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.
Options
Should a Scottish MP become PM?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't mean ever, I mean right now. I also don't mean a scotsman but an MP voted into a scottish constituency?
Much has been made of this question in the past couple of days and I wonder what others think.
Personally, until there is a place for English domestic issues to be voted on, which is away from the UK parliament, then I have to say "no".
How can a MP who is not affected introduce Bills and laws which will have no impact on his own constituency? I would argue that it is unconstituional and no different to having a French PM. Indeed, it is the very reason why Scotland/Wales have their own assemblies...
Discuss
Much has been made of this question in the past couple of days and I wonder what others think.
Personally, until there is a place for English domestic issues to be voted on, which is away from the UK parliament, then I have to say "no".
How can a MP who is not affected introduce Bills and laws which will have no impact on his own constituency? I would argue that it is unconstituional and no different to having a French PM. Indeed, it is the very reason why Scotland/Wales have their own assemblies...
Discuss
0
Comments
Any Scottish MP should not be allowed to vote on any matter not concerning Scotland.
Sod that, I'd just deport all the Scottish politicians back across the border, they're all cunts.
It's in Labour's interest to keep the Scottish vote in Westminster because there are virtually no Tories in Scotland. Labour says that because, per ratio, there are so few Scottish and Welsh MPs, that their vote is insignificant. Bullshit! What if the English are almost 50/50 over some issue affecting England? All it takes is the government to call their votes in from the Scots and Wesh and they can win a vote that affects the English to their detriment.
So I agree with MOK. :yes:
Unless I've missed something he would be Prime Minister of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which includes Scotland. If you don't allow Scottish PMs (and by extension one assumes Welsh and Northern Irish) you're pretty much disenfranchising a fair chunk of the UK population
So to stop me having to say it later, awwww didums :crying:
Which would be fine, if his Govt only brought in laws which affected the whole of United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, as with top-up fees and the NHS these issues only affect England because Scotland, NI and Wales cover those in their own assembly.
Therefore, on what basis would a Scottish MP be elected to make those laws?
Like I said, for those domestic issues, having a Scottish MP as PM is no dofferent to having a French one - or for that matter American/Dutch/german/Australian etc
Different argument and not what I am saying.
If there was an English parliament which dealt with English issues then this question need never arise. The fact that my MP cannot vote in/down something which affect only those north of the border means that the same should apply in the other direction.
It's the same argument which brought about Holyrood. Why should Thatcher have been allowed to enforce the Poll tax on Scotland, when there were so few Tory MPs in Scotland and when it was forced through by the English MPs?
Not from me you won't. I'm arguing that we are going to hit a constitutional crisis if either Brown or Reid becomes PM next year.
Quite.
I think one option to 'make devolution work' would be to considerably reduce the number of Scottish seats. Same applies to Wales - Labour have traditionally been even stronger there than in Scotland.
But he's not just for domestic issues is he? He's for everything - which includes all the things which are not devolved, including Foreign Policy, defence, criminal law, energy policy, taxation. and even for the things that are devolved they are only devolved by the will of Parliament and Parliament, if it so chooses, can overrule the DAs (not that that's likely I grant)
No that's a different argument. You're asking whether we should allow a Scottish PM and I'm saying yes. If you're saying should the English have some sort of assembly, with yet another bunch of politicos in it, I'd also grudgingly say yes, though once you get rid the guiding intelligence behind England (eg the Micks, the Jocks and Taffs) I'm willing to bet it would all go belly up anyway. :thumb:
But assuming there is not going to be an English Parliament a Scot should still allowed to be PM whether he seat is Sedgefield or Dumbarton.
Why would it be a constitunional crisis? the papers might whip up a few stories, but is the Queen going to refuse to appoint him? the civil service refuse to follow his directions? the army mutiny?
I'm guessing as none of these is likely to happen, it'll be a short-term media frenzy until something more interesting comes along
Not got a great political knowledge but in theory it sounds a bit unfair.
Is there not an issue of funding too? Like if Prime Minister Jock McTavish spends X amount on the English NHS/education system, then it impacts on the Scottish and Welsh budgets health and education, no? If we stopped a Scottish MP from being PM, are we getting a fair crack of the whip when it comes to deciding what kind of budget Holyrood gets?
As far as English issues go, what about potential knock on effects like the NHS and top-up fees? Pretty sure Scottish students go to English unis too...
Fuck that, we don't want them.
No returns without a receipt.
we are a united kingdom for a reason
Indeed he isn't which is how the devolved paliaments work.
For domestic issue there is a demestic assembly, with domestically elected officials governing and a deomestically elected leader.
In England we face the possibility of enlish issues being decided by a semi-domestic assembly, with semi-domestically elected officials and a non-domestic leader who has been elected by the voters in another country which will not be affected by the decisions made.
It's why I raised top up fees. Scottish MPs voted for them, knowing that their consituents who not be affected in any way.
indeed. i don't have a problem with him being the leader for those British issues. i do have a problem with the English only ones.
So am I, just not in the current set up.
balir is the intelligence behind England?
I did say at the start that I have no problem with a scotsman[i/] being PM, just a Scottish MP. That person could be English by birth for all I care.
Okay, maybe crisis was a little OTT. But the fact that the English would be governed by someone whom they didn't have the opportunity to vote for or against is not exactly democratic is it?
In the same way that I supported Scottish devolution for the same reason. Domestic issues should be solved by a domestic assembly.
I know, the English are so bloody apathetic.
