You take the high road...

[Worthy4England]

You could do that, but you don't need to. I don't think it's particularly confusing. You elect an MP to represent your constituency. He or she would then vote on anything that affected your constituency. Some of it might be Britain-wide, some of it just England. I don't think it's that baffling. Sure, it being different to the Scottish and Welsh systems makes it a muddle, but if there's one thing the constitutional history of this country teaches it's that sometimes a muddle works!

i don't know why you'd opt to deliberately design a muddle though, when there is a perfectly clear and working model already being used for the other constituent partners.

and - it would be very confusing. The UK would elect a UK parliament - a party (or a coalition of parties) would form that government - yet - in the same building, a subset of those MPs would constitute a separate body over which the ruling party or coalition may not have any mandate or majority - thus leading to a huge conflict within the same parliament over who is actually setting the agenda and running the country. we'd end up with a prime minister and a leader of the English parliament (first minister) - quite possibly from different parties - but using most of the same MPs to do very different things with different coalitions for different issues...

If you REALLY don't think it would be confusing - then why not simply have the European Union Parliament subdivided - we already elect MEPs - so that in full session it decides europe-wide issues - and then subdivide it nationally to decide national issues. that way we can save all the money you seem to think we need to save and MORE!!! we wouldn't need Westminster or the scots or welsh assemblies at all. job done!

You have let their secret out bish.

I think Hobes has just advocated the European Parliament right there...

Maybe he's not feeling well...

[Prufrock]

You could do that, but you don't need to. I don't think it's particularly confusing. You elect an MP to represent your constituency. He or she would then vote on anything that affected your constituency. Some of it might be Britain-wide, some of it just England. I don't think it's that baffling. Sure, it being different to the Scottish and Welsh systems makes it a muddle, but if there's one thing the constitutional history of this country teaches it's that sometimes a muddle works!

i don't know why you'd opt to deliberately design a muddle though, when there is a perfectly clear and working model already being used for the other constituent partners.

and - it would be very confusing. The UK would elect a UK parliament - a party (or a coalition of parties) would form that government - yet - in the same building, a subset of those MPs would constitute a separate body over which the ruling party or coalition may not have any mandate or majority - thus leading to a huge conflict within the same parliament over who is actually setting the agenda and running the country. we'd end up with a prime minister and a leader of the English parliament (first minister) - quite possibly from different parties - but using most of the same MPs to do very different things with different coalitions for different issues...

If you REALLY don't think it would be confusing - then why not simply have the European Union Parliament subdivided - we already elect MEPs - so that in full session it decides europe-wide issues - and then subdivide it nationally to decide national issues. that way we can save all the money you seem to think we need to save and MORE!!! we wouldn't need Westminster or the scots or welsh assemblies at all. job done!

If I were designing it I'd agree with you. My point isn't my way is better just that it's another way, one I think would be more likely to happen, and would still work. The answers to your two questions are:

1) to save money. Not cheap building a new parliament and posting for a new executive.

2) yeah. Good luck with that!

[Hoboh]

A CAR thief being followed by police came to a sudden stop when he drove into a dead end.

Bolton Crown Court heard how Robert Greeney, aged 41, was trapped when he drove the Nissan Navara into a cul-de-sac at Ivy Grove in Kearsley.

Greeney, of Paulhan Street, Great Lever, was spotted driving the vehicle without lights on in Manchester Road at 9.30pm on September 4.

The vehicle had been reported stolen 13 hours earlier and officers followed it as it turned into Jackson Street.

But when Greeney, who has 40 convictions for 110 previous crimes on his record, spotted the police car he sped off onto Grosvenor Street at 50mph, damaging the vehicle’s door mirror as he hit a parked car.

And we just let these nutcases run around so called rehabilitated

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑ is he Scotchish Hobes ??

[Hoboh]

↑↑↑ is he Scotchish Hobes ??

Oh heck! Iclicked the wrong thread

[LeverEnd]

High road would have been better than dead-end road I guess. The fecking bellend. I agree Hoboh, some are beyond rehabilitation and should not be on the streets. He could have wiped anyone out while driving like that.

