It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
David Cameron has made it clear he wants a decisive answer to the English Question. Plenty of Conservatives have made it clear they favour a system of English votes for English laws.
In other words a solution that builds on and perhaps goes further than the proposals from Kenneth Clarke and Sir William McKay.
It's much more difficult for Labour. The party's chances of getting a majority at Westminster could rest on its Scottish MPs. A solution that prevents MPs from outside England voting on certain issues could make life very difficult for a future Labour government.
Labour has described Mr Cameron's plan as a "knee-jerk reaction".
The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, says it would be "unfair" to leave Westminster out of what he calls the "rewiring" of the British constitution.
But earlier this week, the Lib Dem Treasury Minister Danny Alexander said taking away the voting rights of Scottish MPs wasn't part of the agenda and wasn't going to happen.
originally posted by: stumason
The Labour Government, in 2004, with its 46 Scottish MP's managed to pass it with a slim majority of 5 votes!.
originally posted by: DAZ21
You think not having an English parliament is bad. How much do you think it's going to kick off when Labour win the next general election and we lose our say over an EU referendum.
I hate Labour.
originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
Whilst they might have been happy to let the Scots do so (as I believe they thought it an easy win, despite what happened) they would never allow that to take place.
What is being discussed is "regional parliaments" - this has been tried before and was rejected by the North East where they held the vote. I do not see why the other nations get Home Rule in it's entirety, but England can only get devolution away from Westminster if we split into ill-defined "regions".. To me, that is an awful lot like "balkanisation" of England, or to put it another way, divide and rule....
originally posted by: helldiver
Your words. YOUR country that you are so proud of gets to GIVE powers to Scotland. And you're complaining about what exactly?
originally posted by: helldiver
No law abiding country should be told which powers they can have. Ironic how you claim to fighting for a fairer future and promote democracyreform.co.uk. Your country is in a priviliged and unique position of responsibility to 5.3 million Scots (plus Wales and NI) and you flaunt it like it's a hobby.
originally posted by: helldiver
I stand by my word, you are the worst kind of wind up merchant and you should be ashamed of yourself.
originally posted by: helldiver
Your comments are offensive and disgusting and contradict the ideals you advertise. You verge on the far right.
originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
Whilst they might have been happy to let the Scots do so (as I believe they thought it an easy win, despite what happened) they would never allow that to take place.
What is being discussed is "regional parliaments" - this has been tried before and was rejected by the North East where they held the vote. I do not see why the other nations get Home Rule in it's entirety, but England can only get devolution away from Westminster if we split into ill-defined "regions".. To me, that is an awful lot like "balkanisation" of England, or to put it another way, divide and rule....