English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

My human rights are being infringed- my MP, who in essence represents me, can't vote on many issues debated in the Scottish Assembly, but a Scottish MP can vote on matters parochial to England. Constitutionally, how can this ridiculous situation be justified?

2006-09-18 02:29:28 · 6 answers · asked by melkin 2 in Politics & Government Politics

6 answers

you have a vote and a voice challenge your mp.

2006-09-18 02:39:21 · answer #1 · answered by joseph m 4 · 0 1

This has only been the case since the setting up of the Scottish Assembly. Prior to that Scottish matters would have been decided by a Scottish Grand Committee (which could have English MP's representing Scottish constituencies on it).
Why all the fuss, London has been deciding the future of the Scots for almost 300 years.
If you want to decide on your own matters set up an English parliament, have your independence. Just give us back our oil.

2006-09-18 07:48:32 · answer #2 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0 0

We don't really have a constitution. The monarch is the constitution in a constitutional monarchy. The ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, by our very own Human Rights Act - was supposed to change that. But so far we don't have a Commission to enforce that Act of parliament. We have a Commission to enforce the disability Rights Act the DRC - and they only do what the government wants - bring cases involving WORK. Never cases of maladministration and discrimination by the government, national and local - who are the worse offenders and their paper pushing bureaucrats. We should empty the House of Lords and make room for an English parliament. The Commons can be cut down to 500 MP's to run Britain and Northern Ireland can do what the hell it likes - just leave us out of it.

2006-09-18 02:40:25 · answer #3 · answered by Mike10613 6 · 0 0

Bob, Scotland doesn't own that oil. For a start, much of the North Sea oil is off Northern England, and secondly, none of it is owned by Scottish companies.

Anyway, I find the 'England used to have control of Scotland' argument completely irrelevant. That doesn't make it fair or right, it's a rubbish argument on all fronts.
England and the English are being discriminated against. Did you know that Tony Blair said 'there is no such country as England' while he supports Scotland and Wales. We are being unfairly represented.
Personally, I dislike devolution and think the Scots should have their 'Parliament' taken away, but failing that we should have one too.

2006-09-18 08:18:56 · answer #4 · answered by AndyB 5 · 0 0

You are right in saying it is a ridiculous situation, and it can't be justified.

I do see a crisis constitutionally in the near future, probably to be started by a legal action after a new law is passed that effects one part of the nation adversly but not another.

The main ways around this will be to either split the nations permanently in matters of internal law and keep them tied through defence and foreign policy, rescind the non-London parliaments and bring the status quo back or finally split proper, however the defence implications of the last are frightening, i don't see another Kosovo but it wouldn't be good.

2006-09-18 03:07:05 · answer #5 · answered by The Pirate Captain 3 · 0 0

It can't. People are increasingly waking up to this fact.

2006-09-18 02:47:53 · answer #6 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers