Business & Finance0 min ago
For Mikey And Other's
It would appear that there is a very real possibility that the General Election planned for May 2015 would have to be postponed for a year if the Scottish people vote "Yes" next week.As there are about 40 Labour MP's in Scotland the chances of a Labour Government after that election would be very much reduced.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by grumpy01. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
PP, your 10.37 response was not there when I was writing my last one.
In what way was the 1978 vote of no confidence a vote "affecting only English matters"? It was against Callaghan's UK government! That means it had an impact on Scotland, Wales and NI, too, surely.
You appear to have missed the point...I am asking about any occasion when the votes of SCOTTISH MPs effectively thwarted the clear majority will of the ENGLISH MPs. So it seems I am doomed still to await an answer!
In what way was the 1978 vote of no confidence a vote "affecting only English matters"? It was against Callaghan's UK government! That means it had an impact on Scotland, Wales and NI, too, surely.
You appear to have missed the point...I am asking about any occasion when the votes of SCOTTISH MPs effectively thwarted the clear majority will of the ENGLISH MPs. So it seems I am doomed still to await an answer!
SeeJayPea
The law was changed in 2011 which set a fixed 5 year term. Under this act, an election has to take place in 2015.
http://
The law was changed in 2011 which set a fixed 5 year term. Under this act, an election has to take place in 2015.
http://
No, steg, I don't think it should be in the 'jokes' section. I am, as previously stated, half Scottish (through my mother - ancestors from Mull and thrown off in the 'Clearances', so my lot suffered as well) and I feel very strongly that we really are 'better together'. Heck, I'm even a cousin of Billy Connolly! (Not sure how it worked, Mum told me, but she used to take him to the park as a little lad.)
QM, the answer you seek is here, http://
From http://
In establishing foundation hospitals and agreeing student tuition fees – both controversial policies which do not affect Scotland – Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through. The vote on foundation hospitals in November 2003 only applied to England – had the vote been restricted to English MPs then the government would have been defeated. Had there been a vote by English MPs only on tuition fees in January 2004, the government would have lost because of a rebellion on their own benches.
In establishing foundation hospitals and agreeing student tuition fees – both controversial policies which do not affect Scotland – Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through. The vote on foundation hospitals in November 2003 only applied to England – had the vote been restricted to English MPs then the government would have been defeated. Had there been a vote by English MPs only on tuition fees in January 2004, the government would have lost because of a rebellion on their own benches.
Well, al hamdu lillah! After about 40 years of 'West Lothian' whining, at last someone has found a couple of instances that might apply. I say 'might', because I have no idea how many Welsh or Northern Irish MPs - not to mention English MPs themselves - went into the same voting lobby as the Scottish ones on each occasion. In other words, were the Scottish ones solely responsible for the supposed "thwarting".
Below is the question I asked, for the umpteenth time, at 10.55 yesterday:
"I am asking about any occasion when the votes of SCOTTISH MPs effectively thwarted the clear majority will of the ENGLISH MPs."
The emphasised words were there on Monday morning and generally have been when I've asked the question in the past.
To return to the other element of my view about Scottish impact on legislation in England as opposed to English impact on legislation in Scotland, I am obliged again to mention the English bishops' role in our political life.
a. Anglican bishops participate in Westminster votes
b. Westminster votes often become UK-wide legislation...ergo
c. Anglican bishops impact on Scottish lives.
Rocket science it ain't! So, I ask yet again, if that is allowed, why shouldn't Scotland's church hierarchy impact on English lives? In other words, there should be a reciprocatory and balancing syllogism which opens with, "Kirk of Scotland' and closes with 'English lives'.
(I'm not Arabic or Muslim, but I lived and worked among them for many years and am still likely to come out spontaneously with such phrases as 'Al hamdu lillah!')
Below is the question I asked, for the umpteenth time, at 10.55 yesterday:
"I am asking about any occasion when the votes of SCOTTISH MPs effectively thwarted the clear majority will of the ENGLISH MPs."
The emphasised words were there on Monday morning and generally have been when I've asked the question in the past.
To return to the other element of my view about Scottish impact on legislation in England as opposed to English impact on legislation in Scotland, I am obliged again to mention the English bishops' role in our political life.
a. Anglican bishops participate in Westminster votes
b. Westminster votes often become UK-wide legislation...ergo
c. Anglican bishops impact on Scottish lives.
Rocket science it ain't! So, I ask yet again, if that is allowed, why shouldn't Scotland's church hierarchy impact on English lives? In other words, there should be a reciprocatory and balancing syllogism which opens with, "Kirk of Scotland' and closes with 'English lives'.
(I'm not Arabic or Muslim, but I lived and worked among them for many years and am still likely to come out spontaneously with such phrases as 'Al hamdu lillah!')
al hamdu lillah is appropriate and fits
ya salaam ! ( Egyptian dialect ) is better because your meaning is 'Oh my !' isnt it ?
QM - you were given two examples of the thing you were asking about and it would be better for you to say, 'yeah thanks'
Foundation trusts have not been wildly successful south of the border.
