 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Being looked at again. Any answers?
The Scots clearly have excessive influence. Does this favour a nation who sometimes seem to dislike England - but not quite enough to become independent and stop being subsidised under the current formula?
Nowt against the Scots btw. I had 6 very happy months in Edinburgh and Inverness, and hope they stay part of the UK.
the issue really is why the tories are not elected in Scotland?
If they had policies that appealed to Scottish voters so that the proportion of tory mp's from there matched more closely England there wouldn;t be a problem would there? It's the different proportion of labour v tory v snp v etc that's the issue?
The Scots clearly have excessive influence.
In what respect?
Did anyone raise this when parliament was mainly full of English MPs?
Whilst it is obvious form your tone that you have nowt against scots I was just wondering if some of your best friends are black ?
The North of England don't for Tory MP's either, but nobody debates that. And we get much less funding than our unruly blue-tinged counterparts north of the border. Can we be semi-autonomous too please?
*runs off to write the academic paper "The Barnsley Question" *
[b]wwaswas[/b] Partly
More that Scots MPs including SNP, can vote on matters which do not effect Scotland one bit, whilst English MPs cannot vote in matters dealt with by the Scottish Parliament.
[b]junkyard[/b] I live in a boringly non-multicultural bit of the southeast - so I have Scots friends, and no black ones. This is actually a national news item today - hence raising it. ok?
Where's TJ? He's slacking. He'll be along shortly to tell us about the rivers of black gold running beneath the celtic tiger/panther/ginger tom that will fund the emerging socialist utopia 😉
[i]More that Scots MPs including SNP, can vote on matters which do not effect Scotland one bit, whilst English MPs cannot vote in matters dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. [/i]
but English MP's voted to make this the case?
The Poll Tax was voted into Scotland ny a majority of Westminster MPs, many of whom subsequently voted against it I'm for their own English constituencies.
Truth is, the UK is a dying institution. Rather than focus on patching up perceived injustices and going through a ling, painful and bitter "divorce" it would better to settle for an amicable separation.
The Barnsley Question"
if it is not about gay muslamic swans then you are due a kicking
and YORKSHIRE FFS what were you thinking about
hence raising it. ok?
raising it is fine but whilst wishing them to stay part of the uk you dedicate much of your post to petty digs and snidey insults. Is this likely to make them see the English as nice or win them over to stay? A self defeating modus operandi.
FWIW, the SNP have a policy of NOT voting on purely English matters. As regards the other parties, they are all led by Englishmen and they could adopt the SNP policy if they so wished.
Truth is, the UK is a dying institution. Rather than focus on patching up perceived injustices and going through a ling, painful and bitter "divorce" it would better to settle for an amicable separation.
I reckon you're probably right - and then Scotland will be free to properly be a part of the 'arc of prosperity' 😛
I was grasping for stereotypes. And Barnsley just [i]sounds[/i] like the most northern place ever. And I've never been there but I imagine its simply frightful!
Anyway, we're so wonderfully cosmopolitan in Lancashire nowadays, don't you know? Whereas over the border they still eat their own young 😉
I thought Barnsley was being transformed into a 'walled Tuscan hill town'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3000474.stm
[i]over the border they still eat their own young[/i]
that's Cheshire for you...
The thing I don't understand is that if Scotland really does take a net subsidy from England, why are the Tory politicians so keen to keep the Union? Surely they'd rather Scotland left the Union, stopped taking the 'subsidy', allowing them to give the fat cats in the 'city' bigger tax breaks.
Seems counter intuitive to me, suggesting that the net subsidy might actually be the other way round.
On the topic of the OP though - I thought Scottish MPs agreed to not vote in matters which didn't affect Scotland? The number of Scots in poerful government roles might be the same reason there are so many Scottish managers of premiership football teams. The nature of life up here seems to engender a certain straight-talking, tough-skinned, take-no-p!sh approach to management and leadership.
