Dear All
Scots-born Tory MP for Carlisle, John
Stevenson has caused a slight ripple by suggesting a proposal to remove Scottish
MPs being elected to Westminster after a Yes vote in the Scottish independence
referendum.
Although interesting and raising questions,
the fact of the matter is that his Bill is not needed.
Scotland is going to vote to remain part of
the UK.
The House of Commons has completely rejected
his proposal by a margin of 236 to 16 to throw out the plan on its ear.
In the House of Commons, MPs can get the
opportunity using what is called the 10 minute rule to get up on their hind
legs and propose a law.
This ten minute rule bill would have
removed Scottish seats from those elected at the 2015 Westminster ballot.
If independence was successful for the SNP
in September, legally Scottish MPs would be eligible to stand up to the proposed
2016 date of independence.
At that point, a Bill might have to be
produced, however, it isn’t quite as clear cut and dry as that, there could be
a legal challenge for continuation to the end of the Parliament.
Personally, I rather think that the
Westminster authorities wouldn’t wish to challenge rather they would be
pragmatic and simply let the clock run out.
Mr Stevenson told MPs that he is “a proud
Scot.”
Well done Mr. Stevenson, couple that with
being a ‘bright Scot’ and you might go somewhere.
He hopes his bill would “never need to take
effect” as he wants a “resounding No vote in September.”
It will be.
As to his point that it would be “perverse”
for MPs representing Scottish constituencies to continue to be represented in
parliament, potentially negotiating on independence on behalf of the rest of the
UK!
That wouldn’t really happen, and it is
doubtful that the current crop of Westminster SNP MPs would play a role of any
real significance. I would seriously doubt that Scottish Labour MPs would want
to be involved in the negotiations team. I think Labour would want to stand
back and ‘play the blame game’ in 2016 election to the Scottish Parliament.
Stevenson says that “people in in Northern
Ireland, Wales and England would find the situation unacceptable if laws were
being passed on their behalf by MPs who would soon be part of a foreign
country.”
Really!
We seem to have people from foreign
countries making law already by virtue of living here and of course there is
law produced by the EU.
Given people are use to that; it would do
no good to whip up an anti Scots feeling.
Speaking against his bill Dunfermline
Labour MP Thomas Docherty said that Mr Stevenson’s “argument is flawed”.
Docherty points out that spending and
defence decisions would be made before independence, but if there were no
Scottish MPs then Scots would not be represented in decisions which affected
them.
Game, set and match Docherty.
And as a clincher he pointed out that when
southern Ireland broke away, MPs representing Irish constituencies continued to
sit in Westminster until independence was confirmed.
Obviously someone has learned the lessons
of history.
Although interesting and raising questions,
the rejection of the Stevenson Bill is correct, legally it would be a sticky
wicket which would probably end up in the UK Supreme Court and they would come
out against it under human rights law.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow
University
No comments:
Post a Comment