It will be the Beckham marriage again soon...
Scotland is over represented at parliament already. But in answer to your question the British parliament should determine the spend available to the devolved assemblies. What they do with it should then be up to them.
Eg If you have an overall tax income of £100bn and you use £5-bn to fund all of the British issues, then the remaining £50bn should be split (according to population) amongst the member countries (for example).
Great, so can my MP have a say on whether top up fees apply in Scotland then?
But you're still disenfranchising them by not having a Scots a PM when things like defence, taxation, the distribution of public spending hit them as much as English constituencies.
TBH I'm an integrationist, the UK should be governed from Westminster, with no DAs. But that's not going to happen - so my next choice would be devolved powers for England (probably on a regional basis), but that ain't going to happen either. So the next least worse thing is allowing people from any part of the UK to be PM. The worst is only having English PM's until there's an English Parliament - in which case there doesn't seem any incentive for the English to do anything as they get a massive advantage.
But you can't pick and choose. he's either PM for all or for none.
But we run the army, the civil service, the trade unions and the church...
As long as the person's a British subject I also don't care where there from and I don't mind which constituency either - that's why its Sedgefield or Dumbarton for me, whereas you wouldn't be happy with Dumbarton.
I don't think they are, the English or the British as a whole are pragmatic. they tend to get on with life (and with the exception of my own dear island) have worked out the eminently sensible policy of letting others have revolutions and civil wars, the British have elections and compromises.
But those are British issue, not English domestic ones,
It's already happened, Blair is not the PM for all. He's the PM for British issue and Englisg domestics one - not all domestic ones.
And what a wonderful job you are doing with each of those
I don't care where the person is from, I care who elected them.
Would you be happy with a PM voted in by the Swedish?
But that's my point? If a Scottish MP can't be Prime Minister you are also saying that they can't be primus inter pares on British issues.
To be fair its a ying and yang argument - option 1 - you have an MP as PM who isn't effected by English issues or option 2- you can only have an English MP and a large chunk of constituencies can say goodbye to ever having a Prime Minister.
true, but as Prime Minister and leading of the majority house in the commons he can pass legislation which overrules that of the DA.
Oh I dunno Army's doing alright (bit underfunded) and surely as a Civil Servant you like me have to least pretend we're doing a good job. And as for the Church I'm a Prestbyterian and regard Anglicanism as just one step away from the papists
I don't care where the person is from, I care who elected them.
Would you be happy with a PM voted in by the Swedish?
Bugger pressed wrong button, so I'm going to have edit for my reply
I might make an exception if she was blonde and big tits.
But Sweden isn't part of the UK - Swedish electors are only marginally effected by UK changes in taxation rates, or our foreign policy or whether we decide to build nuclear power stations or not. Scots constituents are effected as much as English ones
I suppose I could argue that having a Scottish PM decide purely English matters would actually be a good idea because they'd be a touch more objective and impartial. It's not going to affect his constituency, so they can be a bit more bold in their plans
I do think this and other devolution problems aren't going to be remedied until there is an English Parliament of sorts. Or until Westminister is banded and all power given to Holyrood :razz:
I'm saying they can't do it at the moment because of the English issues. That doesn't rule them out in the future if there is devolution for England.
It's part of the induction training...
:no: so predictable.
Though you'll note I haven't disagreed
And Scotland isn't part of England.
:yes: well almost.
Funny isn't it, coming fro msomeone who wants less politicians that I would like to see devolution for all four countries (and not just three of them) - I also believe that each of the devoled assemblies should be represented in the cabinet.
Isn't he an English MP?
He is but he represents an English constituency.
Unfortunately. Although the only thing Galloway represents is his own inflated ego. Nobody can claim that Galloway represents any decent or civilised people, Galloway is after all a close friend of mass murderers like Saddam and Castro and his followers include various homophobic anti-Semites.
Anyway, until the current discrepancies have been sorted out, no, a Scots MP shouldn't be UK Prme Minister. And as much as I dislike Gordon Brown, that isn't a dig at him.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2351341,00.html
according to an opinion poll there seems to now be a slight majority for an independent Scotland (44% TO 42%). Given that I'm of the mind that the only good unions are the Acts of Union I find this a bit worrying.
It does suggest that the argument for devolution (that it would head of calls for independence) was wrong. The anti-Scottish PM thing is also likely to hasten this trend and an independent and seperate Scotland is good neither for England nor Scotland (or Northern Ireland and Wales)
Like NQA said at the beginning, last time I looked the UK of B. and N.I. comprised England, Wales, N.I. and, er, Scotland.
And whereas I might understand some people not liking Scottish MPs voting on issues that affect England only, as an MP Brown would be dealing with issues that affect the whole of the the UK.
No argument or conflict as far as I see it. Nationalistic and semi-independent as Catalonia and the Basque Country are, I really cannot see anyone in Spain kicking a fuss if a Catalonian or a Basque became PM. It's the party and the ideology of the candidate that would matter, not their nationality.
The only fair way of solving teh West Lothian problem is to bar all Scottish and Welsh MPs from sitting when the matter at hand solely affects England. The fact that top-up fees have only been imposed in England because of the votes of Scottish MPs, when Scotland has voted differently on the issue, is a major case in point.
The constitutional crisis would come when the Prime Minister would be barred from voting on issues he has ordered to be put before Parliament.
I don't think that a Prime Minister should be allowed to dictate policy for a country he does not live and does not represent.