If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Now, i don't care about the nationality of the MP, just the nationality of his/her seat. This is why the OP actually makes that clear - but I didn't expect that you would read that because you are still pissed off about me labelling you anti-feminist.
Still, let's see if I can educate you. It's a tough job but it needs doing.
The problem I am describing is one where an MP voted into an English Constintency has little, if any, influence over Scottish domestic[i/] issues. This is because of a devolved parliament in place there - the same applies to N.I and Wals.
The same does not apply the other way because English domestic issues are discussed in parliament and therefore all MPs can vote on them. This leads to MPs from Scotland, N.I. and Wales voting on issues like Top-Up Fees, passing laws which only actually affect English constituencies, whilst their own assemblies vote down the idea.
The current role of the PM is for British Issues which affect everyone, and English domestic issues which only affect english constituencies. Therefore, until these roles are separated it, there is the possibility that the most senoir politicians in England would not have recieved a single English vote. That is undemocratic and it's arguable that he/she would have no mandate.
It's the same argument which was used to justify Scottish/Welsh and irish devolution. Do you accuse everyone who voted for them as "racist"?
Can't you see the difference?
top up fees do affect scottish universities indirectly...
How indirectly is indirectlty? Englsih students at Scottish universities have to pay them, but that is because of a legislative decision made in England.
The point is that Scotland voted against top-up fees for itself, and then voted to impose them on England and Wales. Without the Scottish votes top-up fees would not have been imposed on England, but because of devolution the Scottish are immune from the decision of their MPs. That's why the MPs voted for it, they wouldn't feel any voter backlash because they were voting on something that did not concern them.
The nationality of the PM is not an issue- I wouldn't have any issue (or not this issue, anyway) with Galloway becoming PM, because his constituency is Bow, which is English. I would have an issue with an Englishman who represents, say, Grampian from becoming PM.
A PM cannot ethically and morally reside in and represent one jurisdiction and create law that solely affects another. And how ridiculous would it be if you barred a Scottish PM that was barred from voting on his own policy.
Either Scottish votes on English matters go, or Holyrood goes, but the current situation is entirely unethical.
i do agree with that
Whoever is the best person for the job should be PM, it's like in the USA - they have a law to ban any non US born person from being President which I think is just wrong. It's banning someone from a position just based on somethign they had no control over.
thats what i was thinking
The Scots have a Parliament, the Welsh have an Assembly, Londoners have an Assembly. The powers of the first are greater than those of the other two. Hence the reason why no one is jumping up and down complaining about Welsh MPs.
Also, I think you'll find it'd be a lot easier to get rid of the Assemblies than it would be to scrap the Scottish Parliament.
When London has its own legislature.
As you are well aware, Scotland has its own legal system and its own Parliament to govern it. Unlike the London and Welsh Assemblies, which do not have this power.
But they have a lot of control over it.
If you want to be PM you have to represent an English or Welsh constituency.
It's not the same at all. The US system has it's own problems but at least all the states are represented in electing their President.
At the point that Ken Livingstone controls the London part of the NHS/Police/Law.
At the moment power and representation isn't equal.