The Student Room Group

I am confused about the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.

I have been reading articles on how an independent Scotland would benefit the Conservative Party because Labour would lose their Scottish MPs.

Now, in the 2010 general election, the SNP were returned 6 MPs whilst labour had 41 Scottish MPs.

In the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections however, the SNP won 46 seats, to Labour's 44.

I have learned that there are 129 seats available in Scottish elections, but in Westminster elections there are only 58. To clarify then, am I right in thinking that the Scottish people vote in two separate elections, with their votes having very different implications, for the constituency boundaries for respective elections are different?

Do the 41 Scottish Labour MPs of the 2010 general election sit in Holyrood? Or are the 44 returned in 2011 an entirely different set of politicians?

Thanks for your help.
Reply 1
Yep, so do Wales and NI, pretty stupid really. England doesn't get one though, funny that.

Surely we should have just one government split into four?
No. Members of parliament sit in Westminster and members if the scottish parliament sit in holyrood. We've created another layer if beurocracy that only benefits proffessionals politicians. I actually like UKIPs ideas of scottish MPs sit in Westminster fir two weeks and then holyrood. It would saveillions each year in wage bills.
Reply 3
They are elected separately. The MSPs elected for Holyrood are a different set of people to the MPs elected in Scotland for Westminster. I think the constituencies are different too because they use a different system for elections.

Original post by MatureStudent36
No. Members of parliament sit in Westminster and members if the scottish parliament sit in holyrood. We've created another layer if beurocracy that only benefits proffessionals politicians. I actually like UKIPs ideas of scottish MPs sit in Westminster fir two weeks and then holyrood. It would saveillions each year in wage bills.


Another alternative is to have a devolved English parliament/assembly (or several for different regions) and then drastically cut the numbers in Westminster. But having the same people share their time between Westminster and their devolved parliament/assembly makes sense too. England would have to be devolved in some way though, even if that effectively means there is an English parliament operating out of the same premises (i.e. when the MPs for the other nations are away, they only discuss English only matters).
Original post by MatureStudent36
No. Members of parliament sit in Westminster and members if the scottish parliament sit in holyrood. We've created another layer if beurocracy that only benefits proffessionals politicians. I actually like UKIPs ideas of scottish MPs sit in Westminster fir two weeks and then holyrood. It would saveillions each year in wage bills.



Original post by Psyk
They are elected separately. The MSPs elected for Holyrood are a different set of people to the MPs elected in Scotland for Westminster. I think the constituencies are different too because they use a different system for elections.



Another alternative is to have a devolved English parliament/assembly (or several for different regions) and then drastically cut the numbers in Westminster. But having the same people share their time between Westminster and their devolved parliament/assembly makes sense too. England would have to be devolved in some way though, even if that effectively means there is an English parliament operating out of the same premises (i.e. when the MPs for the other nations are away, they only discuss English only matters).


That seems like an awful lot of expense for being people doing largely the same job. Plus, it can't be helpful to the people of Scotland voting for Westminster MPs one year, before having to go through the whole rigmarole again the following year to elect their MSPs.

That said, it will indeed benefit the Conservative Party if Scotland votes for independence, as the number of Labour MPs returned in a general election is disproportionate to those in a Scottish Parliamentary election. Strange situation.
Your figures for MSPs are wrong, in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections the SNP won 69 seats and Labour 37. But basically you're right - there are 59 MPs (Members of the UK Parliament) who represent Scottish constituencies, and 129 MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). The constituencies are different obviously, since there are more MSPs than Scottish MPs.
Reply 6
Original post by Meat is Murder
That seems like an awful lot of expense for being people doing largely the same job. Plus, it can't be helpful to the people of Scotland voting for Westminster MPs one year, before having to go through the whole rigmarole again the following year to elect their MSPs.

That said, it will indeed benefit the Conservative Party if Scotland votes for independence, as the number of Labour MPs returned in a general election is disproportionate to those in a Scottish Parliamentary election. Strange situation.


Well a lot of countries (most?) have multiple tiers of government. In the US they have federal elections (even for that there are multiple different types), as well as elections for their state government, and local elections.

I think the unusual thing about our situation (unusual, but not unique) is that England not being devolved means there should be quite a few MPs for England, since they're the main form of government. Really Scotland shouldn't need so many in Westminster since so much of their legislation goes through Holyrood instead. But if they had less then they wouldn't have proportional representation in Westminster.
Reply 7
Original post by derangedyoshi
Your figures for MSPs are wrong, in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections the SNP won 69 seats and Labour 37. But basically you're right - there are 59 MPs (Members of the UK Parliament) who represent Scottish constituencies, and 129 MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). The constituencies are different obviously, since there are more MSPs than Scottish MPs.


That's not really the result of constituencies, that's the top up regional list.

When the Scottish Parliament was created, it has identical constituencies to Westminster's 72 in Scotland, except that it broke Orkney and Shetland into two. Then they had a boundary change at Westminster level, moving to 59 constituencies in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament boundaries stayed the same for many years after that.
Yes, it's quite ironic that the Tories are the most unionist of the three main parties yet have the least to gain from the union. Though the SNP have for years been eating away at Labour's dominance in Scotland to the extent that they are easily now the most popular party in Scotland, though FPTP will maintain a Labour majority in Scottish Westminster seats for a while yet.
When people in Scotland have a problem or concern, do they go to see their local MP or MSP? It must be so confusing to live in two constituencies and have two different representatives.
Reply 10
Original post by Phantom Lord
When people in Scotland have a problem or concern, do they go to see their local MP or MSP? It must be so confusing to live in two constituencies and have two different representatives.


Well, you've got MEPs and councillors as well as MPs...

We also don't just have constituency MSPs, but seven MSPs for every region. So you've got eight MSPs representing you. I suppose it's a matter of picking who is responsible for what - but ultimately you're probably right: your average punter has very only the vaguest ideas of what issues are reserved to the UK Parliament and which are devolved to Holyrood.
Original post by L i b
Well, you've got MEPs and councillors as well as MPs...

We also don't just have constituency MSPs, but seven MSPs for every region. So you've got eight MSPs representing you. I suppose it's a matter of picking who is responsible for what - but ultimately you're probably right: your average punter has very only the vaguest ideas of what issues are reserved to the UK Parliament and which are devolved to Holyrood.


Talk about unnecessary bureaucracy.
Reply 12
Original post by Meat is Murder
Talk about unnecessary bureaucracy.


It's "proportional"*

* Despite the fact we have a majority administration that got in without being even particularly close to getting a majority of the popular vote.
Original post by L i b
That's not really the result of constituencies, that's the top up regional list.

When the Scottish Parliament was created, it has identical constituencies to Westminster's 72 in Scotland, except that it broke Orkney and Shetland into two. Then they had a boundary change at Westminster level, moving to 59 constituencies in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament boundaries stayed the same for many years after that.


Totally forgot about the regional list. Whoops.
In all honesty I think the influence of MPs from the devolved nations in Westminster needs to be reviewed. I understand why they are present for votes on things like foreign policy which is the same for the whole of the UK, why they should be allowed to vote on things which don't affect their constituents (such as NHS funding as Wales/Scotland make their own policies) makes no sense though.

As far as 'solving' these issues, you could get rid of devolved parliaments, although I doubt that would be popular, give England a devolved parliment (building a new UK wide parliament with enough seats for the MPs) which would be rather expensive, or somehow prevent those MPs voting on certain matters, but I'm not sure how that would work in practice...
This debate is discussing what is commonly known as the "West Lothian Question". Lawyers and Politicians have be considering it for years.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending