They don’t, and neither do Scottish MPs.

The concern more is the precedent set – once you accept the principle that all MPs are equal but some are more equal than others

But therein lies the question that has laid unresolved for forty years, and was delibaretly buried during devolution because it clearly worked in favour of the incumbents.

For how long will English constituencies and English hon. Members tolerate 123 not just 71 Scots, 36 Welsh and a number of Ulstermen but at least 119 hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Ireland? Such a situation cannot conceivably endure for long.

We already have two classes of MP – this is merely a step in the direction of rectifying that disparity.

teamhurtmore – Member

..Still looking forward to being up next weekend!

Try not to run over any of our rabids. 🙂

This whole debate is straight out of Orwell. Some pigs etc…

(except Davie’s pig, it got screwed)

We already have two classes of MP

Half truth – so an improvement on what you normally say 😉
All MPs there could vote on all issues there no MP was unable to vote on any issue.
No scottish or welsh or Irish MP could vote on an only their issueas they were voted in a different chamber
The MPs were equal but the West lothian issue was real
This action alone has created two classes of Mp’s

The issue needs resolving this is the cheapest solution and everything else about it is terrible

athgray – Member

The decision of Scottish universities to charge students is not made at Westminster but At Holyrood.

Eh, no. English students are funded by Student Finance England. The decisions to impose and then to increase fees were all made at Westminster.

Of course, Scotland could unilaterally choose to support english students at scotland’s cost. But why, if England won’t? Should we pay for English students studying in England too? What other English services do you think Scotland be paying for?

If you’re unhappy about Westminster imposing tuition fees, take it up with them.

scotroutes – Member

(b) The close geographic and cultural ties make it easy for English students to study in Scotland so the policy difference can make it harder for Scots students to find places.

Not really; The SFC funds places for scottish students on a use-em-or-lose-em basis via the outcome agreeements so even the more in-demand unis like us still want to fill every place that we can with scottish students. We overshoot most years- conversion is an art not a science and we’d rather have to fund a few scottish students ourselves, than fail to fill the places- and the same’s true across the industry, I’ve not seen more recent numbers but in 13-14 every scottish funded place was taken, and more. (it’s something like 125000 core places funded, plus an extra 5000 targeted additional funded places, and 140000 filled)

Basically, the 2 groups of students don’t directly compete for places. The major difference is that scottish recruitment is essentially capped by funded places whereas rest-of-world recruitment is essentially capped by the number of seats remaining after that, and the number of quality applicants. This leads to some pretty odd situations tbf but it absolutely does not mean that English students take places from Scottish.

They don’t, and neither do Scottish MPs.

care to clarify that point aracer?

Is it really not obvious where decisions on Scottish matters are made?

Is it really not obvious where decisions on Scottish matters are made?

Aye, Westminster.

You appear to be wasting a lot of money on something useless then.

Scotland Act – I agree that a lot of our money is being wasted on laws that we don’t want and didnt vote for.

aracer – Member
You appear to be wasting a lot of money on something useless then.

Luckily there is a solution to that. 🙂

Which as discussed up-thread is about devolution, hence a whole UK constitutional matter (in the same way EVEL is).

You see those English only laws which English MPs get a veto on – which epi was declaring as being unfair because English MPs vote on “Scottish matters”. Such comments are hugely ironic, because in fact any “Scottish matters” equivalent to those which English MPs get a veto on, English MPs don’t get to vote on at all; whilst Scottish MPs still do still get a vote on those English matters.

I thnk the word you’re looking for is dissolution.

You’re suggesting that MSPs are dissolute?

You see those English only laws which English MPs get a veto on – which epi was declaring as being unfair because English MPs vote on “Scottish matters”. Such comments are hugely ironic, because in fact any “Scottish matters” equivalent to those which English MPs get a veto on, English MPs don’t get to vote on at all; whilst Scottish MPs still do get a vote on those English matters.

Give some examples.

Air Weapons and Licensing
Mental Health
Prisoners (Control of Release)
Community Empowerment
Welfare Funds
Legal Writings (Counterparts and Delivery)
Community Charge Debt

Can you expand on the mental health and welfare fund legislation?

No, not really. There’s a longer list here if it helps

OK let’s go for the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 – Would you agree that the only reason this legislation is needed is to provide emergency funds that are required due to welfare legislation that was brought in by Westminster? Or as Mhairi Black puts it, it’s only there because the Welfare State is failing?

I’ve no idea. You were after examples, and I provided examples of devolved legislation. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

Northwind – Member
it absolutely does not mean that English students take places from Scottish.

Cheers.

I was really trying to give an example of how legislation in England could impact Scotland. Do the other points stand?

I’ve no idea. You were after examples, and I provided examples of devolved legislation. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point is very relevant to the discussion. Do you think that the Scottish Government would have brought the legislation in if there was no shortfall in welfare from Westminster? Doesn’t seem like the Scottish Government has a free choice in the legislation that it is on occassion forced to introduce.

So you’re telling me that Scottish MPs didn’t get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster, and then English MPs went up to the Scottish parliament and forced them to legislate? Why haven’t I heard about this before? Yet more anti-Scottish bias in the press no doubt – what a scandalous abuse of democracy.

Then to rub salt into the wounds, if they decide to bring in a similar Welfare Funds bill in England, which wouldn’t apply to Scotland at all, this new EVEL system means that English MPs might veto it before Scottish MPs get to vote on it.

Don’t worry aracer. None of those complicated situations will exist to bother you once we’re independent. 🙂

EVEL can only apply if a bill is within Holyrood’s legislative competence. So it is strictly for things that Westminster cannot pass for Scotland and which Holyrood could.

So you’re telling me that Scottish MPs didn’t get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster,

56 out of 59 MPs voted against it, but it was still forced through.

The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 places the Scottish Welfare Fund into law. The Act provides certainty to stakeholders that local welfare provision will continue in Scotland following the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Act places a duty on local authorities to deliver the welfare funds, in line with regulations and guidance that will be issued by Scottish Ministers. Local authorities have been delivering the fund on an interim basis, under a voluntary agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA, since April 2013….

… The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent on Wednesday 08 April 2015, becoming the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015.

So – Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation – in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

Democracy, TZF

Democracy, TZF

Aye right.

So – Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation – in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

You missed my point completely.

As I wrote earlier, you’ll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

As I wrote earlier, you’ll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

You keep referring to the people of the Borders voting against whatever. Can you tell me where the Border’s borders are and what specifically they voted against?

aracer – Member
As I wrote earlier, you’ll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

A lot happier than the sort of democracy which puts nuclear weapons in our backyard despite an almost total wipeout of the parties that support it in Scotland. 56 out 59 constituencies.

I’d be quite happy to take the nukes out of scotland – Plymouth could do with the employment

Gosh this is hard work.

Scottish Borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Borders
They voted against “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/S12000026

Given that the Scottish Borders does not match up to any constituency boundaries it is impossible to tell if the majority of peope who live there voted no, or not.

What are you on about? I just gave the link to how they voted in the referendum.

The information is also here if you have a problem with the BBC being an anti-Scotland organisation
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/Scottish_Independence_Referendum_2014_Results.pdf

Aye, but what you’re not getting is that what your link calls the Scottish Borders probably isn’t what actually is the Scottish Borders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results

I might be wrong, but I thing the split by area for the referendum was by region and not constituency boundary. This link shows 66.56% support for the UK in the Borders.

It was split across council boundaries. They dont match the actual boundaries all that closely.