Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
azzuri
|
Hague berates Brown over English issues.........see - http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/56661.html
Hague berates Brown over English issues
Gordon Brown is living in the past if he thinks Scottish and Welsh MPs can continue to vote on English issues, William Hague, shadow foreign secretary, said yesterday.
Standing in for the Tory leader, David Cameron, while he is on paternity leave, Mr Hague flagged up the West Lothian question during a speech in London in which he set out the political battle lines between now and the general election.
It is a theme which the Tories intend to exploit ruthlessly if, as expected, Mr Brown moves into No 10.
Mr Hague said: "I feel no pleasure in pointing out that Scottish Labour MPs forcing through changes to England's laws does not make for a more harmonious and United Kingdom.
"Anyone who thinks we can carry on legislating for England in exactly the same way as we did before devolution is clearly living in the past. When even senior Labour back benchers have begun to recognise this, so should Gordon."
Mocking the government's record on constitutional change, and Mr Brown's recent attempts to explore Britishness, he declared: "Anyone who imagines that murmuring about Britishness is a substitute for serious and sustained thinking about the West Lothian question is definitely living in the past and is definitely in need of help. In due course, we expect that Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force will give the chancellor some."
Mr Hague, warning traditional Tories to embrace Mr Cameron's modernising agenda or face further election defeat, ruled out any possibility of changing direction.
Instead, in a remarkably vicious attack, he contrasted Mr Brown's centralist, controlling instincts with Mr Cameron's trust in individuals.
Highlighting Mr Brown's student politics, for the first time, he said: "There are worries that the sort of person who could edit the Red Paper on Scotland, and who called for the massive extension of state power to advance a socialist utopia, may not be the best person to lead a competitive market economy."
|
SLG
|
Re: Hague berates Brown over English issues.........Looks like the Tories really have made this a key point in their battle with Brown. With the Lib Dems even admitting that the situation is unsustainable, this is only going to get bigger and bigger. Hopefully we'll see Labour forced into introducing some changes prior to 2007.
| rs_azzuri wrote: | | Highlighting Mr Brown's student politics, for the first time, he said: "There are worries that the sort of person who could edit the Red Paper on Scotland, and who called for the massive extension of state power to advance a socialist utopia, may not be the best person to lead a competitive market economy." |
Fantastic stuff. However many times Brown repeats his modernising credentials, he is never going to shake of his Old Labour image.
|
SLG
|
Now a (somewhat) disgraced Scottish Tory seems to back an English parliament. Albeit a Tory who is much more pro constitutional reform than most.
| Quote: | PMQ that's giving Gordon a headache
BRIAN MONTEITH
THE question was bound to be asked one day, and now that Tory MP Ed Vaizey has asked it, it will not go away. It is being put, ever so politely, at fashionable Home Counties dinner parties; it can be heard through the last fug of smoke in gentlemen's clubs, and it is shooting across the blogosphere like a comet threatening our very being.
I write of course about the terminal threat to Gordon Brown's coveted ambition: "Can a Scot ever again become prime minister of Great Britain?"
Of course he can. Tony Blair simply has to resign and then the Labour Party only has to approve or even elect Brown as its leader and, after the quick trip to meet our monarch, he can enter the front door of Number 10 Downing Street with a wave and jaw-dropping smile as First Lord of the Treasury - prime minister to you and me.
So the simple question is simply answered - with a yes.
But that's not the point, for that's not what's at stake. The real question is far, far deeper than that and goes right to the heart of the United Kingdom's existence. The real question is actually: "Can a Scottish MP ever again become prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
This unabbreviated version exploded a lazy thinking and mendacious motivation behind those who edit it down to a sound bite.
You see, the question is not actually about whether a Scot can hold the highest elected office at all, for a Scottish MP representing an English seat (and there are many of them) is not covered by the longer, more honest question. No, this is about Scottish MPs - and could conceivably include a sassenach or a Lithuanian (to pick a random contemporary European) representing a Scottish seat.
The use of the word "Scot" is, however, intentional, for it is there to feed on the metropolitan-led xenophobia that Britain is being run by a Scottish Raj. Its use also explains why the question is being asked now, for it marks the beginning of the next General Election campaign and the Conservative attempt to ensure that David Cameron beats Gordon Brown.
