to think that Labour should not support Scottish MPs voting on things that only affect the English?

[ghostland]

I think Labour are being very hyprocritical and self-serving. Obviously the Tories left them in a pickle by dropping this on them but I think it is pretty outrageous that Labour think it is ok for the Scots to have devolution but not ok for the English to have something similar (to stop Scottish Labour MPs from voting on things that only affect the English). Obviously they are worried about losing the power that their Scottish Labour MPs give them but this just makes them look confused, corrupt and hypocritical, not to mention it's completely unfair to English voters.

Spot on. What possible principled argument can there be against it?

yes, agreed, should have been sorted out ages ago

Spot on OP.

I would be inclined to support your argument if you substituted 'those living in England' for ' the English'.

Yes quite right. Rarely is an issue so cut and dried as this. Miliband squirming on Andrew Marr yesterday trying to weasel his way around it was embarrassing to see. There can be no reasonable opposition to English votes for English laws at all.

I do agree with England having the same rights as Scotland but I think Cameron and co have engineered this in such a way as to make life most difficult for other parties (as you would expect I suppose but people don't seem to have seen through their political machinations)

I suspect a lot of people wanting English voting for English issues will be less in favour when they realise that we will be stuck with Tory rule for ever. Do we all want benefits slashed, bedrooms taxed, NHS privatised, etc? This needs to be thought out properly and not rushed through or the consequences could be immense

surely it was Labour government that first devolved power to scotland whilst failing to address the West Lothian question that caused this issue?

It is a balls up. Not in Labour interests at all to sort it out by not letting scottish mps vote on English matters, we could surely find ourselves in a situation when a Labour majority government couldn't act decisively in England.

Labour are fighting to retain an unfair advantage they rigged while in power, Possibly at the expense of promises they made to the Scottish people, The same people who have supported them for decades.

Are we expected to sympathise? The Midlothian question is long overdue an answer and it's time for all the Westminster parties to demonstrate whether they are capable of seeing past their own political self-interest.

YANBU. Labour will hope to stall on this and fight the election on different issues, hoping the electorate in England will forget all about it, and be more interested in Labour free childcare and minimum wage promises. Which to a certain extent will happen, because the constitution never seems to come very high up on the agenda, and people are ultimately more interested in their standard of living. But it is not fair, not democratic and it should be sorted out without delay. It can't be that bloody difficult. We don't need regional assemblies or any bullshit like that. Just English votes for English laws.

scousadelic - not true that we will be stuck with Tory rule for ever. Labour would have had a majority in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005

But this both confuses the national vs regional accountability and fails to address the disengagement with centralised Westminster politics.
What would be better is regional assemblies with devolved power (like in Scotland) for eg. The South West, North of England, Midlands, etc who can tailor local policies to their regions. And keep one national parliament for national issues.
English MPs acting as both national British government and English government would create conflict and confusion (both in government and in elections) and would still end up with English policy being dominated by London.

The Tories are clearly trying to railroad themselves an advantage in national government without addressing the problem - a purely political and self serving manouvre without any attempt to improve government of the English regions.

So YABU

It is moot anyway - during the past 32 years of labour government, apparently there were only 4 votes where the labour government would have lost, if they hadn't had the support of the Scottish Labour MPs.

I agree we should have the same rights as Scotland, but I don't think an English parliament is the way to go. It will just mean that decisions will still be made in Westminster about English regions. Different parts of England have very specific issues which can not be solved with one size fits all centralised policies.

You're right of course, OP

I'd always wondered why the heck Cameron was so keen on a "NO" vote - after all, it's not as if he has many MPs in Scotland

Now at least we know the answer: he wanted to use this to impale Labour on a horrible dilemma

Yanbu, it's a disgrace that Scottish MPs can vote on English matters but not the other way round. One rule for one and another for the other....

I wonder how long it will be before someone comes along and makes an Anti- Scottish post which will contain the words "subsidy" and "free prescriptions", I'm half expecting it. Generally there's been a few on all the Indy ref threads. Anyway OP yanbu and I'm Scottish as well.

Wouldn't be a permanent Tory majority in England. No party has polled as much as 50% of the vote for over 50 years IIRC. As the Welsh and Scottish parliaments are PR anyway I'd assume that any English Parliament would be the same, meaning more coalitions and consensus government.

