"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Ought to be hanged Parliament.Silvertusk wrote:Well we are well and truely hung here in Britain.
(Sorry about the innuendo there!!)
Should be interesting to see how Britain fairs over the next few days - and who will be in charge.
Silvertusk.
Byblos wrote:Ought to be hanged Parliament.Silvertusk wrote:Well we are well and truely hung here in Britain.
(Sorry about the innuendo there!!)
Should be interesting to see how Britain fairs over the next few days - and who will be in charge.
Silvertusk.
That's not the problem-he's a British prime minister. The problem is his constituents in Scotland were free from unfair laws his party imposed on the English,The11thDr. wrote:maybe we will have a real PM soon, one who isn't Scottish ya know?
I'm sorry to say I am very ignorant of how Scotland and England are governed. Is it possible these laws being passed in England were not enacted in Scotland because they do not need them there? And if they were enacted they would present an undue burden on the Scottish, which in England they are a necessity?DannyM wrote:That's not the problem-he's a British prime minister. The problem is his constituents in Scotland were free from unfair laws his party imposed on the English,The11thDr. wrote:maybe we will have a real PM soon, one who isn't Scottish ya know?
Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster passing laws for the English while their Scottish constituents back home in 'bonnie' land remain untouched by these very laws... that's the problem.
Thanks Danny, I'll certainly read up on it. But from the looks of it you Brits have some 'splaining to do (as to why you allowed such a system or why you keep it in place).DannyM wrote:Byblos, Scotland has her own parliament. She has her own government and makes her own domestic policies. Yet Scotland sends nigh on 60 members of her parliament to Westminster, who sit in that great building and vote on policies which apply only to England! One example which comes to mind is these very Scottish MPs voting in support of the Labour government's attempt to introduce university fees for all England, while representing not one English constituency; and while in 'bonnie' land they voted against imposing tuition fees on their own constituents-I kid you not!
For a read on The West Lothian Question ,
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics- ... qus_thread
I disagree with the author's solution, but you'll get an idea of how rotten this system really is.
You're not wrong, Byblos!Byblos wrote:Thanks Danny, I'll certainly read up on it. But from the looks of it you Brits have some 'splaining to do (as to why you allowed such a system or why you keep it in place).DannyM wrote:Byblos, Scotland has her own parliament. She has her own government and makes her own domestic policies. Yet Scotland sends nigh on 60 members of her parliament to Westminster, who sit in that great building and vote on policies which apply only to England! One example which comes to mind is these very Scottish MPs voting in support of the Labour government's attempt to introduce university fees for all England, while representing not one English constituency; and while in 'bonnie' land they voted against imposing tuition fees on their own constituents-I kid you not!
For a read on The West Lothian Question ,
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics- ... qus_thread
I disagree with the author's solution, but you'll get an idea of how rotten this system really is.
Our current crop of politicians are woefully inadequate, Byblos. I think you'd be shocked at how inept this country has become at running itself. The 'European Union' question has contributed tremendously to our amateur status... That's another thread entirely 
I read both links you provided and have a better understanding of the issue now (though by no means clear). One thing I didn't understand in the above link is this:DannyM wrote:You're not wrong, Byblos!
Take a look at this link for the Tories' solution to this problem. (I'm not sure if the Tories still hold this view since they are very short on conviction these days, and a lack of conviction is simply repugnant to Conservatism, hence the pseudo-consevatives we have in place right now.) I think it is a sound solution as it will bring parity for the English while maintaining the stability of the Union (I'm a strong Unionist). There are objections to this proposal, but they are bogus objections, and if anyone would like to post their objections I will answer them accordingly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... stion.html
See also "related articles" on the [Telegraph] page... I know this issue is a way off your radar, Byblos, so please don't feel obliged to indulge me on this one if it doesn't tickle your fancy, and there are a few Brits on here who might well like to discuss this...
If MPs representing Scottish seats cannot vote on health care, education and crime, then who gets to vote on those issues as pertaining to Scotland?Because laws for issues such as health care, education and crime are now made in the Scottish Parliament, MPs representing Scottish seats cannot vote on them. But they can still vote on laws affecting those issues in England, which are still made in the House of Commons.
Their colleagues in the Scottish parliament. You see, Scotland has the best of both worlds: they are represented domestically by the Scottish parliament and by the British government at Westminster with regards non-domestic issues. And no English MP can interfere with issues involving the devolved Scottish parliament; yet in England we have Scottish Labour MPs, who represent constituencies in Scotland, coming together to help the Labour government get university tuition fees through when Scotland doesn't have university tuition fees. Now ask yourself, would these very same Scottish MPs have voted for, say, a cessation of university tuition fees in England if Scotland did have university tuition fees in place? No. Because if they did their constituents in Scotland would (rightly) be outraged. The English? Ha! Well they can go hang!Byblos wrote:If MPs representing Scottish seats cannot vote on health care, education and crime, then who gets to vote on those issues as pertaining to Scotland?
This objection is a ruse, Byblos. The only extra "power" English MPs would have is the power to represent the very people who put them in parliament in the first place. This objection is simply bogus. A ban on Scottish MPs who hold Scottish seats from voting on matters relating to the England would not give these English MPs any greater power than their voters have democratically afforded them. All matters relating to the Union as a whole would thus remain an issue for all members of parliament. Happy days ...Byblos wrote:I also understand the objections made as the proposal would afford English MPs a much greater power than before. From what little I know on the subject it just seems to me a federalist system is a better option. You would have a federal government that tackles common issues and local governments/representatives to take care of local issues. But I suspect this would require a complete constitutional overhaul, too thorny an issue to be agreed upon.