I NOTE with interest your report on the House of Lords debate on the Coalition Government's proposed benefits cap ("Coalition is defeated on benefits cap", The Herald, January 24).
During the ongoing arguments concerning a Scottish independence referendum, the West Lothian Question has from time to time re-surfaced (that is, the issue of Scottish MPs voting on exclusively English matters in the House of Commons). Your report raises the Church of England Question. Some Church of England bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, and sundry others. They even have their own bench from which they are able to pontificate on whatever matters take their fancy. The rationale behind this situation is not readily understood, even in relation to legislation affecting only England. It is incomprehensible in relation to actions within the House of Lords which impact on the rest of the UK.
This group is endowed with a privilege which is an anachronism in a modern society. If their position can be justified, why should we not also have a number of Imams, presbytery moderators, and Roman Catholic bishops? Why should bishops of the Church of England be in a position as a religious grouping in a parliamentary chamber to act in defeating Government policy? The argument that it is traditional for them to be there holds little or no weight.
When the West Lothian Question is placed on the agenda for action, the authorities should also add the Church of England Question, because it is a historical anomaly which is highly deserving of attention, albeit in the face of protestations from the vested Anglican Church interests.
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
I DON'T remember voting for any Bishops.
Gordon Whyte,
86 Ormonde Avenue,
Netherlee,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article