That's why Cameron would prefer to have English business still done in Westminster, (i.e. under first past the post, which would cement a Tory majority based on recent history) and Milliband surely would prefer there to be a whole new parliament voted for under PR.

Ihavenopigs That would mean more politicians drawing a salary (and expenses) at tax-payers expense. Do we want that? We already pay for MPs, MEPs and local councillors. The north-east region, when asked if it would like a regional assembly, said no. And policies are not dominated by London, that just happens to be where parliament sits. Everyone has an MP.

Surprisingly this isn't about the Scots! This one is about England.

I agree OP, it is an absolute disgrace. Miliband is another I know better than the electorate self serving prat IMHO, he will push ahead because in his arrogance (just like the other party leaders) he believes he knows what's best for everyone. That and he'll loose 41 votes in the commons in one swoop.

All right Tinkerball, if it makes you feel better, I think there should be reform of the Barnett formula as well. What do you think?

I think it's a complicated issue.

What about London MPs voting on transport? Transport is devolved in London so in theory they should not be allowed to vote on something that doesn't apply in their constituency. I'm sure there are other examples/anomalies.

scousadelic If you don't want to live in a Tory-majority country settle in Scotland. Don't rely on the Scots to outvote your Tory neighbours.

It's like the long gone days when the Tories could count on the hereditary peers to vote down Bills which they did not like. Laws only concerning England are as much the business if Members from Scotland as laws for anywhere were the business of the unelected peers - that is, not at all.

I actually think this is an ideal opportunity for a complete overhall of the whole system.

Get rid of the House of Lords, devolve as much as possible to the individual countries and reform how MP's are paid / expenses the lot. Almost a reset of our political system.

My biggest worry is that, if the politicians fail to keep the promises they made to Scotland in the last days of the campaign, this will be seized on by the pro-independence fanatics, and the SNP, and there will be a huge backlash against the other parties in the next Holyrood elections, and we could end up with a far more passionately pro-independence Government in Scotland - and in that case, the SNP might not keep their commitment not to have another referendum in a generation.

Already Tommy Sheridan is calling for his supporters and all the disappointed pro-independence voters to support the SNP, to 'punish' the No voting politicians from other parties at the next Holyrood election, and to push for another referendum IN 2020!

The last one cause huge divisions and bitterness in Scotland, and between a Scotland and the rest of the UK. It caused economic problems for the rest of the UK (and probably in Scotland too - I suspect there were companies holding off on investments due to not knowing if Scotland would be independent, and if so, what currency it would use, what tax policies it would have etc etc), and it caused years of uncertainty on a personal level, and at the wider social and political levels. I don't see how Scotland can survive more years of that, in the run-up to a second referendum, and I think it would be bad for the rest of the UK too.

On a personal level, I would not want to live through another referendum campaign. The last one made me ill with stress, and I honestly think dh nd I would move back to England, if there was going to be another referendum.. This would break our hearts - we love it here - but I can't do this again.

If any of the politicians go back on the promises made to Scotland, and if there is another referendum, they will have handed the victory to the pro-independence side - any promises they offer, as part of a Better Together campaign, will be distrusted by the very people they need to convince.

I love Scotland - it is a wonderful place to live - but I believe 100% that the UK is far, far more than the sum of its parts, and breaking it up would damage both Scotland and the rest of the UK. We won the referendum, but that is just the start - now we make sure good things come out of it for Scotland and the UK as a whole. We need to rebuild trust and relationships, heal the divisions and hurt caused by the referendum. And I also believe 100% that the first step has to be fulfilling the promises made to Scotland.

Oh dear Lord Andrew Marr had Millband on toast about this yesterday. In fact Ed looked a proper Charlie throughout the entire interview, but I'm trying to be specific.

I think following the Referendum this does sound like a good idea, particularly if weighed against additional powers going to Scotland regarding their own affairs.

But, I would like to know based on previous/upcoming votes just how many would have been/would be effected. It's hard to judge whether it's actually worth demanding if it actually equated to one vote a year on a meaningless matter.

According to the Times, there was a period of months, out of the most recent 32 years where Labour have been in Government, where they were relying on the Scottish Labour MPs to win votes, and I have been told there were only 4 votes where it would have been the difference between winning and losing for the Government.