This is the West-Minster Question: Why should Scottish politicians only be able to vote on half the political agenda? If you’re an MSP you get the unreserved stuff. If you’re an MP you get the reserved stuff (and whipped into an English domestic lather the rest of the time). Either way a Scottish MP/MSP is only half an English MP. The Scottish people live in a Demi-cracy
The MSP’s hide their blushes and their half-potence, unable to control immigration, Trident, constitutional questions, foreign policy etc. etc. In Westminster the Scots MPs get to engage with these, but when it comes to domestic policy, they can only vote for or against Tony’s latest crackpot wheezes like encouraging gambling, faith based schooling etc. Lobby fodder is an understatement. What’s the point of risking political preferment by rebelling against the whips on matters that don’t affect your own constituents.
I don’t know if this is just me, but it seems that for too long I feel I’ve had to be positive about devolution. But Devolution is a half baked compromise to buy off a serious engagement with the
Independence issue. So why should I feel some weird kind of gratitude for having half a government. This is a profoundly Scottish response. The English complaint about the West Lothian question is just, but it’s not a one way street. Since constitutional matters are reserved, the obligation is on Westminster to reverse the emasculation of 1707 – reconstructive surgery has come a long way in the last 300 years.