StatCounter

Sunday 28 October 2007

The fight against Scots ruling England takes a small step forward

This Labour government has pushed legislation through the House of Commons that only affects those living in English constituencies, the matters concerned having been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and sometimes the Welsh Assembly too), by using the large Labour majority in Scottish MPs. New proposals that have been put forward by Sir Malcolm Rifkind in a paper submitted to Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce would create an English Grand Committee at Westminster, open only to English MPs, where votes would be held on issues relating solely to England. This Grand Committee would sit on the floor of the House of Commons. The proposal will now be discussed by David Cameron and his advisers. I understand that the some in the Conservative and Unionist Party would see this as not very Unionist but for two reasons I believe the proposal should be accepted and formally proposed; first that if you believe the Union is important then the Union is currently at risk from the English resenting Scottish rule and this proposal should dilute that feeling, second if you believe the Union is falling apart then the electoral arithmetic is biased enough against the Conservative Party in England without them having to overcome the Scottish seat arithmetic.

The proposal is reported in today's Observer, but I still believe it to be true. In that Observer article David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister panics for (fearing the effect on Labour power) and rather ridiculously warns "the plan would have dangerous consequences. He told The Observer: 'This proposal is utterly unworkable. Taken to its logical extent it would create multiple categories of MPs. Where does it end? Do the Tories think only London MPs should vote on Crossrail, only countryside MPs vote on fox hunting, only coastal MPs vote on fishing? It is utterly impracticable.'" That is not the logical extent, that is typical Labour using ridicule when you cannot use proper argument.

No comments: