My suggestion would require a change in the election rules, whereby all elected Westminster MPs have automatic membership of their national Assembly and would vote there and on UK issues only.
In this way, an English Assembly would exist by default.
Don't quite follow. Are you suggesting doing away with separate Assembly elections?
Don't quite follow. Are you suggesting doing away with separate Assembly elections?
Not at all. Currently some Assembly seats are first past the post and some are by PR. Why should this not continue, but with the FPP seats having the same boundaries as the Westminster constituencies?
Not at all. Currently some Assembly seats are first past the post and some are by PR. Why should this not continue, but with the FPP seats having the same boundaries as the Westminster constituencies?
Still not very clear. Are you saying you'd have an MP and an Assembly member voting in their Assembly for the same constituency?
Still not very clear. Are you saying you'd have an MP and an Assembly member voting in their Assembly for the same constituency?
No, it would work much as at present - some seats are already FPP constituency seats, others are PR ( not sure how they are determined at present). All that would be different is that the FPP Assembly seats would be based on Westminster parliamentary boundaries and the constituency areas of the PR ones might need to be adjusted differently to allow for this.
Theoretically it would result in less MPs as the FPP ones would sit in both Houses, whereas at present there are two sets of FPP elected members, one for each House.
It seems quite straightforward to me, what don't you understand.
England should be an independent country as far as I'm concerned (as I don't think the UK currently serves the needs of any of it's nation's peoples) but it's up to them to choose their own destiny and see that for themselves.
England should be an independent country as far as I'm concerned (as I don't think the UK currently serves the needs of any of it's nation's peoples) but it's up to them to choose their own destiny and see that for themselves.
You may well be right, though that would mean England separating from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I don't think English politicians would care to contemplate.
No, it would work much as at present - some seats are already FPP constituency seats, others are PR ( not sure how they are determined at present). All that would be different is that the FPP Assembly seats would be based on Westminster parliamentary boundaries and the constituency areas of the PR ones might need to be adjusted differently to allow for this.
Theoretically it would result in less MPs as the FPP ones would sit in both Houses, whereas at present there are two sets of FPP elected members, one for each House.
It seems quite straightforward to me, what don't you understand.
What I don't understand is how it would work! You'd have to have the Assembly and Westminster elections on the same day, and it wouldn't be clear whether you're voting for an MP or an Assembly member. It all sounds horribly confusing and unworkable.
What I don't understand is how it would work! You'd have to have the Assembly and Westminster elections on the same day, and it wouldn't be clear whether you're voting for an MP or an Assembly member. It all sounds horribly confusing and unworkable.
Why should that be a problem?
We already have local elections where one votes for different people in different types of local government.
One ballot sheet would be for a UK parliamentary candidate, ( who if elected would sit in both Houses) and a second sheet would be for the Assembly only, and would be much as it is at present.
It would clearly mean changes in the rules, but a Yes or No vote is going to bring about constitutional changes anyway.
As I've said before, if Scotland goes, then the UK should be dissolved. England would become completely independent as the "Kingdom of England" officially. Wales and Northern Ireland would be offered a referendum with two choices, 1 - full independence, or 2 - a new status as crown dependencies in free association with England, which would handle foreign affairs and defence, and provide supplementary funding. Westminster would then become the official Parliament of England. It's a better system because with either option NI and Wales would have even more autonomy than they have now.
Why should that be a problem?
We already have local elections where one votes for different people in different types of local government.
One ballot sheet would be for a UK parliamentary candidate, ( who if elected would sit in both Houses) and a second sheet would be for the Assembly only, and would be much as it is at present.
It would clearly mean changes in the rules, but a Yes or No vote is going to bring about constitutional changes anyway.
Don't like the idea of one MP having to split their time between two Parliaments. It would create two classes of Assembly members, and it would also be confusing as to whether you are voting for an MP or an Assembly member. There has got to be a better solution!
Westminster politicians are desperate to hang on to Scotland.
Do you think it conceivable that they would willingly part with Wales or Northern Ireland?
As I've said before, if Scotland goes, then the UK should be dissolved. England would become completely independent as the "Kingdom of England" officially. Wales and Northern Ireland would be offered a referendum with two choices, 1 - full independence, or 2 - a new status as crown dependencies in free association with England, which would handle foreign affairs and defence, and provide supplementary funding. Westminster would then become the official Parliament of England. It's a better system because with either option NI and Wales would have even more autonomy than they have now.
Sounds superficially attractive, but to dissolve the UK would require a nationwide referendum before any other possibilities were considered.
Don't like the idea of one MP having to split their time between two Parliaments. It would create two classes of Assembly members, and it would also be confusing as to whether you are voting for an MP or an Assembly member. There has got to be a better solution!
I believe this is already the case for some NI politicians.
I suspect no scheme would be perfect, short of independence, as solving one problem would merely create another.
England should be an independent country as far as I'm concerned (as I don't think the UK currently serves the needs of any of it's nation's peoples) but it's up to them to choose their own destiny and see that for themselves.
We'd just end up like Israel. Surrounded by countries that hate us
Question: Is the fact that Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters different from situations where London MPs can vote on issues that only affect the North East or vice versa? Should an MP in Cornwall be allowed to vote on Cross Rail? Should one in Leicester be allowed to vote on fishing policy?
Question: Is the fact that Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters different from situations where London MPs can vote on issues that only affect the North East or vice versa? Should an MP in Cornwall be allowed to vote on Cross Rail? Should one in Leicester be allowed to vote on fishing policy?
