Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Anomaly will remain



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

One anomaly would still remain even with the resolution of the West Lothian Question. Laws of purely English concern still have the benefit (or otherwise) of further scrutiny and debate in the House of Lords, whereas those passed in Holyrood go directly for Royal assent. In the interests of equality why should there remain this difference? It is an anomaly that never seems to be questioned.
JAMES ALLAN
Blackfriars Street
Edinburgh

The full article contains 74 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 July 2008 8:19 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Maisie from Morningside,

07/07/2008 01:03:43
The reason the "anomaly" is never questioned is that the English have been offered their own parliament(s) and have refused it.(them)
It is their democratic decision to carry on as things are.
One would have thought that was obvious.
2

Upbeat,

07/07/2008 09:43:39
The point is well made by th letter writer, but the comment #1 completely missed the main point.

British laws have the benefit of further scrutiny in the House of Lords which has the power to suggest amendments and overturn certain provisions before final assent is given . This system , which Tony Blair did his best to emasculate , provides safeguards against badly drafted and ill thought through legislation entering the statute books, It also guards against single party doctrine legislation .

We do not have such safeguards in Scotland ( and see the results in poorly drafted, opaque legislation which later- in practice -undergoes revision and intepretation by the Courts.

Better scutiny in the first place at the debate and drafting stages would be preferable...also in Scotland. That is the point.
3

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 07/07/2008 09:54:54
No such anomaly exits?

In 1921 the very FIRST devolved parliament was established in Northern Ireland.

It was modelled exactly along the same lines as Westminster with a lower House of Commons, and an upper house, the Senate. Therefore, NO Northern Irish legislation ever went to the House of Lords for amendment.

However, the cleverly framed Government of Ireland Act ensured that Catholic voters rights were gerrymandered in every constituency, and every piece of legislation affecting Ulster was biased in favour of the Protestant majority, ensuring the Catholic minority had no proper representation, thus bringing about its ultimate downfall. As they say, the rest is history!

The Scotland Act was drawn up to ensure that nothing like this ever happened again! Using a system of committees and petitions, combined with a P.R. voting system based on another 26 parliamentary models from around the world, this ensures that no one political party can ever have a monopoly of power at Holyrood.

As a result there is no requirement for a bloated upper chamber like the House of Lords!

4

Upbeat,

07/07/2008 13:33:15
4 Lachie,

I think the jury is still out. If we look back over the record of Scottish legislation passed by Holyrood then we can see how the intention in the proposed legislation, in too many cases , has not been effectively expressed and enacted by the terminology used.

eg: There was an intention to ban hunting with hounds, but the law does not say exactly that, as now interpreted by the courts. There was an intention to have open access to all areas of Scotland for the general public, but again the wording of the legislation has singularly failed to state this.

Both these two anomolies might have been identified had proper scrutiny been possible outside the narrow, frequently bigotted world of our Politicians. This was where the house of Peers now emasculated by elected politicians out of spite (?) had such a valuable role, for it brought together, in each debate, a whole cross section of experience from every part of British life. This enabled a highly intelligent review of any legislation to take place.

Appointed committees do not possess this freedom. For should those selected ( by senior politicians) to sit on such committees fail to reflect the patronage that put them there in the first place, all too frequently it will be the last time they are invited to express their views to Government in this way on any issue.

This is the flaw in the system chosen for Scotland, pointed up by this letter. Complacency as displayed in #3 will not address this issue, for it attempts to sideline the valid opinions expressed by those opposed to any proposed legislation, at and before the drafting stages. People who perhaps have a better grasp of the complexities of single issues - than elected politicians ever have time or experience to understand - find themselves excluded, or reduced to being permitted to make three minute presentations to the public petitions committee, instead of being listened to in any depth.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.