The Scottish b... oh.

[thebish]

interesting piece in the light of the defection of a Tory to UKIP - what happens when summat similar happens in Scotland?

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRo ... s+Holyrood

40% of them are not "directly" elected... I had no idea it was that high!

[thebish]

also - this rather damning indictment from Professor Walter Humes - Univ. Sterling...

Our economic and social failures can be partly attributed to the unsatisfactory intellectual and ethical climate in which public debate in Scotland is conducted. During the referendum campaign it sometimes became unpleasantly adversarial but both sides exhibited similar tendencies. Hard questions were unwelcome and anyone who challenged the prevailing orthodoxies, whether nationalist or unionist, was dismissed or marginalised. Conformity was valued more than genuine intellectual engagement. The notion that it was all a wonderful democratic exercise is merely the latest example of the Scottish political establishment's myth-making.

That establishment continues to exist in a surreal bubble, disconnected from the real world in which most people live, and sustained by a supporting cast of deferential journalists, unprincipled lobbyists and advisers trained in the dubious art of telling their employers what they want to hear.

Meanwhile ordinary citizens despair at the crude self-interest they witness among the leadership class. Trust in politicians, bankers, company directors and senior staff in the public sector is at an all-time low, but they continue to construct a narrative that seeks to justify the power they exercise. They may even believe the narrative, given their capacity for self-deception. This leads to the disturbing conclusion that they are not only suffering from delusions of adequacy, but also from an advanced form of moral blindness.

[Prufrock]

also - this rather damning indictment from Professor Walter Humes - Univ. Sterling...

Our economic and social failures can be partly attributed to the unsatisfactory intellectual and ethical climate in which public debate in Scotland is conducted. During the referendum campaign it sometimes became unpleasantly adversarial but both sides exhibited similar tendencies. Hard questions were unwelcome and anyone who challenged the prevailing orthodoxies, whether nationalist or unionist, was dismissed or marginalised. Conformity was valued more than genuine intellectual engagement. The notion that it was all a wonderful democratic exercise is merely the latest example of the Scottish political establishment's myth-making.

That establishment continues to exist in a surreal bubble, disconnected from the real world in which most people live, and sustained by a supporting cast of deferential journalists, unprincipled lobbyists and advisers trained in the dubious art of telling their employers what they want to hear.

Meanwhile ordinary citizens despair at the crude self-interest they witness among the leadership class. Trust in politicians, bankers, company directors and senior staff in the public sector is at an all-time low, but they continue to construct a narrative that seeks to justify the power they exercise. They may even believe the narrative, given their capacity for self-deception. This leads to the disturbing conclusion that they are not only suffering from delusions of adequacy, but also from an advanced form of moral blindness.

I too wondered at the self-congratulation of many Scots that it had been a wonderful successful campaign of two sides seriously debating the issues.

I mean, if you define success as being better than it might have been in Northern Ireland, then sure, but I thought both sides were pathetic! Neither engaged in any way with the other side. It was months of tub-thumping and shouting over one another. I think the onus to make the running was on the yes campaign, which they never really did, but the nos weren't much better.

[Little Green Man]

That establishment continues to exist in a surreal bubble, disconnected from the real world in which most people live, and sustained by a supporting cast of deferential journalists, unprincipled lobbyists and advisers trained in the dubious art of telling their employers what they want to hear.

Meanwhile ordinary citizens despair at the crude self-interest they witness among the leadership class. Trust in politicians, bankers, company directors and senior staff in the public sector is at an all-time low, but they continue to construct a narrative that seeks to justify the power they exercise. They may even believe the narrative, given their capacity for self-deception. This leads to the disturbing conclusion that they are not only suffering from delusions of adequacy, but also from an advanced form of moral blindness.

And yet that could apply equally, if not more so, to Westminster and the rest of Britain.

So much for a Scottish parliament setting out on a different tack.