Cameron's strategists see no point in undermining Tony Blair's position for they don't believe it is Blair that Cameron will face. On this they are probably right. So why waste time and effort attacking the wrong target?
Tory generals were shocked during last year's General Election to find that when they ran with the slogan "Vote for Blair and you'll get Brown" that their private polling told them it was bombing because Brown was more popular than Blair.
Labour already knew this and ensured - to dispel any sense of disunity between Blair and Brown and to capitalise on Brown's greater popularity - that the beleaguered Tony should be seen with the prudent Chancellor as often as possible. The Tory slogan was quickly withdrawn.
The mistake the Tories made was to take Brown's unpopularity for granted. They had not done the hard work of challenging his economic reputation.
There was plenty of ammunition to use, but Michael Howard's campaign assumed the electorate would be repulsed by the man who had raised their taxes. This was a serious mistake; yes, taxes had risen, but so too had people's relative prosperity as they benefited from the economic liberalisation started under the Conservatives but cannily pursued in similar vein by Brown.
The new Tory strategists are not going to make the same mistake - they are going to ensure every Exocet in their political armoury, right down to the last dumdum bullet, will undermine Brown's reputation before the next General Election comes. There are three ways they can do this - and they already are.
The first and most crucial is to rubbish his economic record, a task that becomes easier as every day goes by thanks to the sterling efforts of the Chancellor himself.
The second is to paint Brown as Old Labour, as unwilling to reform or improve the public services, as someone who wants to intervene in our lives at every possible level - and to a mind-numbing degree. In this respect Tony Blair has proven an (unwilling?) ally as his supporters' constant briefings about Brown's obdurateness feeds the quicksand of mutual suspicion and public disagreement. Labour is sinking.
Finally, there is the political mutation of the West Lothian question: "How can there be a prime minister who is not accountable to the English electorate yet can choose a Cabinet, introduce legislation and then vote on it when he has no ability to so influence the same matters in his own seat in Scotland?"
This line of attack plays to the growing sense of injustice in England fed by the Conservatives receiving the largest share of the English popular vote but resulting in a majority of Labour MPs being returned, together with the perception that the 25 per cent higher public spending in Scotland is paid for by the English taxpayer.
Gordon Brown is clearly alive to this onslaught for over the last few months he has presented himself as Tony's buddy, as the great reformer, as concerned about Africa as he is about Aldershot, and he has wrapped himself up in the Union flag.
So, in answer to the long question, yes Gordon Brown, or any other Scottish MP can be elected to govern the whole of the United Kingdom.
But he will probably rule with less authority and no end of constitutional turmoil that could make Scotland's rejection of Margaret Thatcher look positively sycophantic.
As a supporter of the Union I deplore this scenario, but it is Labour's devolution settlement that has brought it about and it will only be avoided by altering Britain's constitution.
Either the English should be granted their own parliament - there is no appetite for regional assemblies - or Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws. If that were to mean a British Prime Minister could not command a majority over English legislation then so be it. A future Prime Minister shall simply have to deal with it. The genie is out of the bottle and no-one, not even Gordon Brown, knows how to put it back in. |
|
Aventinian
|
They should go for the only constitutionally sound option and have the English MPs at Westminster meet separately to approve legislation within the same bounds as the Scottish Parliament, with the London MPs able to speak but not vote...
Oh yes, and primary legislative powers for the Welsh Assembly.
|
SLG
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | They should go for the only constitutionally sound option and have the English MPs at Westminster meet separately to approve legislation within the same bounds as the Scottish Parliament, with the London MPs able to speak but not vote... |
What powers does the London assembly have that you would stop London MPs voting on Engish matters?
|
azzuri
|
....should Scottish MPs receive less of a salary since they would be in effect doing less work and probably a lot less hours than their English counterparts in this scenario?
|
Abieuan
|
rs_azzuri wrote: | Quote: | | ....should Scottish MPs receive less of a salary since they would be in effect doing less work and probably a lot less hours than their English counterparts in this scenario? |
No, English MP's should recieve extra money for their services via an English Parliament.
All MP's would then be doing the same job and should get the same wages.
|
azzuri
|
|
|
|
|