Should Scottish MPs be PM?

[Colr]

From Herald:-

Anti-Scottish bias could crush the ambitions of both Brown and Reid

WITH Gordon Brown and John Reid tipped to be the main contenders to fight for the post-Blair crown, Labour could face an uphill struggle when it comes to the next general election, a new poll has revealed.
Both men are Scots with Scottish constituencies and, according to a BBC survey published today, being an MP north of the Border could damage their chances of remaining Prime Minister .

According to the ICM poll for the BBC’s Politics Show, broadcast today, 52% of people asked said they thought it “wrong” that in the era of the Scottish parliament a Scot should become Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom, 45% said they did not mind and 3% said they did not know.

The Scots, of course, did not mind at all, with 75% of those polled believing it right that a Scottish MP should be elected to Britain’s top political job.

But what will most worry the Labour Party – and be music to the ears of the Tories – were the poll results from the southeast and north of England as well as Wales. An estimated 59% of southeast England voters thought it wrong that a Scottish MP should be PM. The equivalent figures for the north of England and Wales were 54% and 55% respectively. Brown and his advisers have long known the inherent prejudice that the BBC poll reveals. The Chancellor’s recent speeches on the importance of “Britishness” are said to have been designed to mask his own Scottishness in a Britain where devolved powers mean that the Prime Minister – if he is a Scottish MP – will be trying to form policies at Westminster that will not necessarily apply to Scotland.

Tam Dalyell, the politician who first posed the West Lothian Question, said: “Until recently I would have said Gordon Brown was such a substantial political figure he could over-ride this prejudice. But English colleagues at Westminster had to swallow the introduction of foundation hospitals, which John Reid as health secretary, helped push through, and this stuck in their gullet. This was followed by the issue of student fees.”

One English MP said: “We have pretended this doesn’t exist and will not be an issue at the next general election. But this poll shows it does exist and it is an issue which is obviously concerning the Labour Party more than it does the Tories.

“David Cameron [the Conservative leader] may have a Scottish name and Scottish ancestry, but he is an English MP. He clearly starts with an advantage that neither Gordon Brown nor John Reid enjoys.”



Disgraceful headline but the article highlights a real concern over the West Lothian question arising from the existance of the SP. Actually, could extend to any ministerial post where a politician is implementing policy which doesn't relate to his own constituency.

Labour unionists have been hoist by their own petard here.

If Scottish politicians want the big jobs they will have to find English constituencies leaving the Scottish constituencies with poorer representation.

[Hampden_Hibby]

While Westminster retains powers that directly affect Scotland we have every right to play our full part in that London shithole. Any southerner who fancies stopping us better be good.

It's only temporary anyway, once Scotland finds the courage to make decisions on all matters rather than some then we can turn out the light, lock the door and throw the keys to John Bull. It's all yours squire. Taxi to Heathrow.

Saor Alba!

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Hampden_Hibby

While Westminster retains powers that directly affect Scotland we have every right to play our full part in that London shithole. Any southerner who fancies stopping us better be good.

It's only temporary anyway, once Scotland finds the courage to make decisions on all matters rather than some then we can turn out the light, lock the door and throw the keys to John Bull. It's all yours squire. Taxi to Heathrow.

Saor Alba!

Aye, but the arguement is that Scottish MPs should only be involved in ussue which affect the UK as a whole.

The option to vote for an indepence party has been available for some decades now. They may benefit from Scotland being pushed out of the Union from the south as well
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PILTONSTANY]

Originally Posted by Colr

Aye, but the arguement is that Scottish MPs should only be involved in ussue which affect the UK as a whole.

The option to vote for an indepence party has been available for some decades now. They may benefit from Scotland being pushed out of the Union from the south as well
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They can't have it both ways,We're either part of the UK government and be involved in decisions that government makes or we're not.If not let us go our own way or more precisely let us vote and see if this country has the bottle to go independant.

[Hampden_Hibby]

Originally Posted by Colr

Aye, but the arguement is that Scottish MPs should only be involved in ussue which affect the UK as a whole.

The option to vote for an indepence party has been available for some decades now. They may benefit from Scotland being pushed out of the Union from the south as well
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Certainly Westminster repealing the 1707 Act of Union would save us a lot of time and bother. There is a precedent with the partial repeal of the 1800 Act of Union when the Irish Free State was set up in 1922 albeit under vastly different circumstances.

Of course the act would have to be repealed if a good old English nationalist party demanding political independence from the rest of the home countries was to do the business at the ballot boxes. This is an argument often forgotten when the unionist within Scotland gleefully rub his hands crowing that the SNP will never achieve its' aims. They forget that in a marriage any one of the two can ask for a divorce.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by PILTONSTANY

They can't have it both ways,We're either part of the UK government and be involved in decisions that government makes or we're not.If not let us go our own way or more precisely let us vote and see if this country has the bottle to go independant.

Well, it clearly hasn't or they would have voted for it!!!

Problem with the current situation is that it is an attempt for Scotland to have it both ways. You're either in or your out.

[PILTONSTANY]

Originally Posted by Colr

Well, it clearly hasn't or they would have voted for it!!!

Problem with the current situation is that it is an attempt for Scotland to have it both ways. You're either in or your out.

I think folk haven't voted for the SNP because they've lost their way big time.
I'm meaning having a referendum on independence then if the majority voted for,having elections to see who would govern the country.
I agree though we should either be in or out,out being my personal preference.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by PILTONSTANY

I think folk haven't voted for the SNP because they've lost their way big time.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? It seems to me that Scots have had an opportunity to vote for independence at all elections in modern times.

