would be great - never going to happen - but great. 

 

Short terms lead to short view, which can only be circumvented by limited time which is counter productive too.

[breadandcheese]

Equality for the nations of the UK?

 

What is that supposed to mean?

 

As for the question: We have too many layers of useless beaurocrats and politicians now. We don't need more. It's just more expense and more wasted money.

 

If there are concerns for certain areas by all means limit the votes to the representatives of those areas but be careful if  the cost is to be carried by all.

 

Local representation is ideal but impractical - maybe mps should be forced to have lived for some time in the area that they are to represent.

 

Removal of party politics would be great - never going to happen - but great. 

 

Short terms lead to short view, which can only be circumvented by limited time which is counter productive too.

It means Scottish MPs not being allowed to vote on matters that do not affect their constituents.

I don't advocate an English regional assembly with the costs it brings. I think it's a bit of a smokescreen. The most practical and workable solution is that MPs can only be allowed to vote in the chamber on matters that affect their constituents. This eminently sensible and workable solution could be implemented immediately.

The perfect example of this problem was the vote on tuition fees top up in 2004. This only passed in parliament because of the Scottish Labour MPs voting for the government. It would not affect Scotland, so they had no need to answer to their electorate. There was a democratic disconnect. This needs to be put right.

[Strokes]

Party politics ahead of equality for the nations of the UK?

So do the english get an independance vote then?

[Guest]

It means Scottish MPs not being allowed to vote on matters that do not affect their constituents.

I don't advocate an English regional assembly with the costs it brings. I think it's a bit of a smokescreen. The most practical and workable solution is that MPs can only be allowed to vote in the chamber on matters that affect their constituents. This eminently sensible and workable solution could be implemented immediately.

The perfect example of this problem was the vote on tuition fees top up in 2004. This only passed in parliament because of the Scottish Labour MPs voting for the government. It would not affect Scotland, so they had no need to answer to their electorate. There was a democratic disconnect. This needs to be put right.

 

Couldn't Scottish constituents go to English Universities then?

 

Mps don't represent their country they represent their constituents.

[Monk]

Cameron and the no campaign promised to push right on with devolution reforms, and he lied. He is deliberately stalling the process by talking about countrywide devolution and the west lothian question. It is without a doubt a relevant question, but he is betraying the scottish people by giving it the same importance as scottish devolution. Deal with what you promised first, then sort the rest out. What an asshole.

[Strokes]

Cameron and the no campaign promised to push right on with devolution reforms, and he lied. He is deliberately stalling the process by talking about countrywide devolution and the west lothian question. It is without a doubt a relevant question, but he is betraying the scottish people by giving it the same importance as scottish devolution. Deal with what you promised first, then sort the rest out. What an asshole.

Did he promise a timescale or a priority scale? He has a duty to come up with a better deal for everyone not just the Scots.

[Monk]

I think you really have to be in Scotland to appreciate that close to 100% are at the limit of their patience for more devolved powers and have been for a long time.

Walking around edinburgh this week there is an energy for change that I have not seen in my lifetime, it's brilliant and it comes from both the yes and no camps.

The no campaign leaders promised changes by the end of this year, and before the next general election. Bringing the west Lothian question is a deliberate attempt to postpone getting any changes through parliament before the election.

I would be very surprised if there is not a movement of some kind before then to pressure Westminster.

I was a no voter and I know Cameron is a snake oil salesman but the nerve he has to change the agenda the day after the election is astounding.

[Webbo]

I think you have to live in England to know how pissed off we all are with Scotland. Whinging, moaning and blaming, quite often with a racial element, about England even though they have more rights and more money spent on them than the rest of us.

 

They'll get their new powers when was promised but we're not going to let Labour kick English devolution into the long grass until after the election so they can impose their own solution on it to their electoral advantage.

[Monk]

Is this the English devolution that has been in the news for about a week, which was not even on the political agenda a month ago?

[Monk]

Also the scots have no qualms with England, just Westminster.

[Strokes]

Is this the English devolution that has been in the news for about a week, which was not even on the political agenda a month ago?

Scotland only decided on friday morning they wanted this particular road, so we are not too far behind.

Personally i wish you had buggered off, at least then we wouldnt have had to listen to this kinda tripe.

[Monk]

I'm English and live near edinburgh, and I voted no. All I am saying is that I value the democratic process and expect politicians to live up to specific promises.

Scotland voted for change and a referendum years ago and it was an issue long before that. You can't seriously think that Scotland only decided they wanted new powers this week?

English economy would have been decimated if Scotland left which is why the Westminster politicians panicked into offering more than they could deliver.

[Strokes]

I'm English and live near edinburgh, and I voted no. All I am saying is that I value the democratic process and expect politicians to live up to specific promises.

Scotland voted for change and a referendum years ago and it was an issue long before that. You can't seriously think that Scotland only decided they wanted new powers this week?

English economy would have been decimated if Scotland left which is why the Westminster politicians panicked into offering more than they could deliver.

I don't get stressed by short term economics, Scotland did only decide they wanted this option thurs\fri. So its now in the pipeline, what's wrong with discussing the deal for the rest of the home nations before you chew your steak?

[Monk]

Good for you pal, what about long term economics like, I don't know, losing most of the country's oil fields, being lender of last resort for a foreign country etc etc.

Just to repeat, the problem is that Cameron is deliberately kicking the can down the road when the scots were promised a fast process to more devolution. That does not mean they shouldn't discuss English devolution but yes it should be lower priority.

[Guest]

Good for you pal, what about long term economics like, I don't know, losing most of the country's oil fields, being lender of last resort for a foreign country etc etc.

Just to repeat, the problem is that Cameron is deliberately kicking the can down the road when the scots were promised a fast process to more devolution. That does not mean they shouldn't discuss English devolution but yes it should be lower priority.

 

Monk seems to be talking complete sense to me.

 

Cameron made a promise because he was shit scared he'd ****ed up the union. Now he should stick to it and it should be a priority.

 

The "English" getting all uppity are pathetic.