While losing Scotland would make a difference, Labour would have had a majority without Scottish MPs in 97,2001 and 2005. It would change things if they were already close, but mostly we seem to swing a long way in either direction.
And running the article about you through google translate tells me that you moved to Brussels because "the time was ripe for [your] energy in Europe stabbing". I may have to check the cutlery in lunch venues.
Agreed. One consequence of Scottish independence will be that the West Lothian question has to be changed. I propose that we rename it the Llanelli question.
They'll have to define what constitutes an English-only question though. I read (a while ago, and can't find any information about source in my brain, so this is a fairly useless comment) that there were only around 5 issues that actually had no bearing whatsoever on non-English matters.
Why wouldn't it apply to the English equivalents of all the issues that are currently decided by the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and Scottish Parliament? Or do those institutions confine themselves to five issues - in which case it seems hard to justify the expense of setting them up?
Johnston is mistaken on the peerage question - technically and practically the pre-1707 Scottish peerage remain a distinct body, with their own place in the table of precedence and their own regulations for determining succession to titles, involving the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh where peers of England, Great Britain and the UK would refer to the College of Arms in London. The Lord Lyon is also consulted by new peers resident in Scotland or of Scottish origin on peerage titles, I believe
( ... )
Comments 8
Reply
And running the article about you through google translate tells me that you moved to Brussels because "the time was ripe for [your] energy in Europe stabbing". I may have to check the cutlery in lunch venues.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment