At 01:02 PM 5/27/97 +0100, Martin wrote:
>Jennie was following the argument:>
>>Got it so far, what about a "devolved parliament?" Does this mean that
>>Scotland would get a percentage of seats like here in the U.S.?
>Scotland is technically slightly over-represented at Westminster - it
>has a greater % of seats than its population would suggest. This
>is portrayed by Unionists as a great concession, and that Scotland
>has enourmous powers.
>This is of course utter rubbish. Scotland has 72 MPs out of just under
>700. If English MPs wish a course of action to suit English conditions,
>they get it. Especially as most marginal consituencies (ie the ones
>which actually matter) are in Middle England. It was winning seats
>in Essex and so on that won the election. Labour can count on Scotland
>always delivering, and the Tories know it's not worth appeasing the Scots
>as they will never reap the electoral reward.
>However, one of the chief questions about devolution is the so-called
>West Lothian question (named after the consituency of the MP who posed
>it): Why should Scots MPs have a say over English matters at Westminster,
>and English MPs not have a say over Scottish?
>This question is a red herring, and the natural answer is one of
>Other matters to consider are the Westminster question ie England rules
>Scotland by the Westminster system (see above), and that during the
>Stormont administration, NI MPs by convention did not vote on purely
So what would a devolved parliament entail? A separate parliament for
Scotland to rule on Scottish matters? A different percentage of Scots at
Westminster? And would a Scottish MP have approximately the same weight as
an English MP? Or not?
Thanks for your time,