[b]Junkyard[/b] nice try. whatever 😉 Which one of the following three statements is innaccurate and a petty dig?
The Barnett formula does give more to Scotland that England - but Government spending on London is almost as high. We get screwed in the South East though.
Last opinion polls I saw said that an independence vote in Scotland would not currently succeed.
Scots MPs can and do vote on all England specific issues when English MPs cannot vote on some Scotland specific issues. The SNP stance is noble.
Druidh may be right. The UK is a weird historical construct. But the current Government is looking for an answer - and I cannot see one other than independence, or a different kind of limited-power MP for Scotland and Wales. Doubt whether anything will encourage more Tory voters 😀
The nature of life up here seems to engender a certain straight-talking, tough-skinned, take-no-p!sh approach to management and leadership.
Like Fred Goodwin at RBS for example?
or Tommy Sheridan?
The thing I don't understand is that if Scotland really does take a net subsidy from England, why are the Tory politicians so keen to keep the Union? Surely they'd rather Scotland left the Union, stopped taking the 'subsidy', allowing them to give the fat cats in the 'city' bigger tax breaks.
It's in their DNA, their proper name is the "Conservative and Unionist Party"
Junkyard nice try. whatever
yes you are right your tone is superb and is borne from respect and love I see that now.
Which one of the following three statements is innaccurate and a petty dig?
I did not comment on those statements you gave in response to my post mainly due to the constraints of my temporal existence and linear time. Nice try at moving the goal posts though.
By not mentioning excessive infuluence are you retracting it or forgetful 😉
The right to vote on English stuff [i]is[/i] excessive influence. ok? 😉
don't suppose you are going to address the issue? The Norman Hunter of debate.
tbh I only debate when there is a point to the debate and not merely for the sport of it.
As I said your view is clear from your opening post.
West Lothian question is hardly some riddle of the ages. It could be easily answered: by convention or by legislation, MPs representing Scottish constituencies should not vote on matters which are devolved to the Scottish parliament.
The Barnett formula does give more to Scotland that England - but Government spending on London is almost as high. We get screwed in the South East though.
How is the amount of tax paid allocated to a certain place? For instance, Tesco collects a vast amount of VAT every year. Does that revenue count as being generated in the SE because their HQ is in Amersham? If so, that's a little misleading, isn't it?
The thing I don't understand is that if Scotland really does take a net subsidy from England, why are the Tory politicians so keen to keep the Union? Surely they'd rather Scotland left the Union, stopped taking the 'subsidy', allowing them to give the fat cats in the 'city' bigger tax breaks.Seems counter intuitive to me, suggesting that the net subsidy might actually be the other way round.
Northern Ireland certainly takes a net subsidy from "the mainland" but the Tories want to keep that too. It may be one of their few genuine principles!
druidh - MemberTruth is, the UK is a dying institution. Rather than focus on patching up perceived injustices and going through a ling, painful and bitter "divorce" it would better to settle for an amicable separation.
Funny how Salmond doesn't call 'the referendum' now he has an overall majority and a clear mandate despite his proclamations of 'already having a plan of implementation' 😆
I'm also interested in what will be the definition of 'A Scot' currently only a matter of residency isn't it ?
The Scots clearly have excessive influence.
There are 650 MPs in westminster of which 533 (that's 82%) represent English constiuancies, 59 (that's 9%) represent scottish contituancies. To say that they have excessive influence seriously overstates the case. Additionally it is not those 59 MPs that vote on devolved matters it is members of the Scottish Parliament, and there are actually Tories there, that vote on such matters.
I'm not saying that the west lothian question isn't an issue or that it is shouldn't be resolved, it's just not as big of an issue as some people make it.
Despite the claims to the contrary, Stoat; you do come across as if you have an axe to grind. As has been pointed out....Still you lived here for 6 months,did you see much evidence of our obviously "excessive" influence in Westminster allowing us to live off the fat of the land?
