anthonyqkiernan
|
Edited Oct 30, 2007, 13:55
The West Lothian Question
Jul 09, 2003, 10:56
|
Rearing it's ugly head again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3054562.stm
The reason why I'm posting this is I wonder what those of you south of the border think of this. Mainly I think tough titty. This is for two main reasons. First, and foremost, we had to put up with it the other way for long enough. The other is that if you want decisions made outwith the Westminster set up, then go ahead and get your own parliament for that.
I should point out that I do feel rather crumby for being so callous over something so important. I'm just wondering if this has registered with you lot.
|
mojojojo
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Jul 09, 2003, 11:42
|
I agree with you. For all the tory years Scotland and Wales had to live under a government that they hadn't voted for (mind you, so did a lot of the rest of us) and wasn't Scotland always used as a guinea pig for shit ideas (poll tax?)?
The problem here is foundation hospitals, not which twats where voted for them.
|
ratcni01
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Jul 09, 2003, 11:50
|
Put up with it for a while and find a better long term solution
Easy!
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Oct 30, 2007, 13:58
|
|
mojojojo wrote: The problem here is foundation hospitals, not which twats where voted for them.
Well put.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Edited Oct 30, 2007, 14:01
Re: The West Lothian Question
Oct 30, 2007, 14:00
|
And, again. Thirty years since Dalyell first asked it.
Is it getting more press now, because the PM admits to being Scots?
I'm still very much of the "get your own" opinion. Which, they abandoned because no-one wanted devolved government (at least in the NE)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Oct 30, 2007, 23:19
|
Surely MPs are often voting on things that don't affect their own constituents, like those that have urban areas voting on things to do with the countryside and vice versa. What shall we do about that? Nothing, surely. because although mps are supposed to be representing their constituents (like when they bring forward specific points and papers and that), they're not always supposed to be thinking 'now how will this be affecting Mrs Jones at no. 32' - isn't it supposed to be more general than that?
er there are bound to be other examples. If it wasn't so late. But it's just that the Scotland/Wales/England thing is more obvious perhaps.
If they want to change the voting system or at least talk about it seriously for a change, I guess that'd be a good thing, as it's not ideal is it.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Nov 01, 2007, 07:03
|
[quote="government"The government said such moves would threaten the existence of the UK.[/quote]
And the problem with that is? ... oh yeah ... loss of North Sea Oil revenue for England!
|
Wiggy
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Nov 01, 2007, 12:00
|
|
Nah. We spent most of that in the 80's and 90's propping up a government even worse than the one we have now!
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Edited Nov 01, 2007, 12:20
Re: The West Lothian Question
Nov 01, 2007, 12:20
|
|
Iraq's?
|
Wiggy
|
Re: The West Lothian Question
Nov 01, 2007, 13:26
|
|
Ha! Iraq, SA, Burma, Thatchers bloody Britain .... take yer pick.
|
