Options
Two thirds of English voters back 'English votes for English laws’
deptfordbaker
Posts: 22,368 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Mail wrote:
You say YES to English votes for English laws: MoS poll shows fury over handouts to Scots
*Two in three English voters say MPs in Scottish seats should be banned from voting on English laws at Westminster
*A mere one in five oppose the move, which would see home rule powers handed to Scotland matched in England
*A total of 70 per cent say decision to hand powers to Scots was made during a 'panic', and only 16 per cent disagree
*The majority of English voters want their own referendum before more of their cash is transferred to Edinburgh
*One in five English voters say Andy Murray’s support for independence means they are less likely to support him
Massive opposition to giving more money to Scotland – and overwhelming support for a new English Parliament is revealed today in a survey of voters in England and Wales.
The results suggest solid support in England for David Cameron’s claim that new home rule powers for Scotland must be matched by similar measures in the other three home nations.
The Prime Minister’s ‘English votes for English laws’ proposal struck a chord south of the border, with two in three English voters saying MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster should be banned from voting on issues such as health and education. A mere one in five oppose the move.
Survation interviewed 1,081 people online on Friday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763698/You-say-YES-English-votes-English-laws-MoS-poll-shows-fury-handouts-Scots.html#ixzz3DuDzYatD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So English voters don't want to keep giving the Scots so much money, they don't want the Scot's voting on their laws and they do want an English parliament!
Miliband is trying to say that this in not a priority with the voters and is instead trying to control the agenda by using a pledge for an increased minimum wage by 2020.
The backbench Conservatives are going to stop the devolution promised to Scotland in its tracks. After all they only have one Scottish MP and this is going to be play really well with their constituents. Especially with a general election coming up.
0
Comments
Should also standardise all laws and rules/regulations so they apply to everyone in the UK and not have different laws in different parts.
...so you want to abolish Scottish law... a whole legal system that is distinctly different to that of England's.
Good luck with that.
Yes, but the genie is out of the bottle and has been ever since Labour decided that devolution would be best for everyone except the English. Labour had 13 years to sort out the West Lothian Question and they did NOTHING. Well it's all coming home to roost now and they deserve everything they get.
Labour offered the north-east a regional assembly and it was rejected. There didn't seem any point in asking any other regions after that.
Basically yes. As soon as the union was fractured in 1997 the message was clear.
They even said 'devolution is a process not an event' at the time
The inevitable outcome of the process is a complete dissolution of the union... though this might take another generation or so before that is agreed upon.
That may sound subjective as I support such a thing, but I think it's true objectively too.
Both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have unremittingly demanded increased powers since they were set up in 1999... and the more they get the more voracious the appetite for more and more.
It stands to reason. Nations like to govern themselves.
It would also mean abolishing English (and Welsh) law... a whole legal system that is distinctly different to that of Scotland's. Oh, and Northern Irish law. Making a grand total of three legal systems abolished.
I'm in full agreement on the "good luck with that" sentiment, but on the grounds of the sheer practicalities of the exercise. It might be something to work toward over a very long period - unifying new legislation where that can be achieved - but that would probably lead to a legal system that's even more unwieldy than any one of the three we already have.
Unless the law is changed.
pathetic.....just pathetic
as for the topic headline, I think England should have devolution. They deserve to have control over their own economy, laws and services just as much as the other three countries do.
My only concern is that their whole country seems to be pouting at the moment because they think Scotland doesn't like them.....perhaps they should wait a while until some sanity returns before making any hasty decisions they have to live with forever.
Agree totally with this. Now, one may give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and consider that he may honestly have the best interested of England at heart in his haste to implement a constitutional settlement without properly consulting the English people about what sort of constitutional settlement they'd prefer, and not intend to deliver something that might be construed as a stitch-up to make it difficult for a Labour Government to operate effectively; but all the same, it might be better to reach a settlement where those sorts of concerns didn't arise at all. No-one here can speak for all English people, which is why we need a decision that takes into account a wide spectrum of views on the best way to govern England. It can't just come from one party. And since we've already opened that particular Pandora's box, ratification of any decision by national plebiscite wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I think that English representatives in some form should deliberate on those matters. I'm not so sure about having a separate English Grand Committee within the Commons, though.
Majority of 5 got the tuition fees through in 2004's Higher Education Act and 46 of those voting yes where Scottish Labour MPs- the one Tory Scottish MP abstained...so under English votes we'd not be paying tuition fees that have gone to increase three fold.
They should have offered them an assembly with at least the same powers as Wales. What they were actually offered seemed pretty worthless, and it's not surprising it was rejected.
One thing I would like to see is the banning of MPs abstaining on any matter where they don't have a personal interest.I vote for them to make decisions not fudge things so they can tactically support a policy their constituents are against but then claim "well I didn't vote for that"
Labour tried the region/ city devolution route and it failed. The never bothered with an English parliament, they just want to suit themselves. They want to give everyone devolution but the English, because they know it disadvantages them electorally.
The English voters don't think devolution is a priority, but because our leaders promised the Scot's they think they have to honour that pledge and if they do that they must give England a parliament too.
True, but there is no guarantee that English votes would lead to the scrapping of prescription charges.
Then in that case powers need to be split and an English parliament created.
Agreed. The North East was offered a travesty. It is hardly devolution when the proposals entailed centralising power, rather than offering the North East powers currently held by Westminster.
Devolution means enabling different parts of the UK to make their own decisions - that includes spending priorities. Otherwise there's no point in it.
The UK govt could provide free tuition and prescriptions in England if it wanted to, but it chooses not to. Different priorities.