Yes, it's different because the Scottish situation isn't reciprocal. English MPs can't vote on Scottish-only matters, but the reverse is true. And fishing policy is a national issue anyway!
Yes, it's different because the Scottish situation isn't reciprocal. English MPs can't vote on Scottish-only matters, but the reverse is true. And fishing policy is a national issue anyway!
MPs can't vote on issues in London covered by the London Assembly?
MPs can't vote on issues in London covered by the London Assembly?
Never heard this raised as an issue before. The London Assembly only has powers over transport, policing, economic development, and fire and emergency planning.
Ban Scots MPs from voting on tax and NHS, say Tories as unrest in Westminster over 'devo max' grows
*'Devo max' would see Scotland handed new powers over tax and finance
*The move was proposed by Gordon Brown to counter a Yes vote poll surge
*Tories insist Scottish MPs should not vote on English issues if it is granted*
*MP John Redwood calls for an English Parliament in the event of a No vote
*Lib Dems and Labour also said to have concerns over future of Parliament
Senior Conservatives are insisting that Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on tax, welfare and the NHS if more powers are handed to Edinburgh after a No vote.
There is growing unrest in Westminster over the rapid timetable for ‘devo max’, which would see Scotland handed new powers over income tax and finance.
The move – proposed by former prime minister Gordon Brown – was rapidly agreed by all Westminster parties last week in an attempt to counter a surge in support for independence.
Looks like the Westminster elite agreed to quickly to home rule for Scotland as they panicked that the union would break up. They will either have to go back on their word and cause outrage amongst Scot's voters who voted No and will feel betrayed, or face a full scale Tory backbench rebellion.
Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls is said to have told his shadow Cabinet colleagues: ‘If we give the whole tax-raising power to the Scottish Parliament, how can Scottish Labour MPs vote for a Labour budget in England?’
Looks like it is starting to dawn on Labour what a mistake they have made, when Gordon Brown and the better together campaign made such a bold promise.
MPs can't vote on issues in London covered by the London Assembly?
It's a council, just like councils in other part of England. The answer to your original question is the difference is that England is a country, just like Scotland is a country. No-one seems to be suggesting that we Balkanise Scotland or Wales. It would appear that those wanting to Balkanise England will simply go to any lengths to avoid England having the same rights as Scotland. The structure was gerrymandered in '97. Looks like the usual suspects are attempting to do so again.
Comments
Don't quite follow. Are you suggesting doing away with separate Assembly elections?
Not at all. Currently some Assembly seats are first past the post and some are by PR. Why should this not continue, but with the FPP seats having the same boundaries as the Westminster constituencies?
Still not very clear. Are you saying you'd have an MP and an Assembly member voting in their Assembly for the same constituency?
No, it would work much as at present - some seats are already FPP constituency seats, others are PR ( not sure how they are determined at present). All that would be different is that the FPP Assembly seats would be based on Westminster parliamentary boundaries and the constituency areas of the PR ones might need to be adjusted differently to allow for this.
Theoretically it would result in less MPs as the FPP ones would sit in both Houses, whereas at present there are two sets of FPP elected members, one for each House.
It seems quite straightforward to me, what don't you understand.
You may well be right, though that would mean England separating from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I don't think English politicians would care to contemplate.
What I don't understand is how it would work! You'd have to have the Assembly and Westminster elections on the same day, and it wouldn't be clear whether you're voting for an MP or an Assembly member. It all sounds horribly confusing and unworkable.
Why should that be a problem?
We already have local elections where one votes for different people in different types of local government.
One ballot sheet would be for a UK parliamentary candidate, ( who if elected would sit in both Houses) and a second sheet would be for the Assembly only, and would be much as it is at present.
It would clearly mean changes in the rules, but a Yes or No vote is going to bring about constitutional changes anyway.
Don't like the idea of one MP having to split their time between two Parliaments. It would create two classes of Assembly members, and it would also be confusing as to whether you are voting for an MP or an Assembly member. There has got to be a better solution!
Do you think it conceivable that they would willingly part with Wales or Northern Ireland?
Sounds superficially attractive, but to dissolve the UK would require a nationwide referendum before any other possibilities were considered.
I believe this is already the case for some NI politicians.
I suspect no scheme would be perfect, short of independence, as solving one problem would merely create another.
We'd just end up like Israel. Surrounded by countries that hate us
LOL - takes me back to my days down the Den..:D
Only made Number 6 though
Why are so many English constituency's represented by Scots or those of Scots antecedence?
We already are.
Yes, it's different because the Scottish situation isn't reciprocal. English MPs can't vote on Scottish-only matters, but the reverse is true. And fishing policy is a national issue anyway!
MPs can't vote on issues in London covered by the London Assembly?
Never heard this raised as an issue before. The London Assembly only has powers over transport, policing, economic development, and fire and emergency planning.
Looks like the Westminster elite agreed to quickly to home rule for Scotland as they panicked that the union would break up. They will either have to go back on their word and cause outrage amongst Scot's voters who voted No and will feel betrayed, or face a full scale Tory backbench rebellion.
Looks like it is starting to dawn on Labour what a mistake they have made, when Gordon Brown and the better together campaign made such a bold promise.
Can London assembly member sit and vote in parliament?
It's a council, just like councils in other part of England. The answer to your original question is the difference is that England is a country, just like Scotland is a country. No-one seems to be suggesting that we Balkanise Scotland or Wales. It would appear that those wanting to Balkanise England will simply go to any lengths to avoid England having the same rights as Scotland. The structure was gerrymandered in '97. Looks like the usual suspects are attempting to do so again.