[b]Junkyard[/b] I think there is a problem for the reasons encapsulated in those three statements - and I don't know the answer. I'd be interested if you have a view.
This is a leading newstory today on the BBC. The Government is looking for one to the non-funding aspects. That is my reason for starting this thread. But you are choosing to play the man not the ball. It would be nice if you discussed the topic, but I'm not over-optimistic.
[b]Duckman[/b] perhaps I [i]should[/i] want to grind an axe? But I don't. And my time in Scotland was way before the current political arrangements. There does seem to be a democratic deficit though. Would we let the French vote on UK specific matters if the favour was not returned?
If your time in Scotland was way before the current political arrangements then it would have been when we were trying to rebuild after having our manufacturing gutted. An example of how you are way off when referring to "excessive" Scottish influence. As to the favour not being returned, you have heard of crown affairs? With regards the French, kind of different isn't it? We are one country with slightly devolved powers.Maybe that is because you didn't threaten them with trade embargos and taxation if they didn't agree to a union. Nor can I recall any of their nobility being paid to promote said "rough wooing"
In truth,I am unsure what this democratic deficit is that you refer to? perhaps it only exists in your own head.
Duckman perhaps I should want to grind an axe?
Ahhh, we got there in the end.
So English manafacturing wasn't gutted? We had shipyards and steelworks and mines too.
Interesting to see you bring up the ancient history side of things. Who bears the grudge/grinds the axe here? 😉
And Tam Dalyell thought there was a democractic problem. Was he wrong?
But you are choosing to play the man not the ball. It would be nice if you discussed the topic, but I'm not over-optimistic.
OH THE IRONING
And Tam Dalyell thought there was a democractic problem. Was he wrong?
No.
Is it a significant problem in practice.
No.
This isnt (or shouldn't be) a Scotland v England question. The point is that England usually votes Tory yet gets Labour governments which need the votes of their Scots MPs to get their programmes for health and education through. You can argue whether you like the policy or not but that isnt really the point. For all the anti-English feeling you still sometimes get in Scotland the English are a pretty placid bunch, they ought to be furious about this but really aren't.
And Scots have always done well in England, politics, medicine, business, the military......your welcome.
The point is that England usually votes Tory yet gets Labour governments which need the votes of their Scots MPs to get their programmes for health and education through
Sorry that's just wrong. Every Labour government there has ever been, infact every non-coalition government, has held and overall majority of MPs in England. There has never been a single case of a govenrnment with an outright majority being elected to westminster where the balance has been held by MPs from Scotland.
You sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_1974_(February)
Edit: You might be right by the way but I dont think you are.
As you have been told many times the money flows from scotland to England. This is the fact borne out time and time again.
the other fact is that the barnett formula means that each year Scotland gets a smaller and smaller share of the UK government spending. Also many things have been removed from the figures - scotland is supposed to get a % of the UK spend - but somehow olympic spending, crossrail, etc do not count as English spending.
So stoatsbrother - I know this is a troll but you really need to look up some facts. Scotland exports money and energy to england and puts more into the UK pot than it gets out.
Scotlands economy is actually in surplus at the moment - positive balance of payments.
As you have been told many times
Listen to the school milk-monitor. And he wonders why he gets stick....
.....and whats all that got to do with the West Lothian Question?
Be quiet!
(He's got me at it now)
gonfishin is right I believe - some labour governments would have been weak without the scots MPs but they would still have been able to form a government.
Scotland has not voted for a tory government for 50+ years.
The tories in Scotland are a small irrelevant party. 1 mp. a dozen MSPs and around 10% of the vote - likely to be even less in future.
SNP are the biggest, followed by labour with the tories, lib dems and greens fighting for a distant third.
Of course the tories want to keep Scotland - its bankrolling England. Thatchers "economic miracle" was based on spending the oil revenue as current spending. what a waste.
The west lothian question is unanswerable really. Teh thing is that all decisions at Westminster affect Scotland due to the barnett formula - spending decisions in England alter what Scotland gets.
