XPost: soc.culture.scottish, soc.culture.irish, uk.media.tv.misc
From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK
"JNugent" wrote in message
news:bdednRyAPp5n1e3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> allan connochie wrote:
>
> > "Westprog" wrote:
>
> >>The main posts of government would continue to apply to the entire
> >>country.
>
> > Ah but that is what is being questioned. In a BBC poll over 50% thought
it
> > was wrong for a Scottish MP to be Prime Minister.
>
> That is entirely different, and nothing to do with the need for an English
> national Parliament.
No but it's all to do with the West Lothian question and of course all these
things are inter-related.
>There is a feeling among certain of the English that
the
> Scots are dominating the national government - and it isn't necessarily
> unfounded. How many people live in Scotland? About 6 million? How many in
> England? About 50 million? Given that, you'd reasonably expect that about
1 in
> 10 of the cabinet would be Scottish. It's more than that, I'm sure. Now
there's
> not even anything necessarily wrong with that - it is possible that
Scottish
> Labour MPs are the brightest they've got. But it's bad news for Gordon
> "Britishness" Brown, who must see that 58% figure as a serious problem
(hence
> his current ludicrous efforts to appear less Scottish and more "British").
Of course you are right it doesn't work like that and cabinet places
shouldn't be given out by post-code. However there are 356 Labour MPs of
which about 41 represent Scottish constituences. Hence statistically once
rounded up you'd expect around 12% of the cabinet posts to be filled by
members from Scottish Labour constituencies. So of the 26 main cabinet
places youd expect there to be either 3 or 4 from Scottish consituencies.
There are in fact 5 hence there is only one more cabinet member from a
Scottish constituency than statistics suggest there should be. Hardly major
over-representation.
In the first Blair administration Scots were far more prevalent. However
with the advent of devolution there may have been a deliberate scaling down,
or perhaps there have just been better candidates from English
constituencies? All in all though cabinet members are picked on merit so
even if there was significant over-representation, which there isn't, then
it would be a numerical statistic only and not relevant. As part of the
devolution settlement there has been an official scaling down of Scottish
constituencies though and there is no longer over-representation there.
I agree the 58% figure is serious for Brown. In fact it is serious in that
shows the lack of the information given to the English electorate as to what
devolution is about.
>
> > There have been serious
> > grumblings over John Reid's new position at the Home Office. I'm all for
> > English devolution but it has to be that...........English devolution!
>
> Absolutely right.
>
> BTW: The disquiet about Read/Reid {sp?} is similar to the disquiet about
English
> Welsh Secretaries under John Major. None of Read/Reid's powers extend to
his own
> constituents.
That is simply not correct though. He runs the Home Office and of course it
deals with amongst other things immigration and internal security. His last
post as Health Secretary had sections of the English media crying foul and
claiming that none of his remit extended to Scotland. Again this was
incorrect as significant and controversial aspects of health legislation are
reserved to Westminster. I think that one of the good things about the idea
of a referendum to see whether the English public want a parliament or not
would be that devolution would be better explained to the English public.
>
> > As long as the union is in place then you
> > can't turn non-English Westminster MPs into second class MPs. People
should
> > obtain positions in the UK government based on merit and not on what
part of
> > the UK they come from.
>
> Quite right.
>
> But England (the whole country, not some neutered system of "regions")
needs a
> Parliament. It need not even be sited in London. Winchester would be a
place
> with a good ancient claim. So would York or Lancaster.
Despite our differences on the wider question I agree with you. Labour's
intention was to devolve powers to the various regions but it seems pretty
clear that there is little support for that. They should give the English
public a referendum on whether to have a parliament or not. They would then
be able to decide if the anomalies at Westminster warrant such a
constitutional change.
cheers
Allan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