South Staffs and the excess deaths there were ascribed to the hospital administrators preoccupation with getting trust status.
from wiki alan milburn entry
In 2002 Milburn introduced Foundation trusts new bodies - a halfway house between the public and private sectors for hospitals and primary care trusts.[7] Between January 2005 and March 2009 an estimated 400-1,200 patients died as a result of poor care at Stafford hospital, a small district general hospital in Staffordshire. The Guardian highlights the hospital trust board's goal to attain Foundation trust status as a reason that the care was so bad
ya salaam ! ( Egyptian dialect ) is better because your meaning is 'Oh my !' isnt it ?
QM - you were given two examples of the thing you were asking about and it would be better for you to say, 'yeah thanks'
Foundation trusts have not been wildly successful south of the border.
South Staffs and the excess deaths there were ascribed to the hospital administrators preoccupation with getting trust status.
from wiki alan milburn entry
In 2002 Milburn introduced Foundation trusts new bodies - a halfway house between the public and private sectors for hospitals and primary care trusts.[7] Between January 2005 and March 2009 an estimated 400-1,200 patients died as a result of poor care at Stafford hospital, a small district general hospital in Staffordshire. The Guardian highlights the hospital trust board's goal to attain Foundation trust status as a reason that the care was so bad
QM, I don't think it can be plainer whether it applies to the West Lothian question or not:
> Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through
As to your question "Can you tell me of an occasion when ANY vote on purely English matters has been successful or unsuccessful because of Scottish MPs' votes though all the English MPs voted the other way?" - that is indeed a red herring, because it isn't the West Lothian question. But just to throw some numbers in so we can look at "fairness" ...
Of the 650 MPs in Westminster, 533 are for English consituencies and 59 are for Scottish. The population of England at 53M is almost exactly 10 times the population of Scotland at 5.3M, yet England has far fewer than 10 times the MPs of Scotland, i.e. the Scottish population has a greater representation in the UK parliament than the English population, as well as having its own parliament that the English population does not have.
If we consider just one region of England: the population of the North West of England is 7 million, greater than that of Scotland on its own, yet it has far less of a say in Westmisnter and the national politics than Scotland.
The following English regions have populations greater than Scotland's 5.3M:
- South East England: 8.6M
- Greater London: 8.1M
- North West England: 7M
- East of England: 5.8M
- West Midlands: 5.6M
In addition, both the South West of England and Yorkshire and the Humber have populations only just under that of Scotland.
So - does Scotland have its fair say in national politics? More than fair, I would say.
See:
http://
http://
> Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through
As to your question "Can you tell me of an occasion when ANY vote on purely English matters has been successful or unsuccessful because of Scottish MPs' votes though all the English MPs voted the other way?" - that is indeed a red herring, because it isn't the West Lothian question. But just to throw some numbers in so we can look at "fairness" ...
Of the 650 MPs in Westminster, 533 are for English consituencies and 59 are for Scottish. The population of England at 53M is almost exactly 10 times the population of Scotland at 5.3M, yet England has far fewer than 10 times the MPs of Scotland, i.e. the Scottish population has a greater representation in the UK parliament than the English population, as well as having its own parliament that the English population does not have.
If we consider just one region of England: the population of the North West of England is 7 million, greater than that of Scotland on its own, yet it has far less of a say in Westmisnter and the national politics than Scotland.
The following English regions have populations greater than Scotland's 5.3M:
- South East England: 8.6M
- Greater London: 8.1M
- North West England: 7M
- East of England: 5.8M
- West Midlands: 5.6M
In addition, both the South West of England and Yorkshire and the Humber have populations only just under that of Scotland.
So - does Scotland have its fair say in national politics? More than fair, I would say.
See:
http://
http://
My question was NOT, "Does Scotland have its fair say in national politics?" Rather it was, in part, "Does Scotland have its fair say in ENGLISH politics, given how a particular group of Englishmen - C of E bishops - have a say in Scottish political life?"
Goodness knows how many more times I'm going to have to say this; I'm beginning to feel like Sisyphus! Let's try it in largely monosyllabic words such as I might use in a pub 'at home', were I there...
"Look, 'ere's a bunch o' English blokes 'at get tae vote on stuff 'at alters the lives o' Scottish folkies, richt? Bit 'ere's nae a matchin' bunch o' Jocks that hae the same kin' o' effec' on English lives. Is 'at fair, wid ye say?"
The rest of your facts and figures are largely irrelevant. The Scots didn't create regions and constituencies and I still await your breakdown of just WHO voted against the English on the two occasions you mention.
Having said that, I am glad you and TCL found what may be two examples of what I was seeking. Two is Not exactly an overpowering haul in 37 years, especially given how English people bring up the West Lothian Question ad nauseam, as if it was relevant every month or two.
Goodness knows how many more times I'm going to have to say this; I'm beginning to feel like Sisyphus! Let's try it in largely monosyllabic words such as I might use in a pub 'at home', were I there...
"Look, 'ere's a bunch o' English blokes 'at get tae vote on stuff 'at alters the lives o' Scottish folkies, richt? Bit 'ere's nae a matchin' bunch o' Jocks that hae the same kin' o' effec' on English lives. Is 'at fair, wid ye say?"
The rest of your facts and figures are largely irrelevant. The Scots didn't create regions and constituencies and I still await your breakdown of just WHO voted against the English on the two occasions you mention.
Having said that, I am glad you and TCL found what may be two examples of what I was seeking. Two is Not exactly an overpowering haul in 37 years, especially given how English people bring up the West Lothian Question ad nauseam, as if it was relevant every month or two.