[PILTONSTANY]

Originally Posted by Colr

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? It seems to me that Scots have had an opportunity to vote for independence at all elections in modern times.

The SNP have deviated from simply being an independance party with a mandate to hold a referendum on independence,They've lost votes because of this IMO.
I'd be interested to see the results of a referendum (whether it's run by Holyrood or Westminster) and whether they acted on a majority pro independence vote if that was the result.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? It seems to me that Scots have had an opportunity to vote for independence at all elections in modern times.

Voting for independence and voting for the SNP are two entirely different things. I'm not going to use a vote in an election for a party whose policies I fundamentally disagree with because I want Scotland to be independent (which I do).

[KABULHIBBY]

Originally Posted by Colr

Aye, but the arguement is that Scottish MPs should only be involved in ussue which affect the UK as a whole.

The option to vote for an indepence party has been available for some decades now. They may benefit from Scotland being pushed out of the Union from the south as well
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Agree with the first part of your post Col, Scots have been upset in the past when English MPs have forced through legislation which is to the detriment of Scotland. I honestly feel that England needs correctly structured devoloution, none of this regional assembly pish.
.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Voting for independence and voting for the SNP are two entirely different things. I'm not going to use a vote in an election for a party whose policies I fundamentally disagree with because I want Scotland to be independent (which I do).

Surely by voting for them the pressure for a referendum would by unavoidable and then you would get a vote on who would govern you. By not voting for them you still get a party whose policies you don't agree with (e.g. maintenance of the union) It may take a few years but isn't that the quickest way to independence?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by D.K

Not really Col, we also get English MSP's - so it's a fond conceit of the so-called Metropolitan elite that they would lose out in so many talented Scot's. I watched the program and though it was superb, in the way it conveyed in it's language a bias in several things:

1. The notion that the Scot's are subsidised by England
2. That England is waking up in dismay
3. That it's actually economics that will cause problems for Brown, rather than just straightforward prejudice for their own or in Blair's case, one that sounds like their own.

I did forecast this sometime back on here, nice to be borne out by the stats though. Nae luck SMurf
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You would hardly say that big hitting English politicians have migrated to the SP, though, which was my point - talent not nationality.

1. True due to oil/gas revenues but even on income tax take some areas of scotland (Perth and Edinburgh) are net contributers - the big subsidies acutally go from these areas and the SE to northern Egland and Glasgow. The oil issue will change over the next decades as England is having to rely more and more on fuel from Europe. Scotland is in a very good position in that respect with vast access to renewables.
2. I think that it has become an issue through trust hospitals and now education. Labour are making themselves very unpopular by forcing policy through using Scots MPs and ministers.
3. 100% agree. Its nonsense to portray this as a prejudice against Scots. (although there is always one rapid dog to be found who will foam at the mouth on the prevelance of Scots talent in Parliament - and the south generally.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by KABULHIBBY

Agree with the first part of your post Col, Scots have been upset in the past when English MPs have forced through legislation which is to the detriment of Scotland. I honestly feel that England needs correctly structured devoloution, none of this regional assembly pish.
.

Yeh, but thats part of democracy. One party governs and if constituency or constituencies vote for the loosing party they, in effect, get policies which hey didn't vote for.

Regional assemblies have been v unpopular in England and are seen as a waste of money. Elected mayors seem to have been a success, though.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr

Surely by voting for them the pressure for a referendum would by unavoidable and then you would get a vote on who would govern you. By not voting for them you still get a party whose policies you don't agree with (e.g. maintenance of the union) It may take a few years but isn't that the quickest way to independence?

I vote for a party which has independence as part of its' manifesto, but that's not the principle reason why I vote for them, it's because I agree with more of their other policies.

I'm not going to vote for a party who have policies which are iin some areas diametrically opposed to my views because of one issue.

Independence is not my first priority when voting. If I was given an option to vote solely on whether Scotland should be independent I would say yes.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by D.K

What, a quick greyhound
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I think on 1 and 2, we're in broad agrement, so nothing more need be said there on 3. My view is very different to yours, I really think in the recesses of their mind, the English either want one of their own or someone sounding like one of their own. Gordon needs to lose four stones (as do I:o ) and try to be less sour looking, he might tell the odd joke and be good manly company, but he is as attractive as John Prescott
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

English are more interested in class that which part of the UK you come from - one advantage of being Scots is that, as long as you don't speak like Ian McCartney
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, they can't tell what class you are.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162

I vote for a party which has independence as part of its' manifesto, but that's not the principle reason why I vote for them, it's because I agree with more of their other policies.

I'm not going to vote for a party who have policies which are iin some areas diametrically opposed to my views because of one issue.

Independence is not my first priority when voting. If I was given an option to vote solely on whether Scotland should be independent I would say yes.

You reckon independence is a side issue for most Scots? If so it would suggests that the benefits are not being put across or they are not convinced of them.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by D.K

It's about opinions and that is not one I share, as the reason for this prejudice. Though i have noticed a snobbishness toward RC Nesbit Scot's

That relates to my Ian McCartney remark. Snobbishness, yes, Prejudice against Scots, far from it (provided they sound as if they may be middle class!!)

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr

You reckon independence is a side issue for most Scots? If so it would suggests that the benefits are not being put across or they are not convinced of them.

I'm not talking for most Scots, I'm talking about me. There may well be many other people like myself.

FWIW I wouldn't trust even a majority SNP party in the SP to produce independence, or even a referendum on it. Their raison d'etre and therefore their political power would disappear completely.