......when it's devolution affecting England? ...now that could be good for England and the English. Afterall, the majority of us know that devolution has brought (some) good to Scotland. So why not devolution and progress for England?
.......but if the proposed changes have a detrimental effect on future labour governments?..now that could be very bad for democracy in the UK.
You see, I'm kind of fond of democracy. I tried martial law, and it didn't work; honestly.
And coups, and counter coups are bloody. Trust me, they are.
So the counter balance of going out to vote, and getting that indelible ink on my hand really did mean something then for me in Pakistan, East Pakistan - prior to the revolution - <not devolution> and Bangladesh.
For me, democracy is special, especially the form I was born into: expecting to be able to vote.
Not having to fight for it, or get inked in the process.
Just turning up and voting, as my parents and grandparents did in Edinburgh. Something I took for granted and expected to do when I 'grew up'.
Sure, I'm not forgetting my granny: that sweet old woman sitting, knitting in the corner in Dewar Place. And how her knitting needles would gain speed when politicians of a certain ilk spoke on the 'wireless' and how she then taught me 'history'.
Her history...and not having the vote in her early years.
Hers and my family's history of voting labour, proudly, and unquestionably, all their voting lives.
'How quaint', 'how old-fashioned' I thought.
My patronising has to be put down to the fact I was very small at the time, and my reading material did not include manifestos, and snap shots of parliamentary papers.
It was mainly confined to the Dandy, Beano and the Sunday Post. Though occasionally, my granny did succumb to The Peoples Friend, and I would turn the pages with with great expectations http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/
But back to democracy and the bringing in of changes to democracy should surely be something up front, debated, questioned, thrashed about, and voted on.
No, I'm not banging on about the referendum in Scotland!
I'm talking about the the distortion of the Mackay Commission published March 2013, and a lack of debate about potential forthcoming changes in Parliament, London, that isn't at all democratic.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130403030652/http://tmc.independent.gov.uk/
We know the myth that the West Lothian question was all down to Tam Dalyell MP
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/features/interview-tam-dalyell-former-mp-and-author-of-the-importance-of-being-awkward-1-2467770
that great father of the House. Actually, he just fine focussed it after Gladstone raised the question (in 1886) posed by the potential of Irish Home Rule.
Gladstone's questioning, obviously never answered in his life time, was posed with the view of establishing that Irish Home Rule would lead to Irish MPs not voting in the Westinster Parliament on Scottish and English issues.
So the Mackay Commission looked at the question all over again.
And acknowledged the evidence presented: namely that people in England are unhappy, resentful even, with the current process whereby MPs with constituencies in Scotland with its separate Parliament, can vote on English-Welsh issues that do not affect their constituents in Scotland.
But Mackay said:
"Under the Commission’s recommendations, no MPs would be prevented from voting on any bill, and the right of the House as a whole to make final decisions would be preserved. However, there would also be scope for additional roles for MPs from England (or England-and-Wales)."
Sir William McKay said:[8]
"Our proposals retain the right of a UK-wide majority to make the final decisions where they believe UK interests or those of a part of the UK other than England should prevail. We expect that governments will prefer compromise to conflict."
But the UK government is rejecting this and in effect, appears to be planning to bring in legislation allowing for a fourth reading of Bills affecting only England & Wales whereby only MPs with an English - Welsh constituency could vote on that relevant legislation.
Now, on the face of it, this might appear a v.g tick box for England-Wales.
But if you consider that Labour has a very large proportion (if not a down right majority) of its MPs from outwith England, the ramifications are pretty obvious.
Any future Labour government could not expect to deliver its political-legislative agenda with a narrow majority, if voting patterns remain the same, i.e. a high proportion of Labour MPs having non- English constituencies.
A Labour government would always have its Bills voted down by a majority of opposition MPs, combining from across the remainder of the UK.
Are the toom-tabard Lib Dems going along with this hoping to ensure they will always form either the rump of a coalition government, or at least play a Bill-supporting-passing role?
The Tory party are not doing it exclusively to appeal to English voters or to appease UKIP in the short term, i.e at the next general election.
It's a direct assault on the Labour party and its ability to challenge and win UK power in the future.
It's a direct route in increasing Tory control in the UK parliament by something other that first past the post voting.
But if this does come about, what would happen to Scotland & the Labour MPs we vote in to represent us in the UK parliament?
How effective would they be for the UK as a whole, and for us in Scotland as part of the UK?
Would they actually be 'full time' politicians-MPs?
Some MPs voting (i.e with an English-Welsh constituency)
Some not voting(i.e with a Scottish constituency)
Excuse me...isn't this some form of two tier system?
Would the Labour party ever put a MP with a Scottish constituency in as a Minister?
He/she could not ultimately vote on his/her Bill, so why put that person in that role to begin with?
Would the Labour party ever elect a Scottish MP/ a MP with a Scottish constituency in as leader, a future PM?
A PM that can't vote?
Now that is sneaky!
No comments:
Post a Comment