Well stoatsbrother came in with that old canard of Scotland taking subsidy. its london that takes the subsidy - scotland provides the money.
I am quite aware of why I get stick - you little tories cannot take the truth. It upsets you to be challenged on your predjudicves
Edit: You might be right by the way but I dont think you are.
That election was a hung parliament so didn't produce an outright majority, which was part of the point I made. In 1974 there was no such thing as the west lothian question though as there was no devolution.
Think TJ has it right. There are so few things that are England only due to the Barnett formula that it would be very difficult to separate them out.
Why not just have an English parliament and devolve all powers to Scotland (and Wales if they want them) and we can remain the Union in all but name.
As mentioned earlier the West Lothian question is a lot more important when unpopular measures get voted through due to the Scots MPs supporting the main party, but as that isn't the case at the moment, I don't see why its being brought up as a big deal at the moment?
is a lot more important when unpopular measures get voted through due to the Scots MPs supporting the main party,
But this has never happened.
But this has never happened.
I'd be careful making that claim for individual votes in westminster unless you really can back it up. I know that I for one would rather watch paint dry than count up the individual votes of MPs on every piece of legilsation.
~Fair enough - but I think its true - even the close votes during the end of the blair years would still have been won without the scots votes
[b]TJ[/b] A few things
1) This isn't a troll. It is a news story today. Check the BBC.
2) I am not a Tory. Never have been.
3) I said in one post London does as nearly well as Scotland on funding.
4) I thought [b]TJ[/b] you were English but in Scotland? So it would be a funny way to have a go at you... Sorry if I had this wrong.
Personally, I'd like to see an independent Scotland, not in the "let's just get rid of that troublesome bunch" way I have sometimes felt about the Northern Irish, but because an independent Scotland seems to make geographical and historical and political sense.
What do you think? Why don't the Scots want to be independent?
Stoatsbrother - we are at cross purposes again - my crack was at McBoo. I didn't think you were having a go at me but McBoo was clearly. However you did say that old canard about the subsidy - and its irritating as its not true.
I am a brit of english descent and Scotland is my home. Its nearly as complex as the west lothian question
I don't really understand why the polls show a majority against independence
“Only three people...have ever really understood the west lothian business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."
The solution is so simple that it's absurd that people still argue about it. The question isn't "Why should scottish MPs have influence over English only matters"- it's "Why are we debating English only matters in the UK parliament."
It's in the hands of the English to resolve their regional problem if they choose, it's not up to the Scots to change how they vote in our national parliament.
Devolve or STFU.
an independent Scotland seems to make geographical and historical and political sense. What do you think?
"Historical sense" - meh.
Why don't the Scots want to be independent?
Because devolution has seen some truly spectacular failures and incredible amateurism at Holyrood, as well as some reasonable successes.
The west lothian question is unanswerable really.
It's one of the most easily answered constitutional questions there is, to the point that it may not even be a question but an item on the "should do but politically inconvenient" list.
I don't really understand why the polls show a majority against independence
a guess: the majority of people in scotland don't want it?
just a guess...
as for
when do we reclaim northern france then?historical sense
To say that there is no Westminster influence over the Scottish Parliament seems to be overstating it a bit, or at least it did until the last bout of Scottish elections.
The last Labour administration in Scotland was completely controlled by the Westminster party. Some would claim that to be one of the reasons why they turned out to be somewhat unpopular.
All for a complete separtion of voting power from england, however scotland should be given autonomy to decide our own fate in all matters too..independence if you will... 🙂
I don't really understand why the polls show a majority against independence
I think people are generally frightened by wholesale change. If there ever is a referendum on independence then I think people will be influenced strongly by horror stories from the anti-independence camp.
when do we reclaim northern france then?
Surely the question would be "when does Northern France reclaim England"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England
I don't really understand why the polls show a majority against independence
Amen Brother.
Give it time...