LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I'm not interested, in terms of who currently votes for what, in ancient history.Originally Posted by santa claus
How come the English get to vote on anything that affects the true indigenous population of these islands? It should be for the Scots and Welsh to decide if England (the interloping gets) can have a Parliament. Oh, and who do you think is responsible for constructing our "democracy"?
Besides, the best anthropomorphic evidence I've seen is that we ALL originated from Africa, so there are no indigenous populations elsewhere anyway. It's just a case of who arrived when. So by that logic, the first person to set foot in a country, even before it was a country (that being a far more recent political invention) gets to be supreme dictator for all time, since he's as close to indigenous as there is? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.
But it's irrelevant to the point I made, cute though it may be as a diversionary tactic.
We have a population of what we like to describe as citizens but would more accurately be called subjects. We're supposed to be a democracy in that representatives decide the stuff that affect our day-to-day lives.
So my logic is simple. Those "elected" get to decide those things, but only where the representatives represent those they are affecting.
One way is a UK-wide government, where all representatives vote and it affects the electorate of all those representatives. That would be my preferred option. But if, for reasons they no doubt consider valid, and I make no judgement on that either way, the Scots want a separation of powers, then so be it. And for that matter, the same applies to the Welsh, Northern Irish, etc.
And that, to my mind, leaves two feasible options.
1) Independence. Whichever 'nation' it is, say Scotland, breaks away, and their representatives and only their representatives decide on matters that affect them, but they have no say at all in what goes on with the rest of us. Or ...
2) Devolution. Some powers are moved to a body representing the devolved nation. Then, in relation to whatever powers are moved, representatives for that nation decide on those matters for that nation, but have no say in those matters in the rest of the UK. Other matters, say defence, stay national and are decided nationally.
That way, every citizen has people that are part of the system they are in making decisions on matters affecting their lives. But as it is, Scots elect MSPs to decide devolved matters in Scotland (which is fine), and they elect MPs that are included in those that decide matters affecting all, of us (which is also fine) but they also elect MPs that help decide, and can often critically influence, matters that affect me but don't affect the people that elected them. This is most emphatically not fine, certainly not with me and not with a lot of others. It is inherently undemocratic that those MPs from Scotland deciding on non-Scottish matters in a UK national Parliament do not have a democratic mandate to do so, and are not in any way accountable to those affected by their votes.
Personally, I'd rather the UK was the UK and there was no devolution, or independence. But I'm more than happy for the Scots to decide if they want in or out, and if they want out, it's their right. And it's for the Welsh to decide on in or out for Wales, and so on. I certainly don't want to force any 'nation' to stay in if they want out. I regard that choice as their business, not mine.
But what I do not find acceptable is MPs for devolved constituencies having votes on matters for which they have no mandate. That, certainly among everyone I've spoken to, including a fair few Scots, is not seen as a reasonable solution. And it's causing a fair bit of resentment among many English (and Welsh, N.Irish, etc for all I know, though to a lesser degree because many devolved matters in Scotland are also devolved in those areas).
But Santa, I know you know all this, and you know I know, and I know you know I know. Etc. So rather than some diversion about ancient history, stay in the present and tell me what you think the justification for (for example) Scottish MPs voting on matters (like tuition fees) that affect English (and maybe other) constituents but do not affect the constituents that elected those Scottish MPS 'cos it's a devolved matter ..... if indeed you think there is actually a justification for that?
It sure wasn't me. Nor was it, in general terms, the "English". It was a combination of TPTB (The Powers That Be), that being the wealthy and powerful, with all sorts of influences from the Romans to more notably, Norman invaders, who grabbed by force anything that wasn't nailed down and most of what was, and then graciously let the indigenous population try to feed themselves from their own land, providing they made their "superiors" wealthy in the process. And complicit in this for most of their history was the various arms of the Church, the last dying vestiges of which we can still see in the presence of Bishops in the Lords. It was then slowly and repeatedly transmuted and diluted by the actions of a wide variety of groups, most of whom would probably be subject to arrest under current anti-terror laws if they did it today, ranging from the Tolpuddle martyrs, to the suffragettes, the the trade union movement, and a whole host of others.Oh, and who do you think is responsible for constructing our "democracy"?
But we still have a system that while it's got a "democracy" label stuck on it, most notably by those running it, and while it's certainly far better than the system those poor gits in much of Africa, the Middle East etc are stuck with (those increasing numbers are becoming unstuck, and it'll be interesting to see if what they end up with is actually an improvement for the bulk of the population .... and, cynic that I am, I'm not holding my breath on that) it's still fundamentally flawed. For evidence of why, look at the proportion of people voting for parties other than the main two (by which, I mean Tory and Labour, not Tory and LibDem) in recent decades. And for another example, look at what the "representative" democracy actually means, as defined by MPs. It's not that they are there to do our bidding, it's that they consider themselves their to do what, once elected, they feel is right .... subject to the party whip system, of course.
Back on the subject of who votes on what, consider the first line of Wikipedia's definition of democracy ....How is it democratic, in that sense, when the lives of (for example) non-Scots are affected by decisions made or influence by Scottish MPs when their own constituents lives aren't affected by those same MPs. The Scots get to elect MSP to make decisions in Scotland and the rest of us have no say, but they also get to elect MPs that affect lives in England and elsewhere but don't affect all of those electing those making those decisions. This is not, in any sense having an "equal say", and that is all I'm, suggesting we need.Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Reply With Quote
.
