How the Scottish MPs voted in the assisted dying debate
Scottish MPs rejected the bill, with 29 of the 57 voting against.
MPs voted by 314 to 291 - a majority of 23 - to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales last week
But Scottish MPs rejected the bill, with 29 of the 57 voting against.
Some 22 of the Labour MPs voted against while 15 voted for.
All five Scottish Tory MPs voted against, while the SNP abstained. Two Lib Dems voted against and three voted for.
One Lib Dem abstained by voting for and against the bill.
The legislation doesn't apply in Scotland, as Holyrood has its own bill which is going through at the moment.
But how did your MP vote?
For
Douglas Alexander - Lothian East, Labour
Maureen Burke - Glasgow North East, Labour
Irene Campbell - North Ayrshire and Arran, Labour
Alistair Carmichael - Orkney and Shetland, Lib Dem
Graeme Downie - Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour
Alan Gemmell - Central Ayrshire, Labour
Tracy Gilbert - Edinburgh North and Leith, Labour
Christine Jardine - Edinburgh West, Lib Dem
Chris Kane - Stirling and Strathallan, Labour
Kirsty McNeill - Midlothian, Labour
Chris Murray - Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Labour
Ian Murray - Edinburgh South, Labour
Susan Murray - Mid Dunbartonshire, Lib Dem
Pamela Nash - Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke, Labour
Gregor Poynton - Livingston, Labour
Joani Reid - East Kilbride and Strathaven, Labour
Euan Stainbank - Falkirk, Labour
Elaine Stewart - Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Labour
Against
Zubir Ahmed - Glasgow South West, Labour
Scott Arthur - Edinburgh South West, Labour
Richard Baker - Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour
Johanna Baxter - Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour
Andrew Bowie - West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative
John Cooper - Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative
Torcuil Crichton - Western Isles, Labour
Harriet Cross - Gordon and Buchan, Conservative
Patricia Ferguson - Glasgow West, Labour
John Grady - Glasgow East, Labour
Lillian Jones - Kilmarnock and Loudon, Labour
John Lamont - Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative
Brian Leishman - Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour
Angus MacDonald - Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Lib Dem
Douglas McAllister - West Dunbartonshire, Labour
Martin McCluskey - Inverclyde, Labour
Blair McDougall - East Renfrewshire, Labour
Gordon McKee - Glasgow South, Labour
Frank McNally - Coatbridge and Bellshill, Labour
David Mundell - Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Conservative
Katrina Murray - Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour
Martin Rhodes - Glasgow North, Labour
Michael Shanks - Rutherglen, Labour
Kenneth Stevenson - Airdrie and Shotts, Labour
Jamie Stone - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Lib Dem
Kirsteen Sullivan - Bathgate and Linlithgow, Labour
Alison Taylor - Paisley and Renfrewshire North, Labour
Imogen Walker - Hamilton and Clyde Valley, Labour
Melanie Ward - Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, Labour
Abstain
Kirsty Blackman - Aberdeen North, SNP
Wendy Chamberlain - North East Fife, Lib Dem
Dave Doogan - Angus and Perthshire Glens, SNP
Stephen Flynn - Aberdeen South, SNP
Stephen Gethins - Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, SNP
Chris Law - Dundee Central, SNP
Graham Leadbitter - Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, SNP
Brendan O'Hara - Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, SNP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Time for councillors to take back control
Conservative councillor Phil Doggart This week the voters in Craiglockhart and Fountain-bridge have the opportunity to elect a new councillor. But what will that councillor do once they walk into City Chambers for their first meeting in August? Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Last week's council meeting was always going to be tetchy with the presentation of Kevin Dunion's report, but it exceeded expectations. My group leader, Cllr Iain Whyte, covered the 'who decided what and when' story of the Tour de France funding in his Friday column. Of course, no one knows who decided what and when, but there were some very nervous officers in City Chambers on Thursday, as councillors 'expressed their concerns'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We also had references to the Integration Joint Board. Every councillor will have received correspondence from organisations whose grants have been cut, threatening excellent services to the old, the ill, the lonely and others who depend on support during life's challenges. Former Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion Part of the problem here is how the unelected and seemingly unaccountable have responded to councillors. In November 2023, all five parties agreed to re-negotiate the relationship between the IJB and its funding partners, the council and NHS Lothian. What has happened to that negotiation? Not a lot - despite repeated requests for updates. It seems what councillors decided is not really that important, if you measure importance by officers doing what councillors decide. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Other issues raised included the lack of enforcement of rules agreed by councillors for BBQs in parks and why decisions affecting one ward have not been followed through. It isn't just Le Tour, it is everyday decisions that matter. Some of my colleagues may have mocked when I suggested we take back control, but it is a serious point. There are excellent councillors of all political colours who know what they were elected to do. They do their best, but all councillors must ensure decisions taken are implemented. I hope the excellent Mark Hooley joins our group after the by-election. But whoever wins, my wish is they will join the group of councillors determined to ensure we are the decision-makers. Conservative councillor for Liberton/Gilmerton ward
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Should Labour copy the Danish Social Democrats on migration?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. Photo by Omer Messinger / Getty Images Years before Keir Starmer's 'Nation of Strangers' speech I found myself on the doors at Labour's ill-fated Hartlepool By-Election campaign. A front row seat to the new leader's Labour Party and its floundering first steps in pro-Brexit Britain. Joining a slim team (made up entirely of Labour Party staff bussed in from the North West) I marched around the kind of council estates that were once reliable Labour strongholds. An inexplicably cold Spring afternoon with a colder welcome waiting behind each door. A series of hairdryer-strength rants about how the party had abandoned Hartlepudlians. Bafflement about taking the knee for Black Lives Matter. In an attempt to sell a changed Labour to one resident, a middle aged man in an England shirt. Whether he liked the new, patriotic flag-toting leaflets we were handing out. He mimed spitting on the floor in front of me, then spoke about how the Labour council had closed the local police station. The vacuity of Labour's new offer was palpable then, with Starmer still speaking mostly to Westminster press corps about how he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn. Little to say about the economic system that had left Hartlepool as one of Britain's child poverty hotspots. It was that teachable moment, encountering the pure disdain for Labour in one of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods, that led me to wonder whether the left really was completely doomed, or whether another left wing party had turned the dire situation faced by Labour around. Enter Mette Fredriksen. In Denmark, Fredrikson's Social Democratic Party (SDP) was celebrated for leading her party back to government after beating the populist, hardcore anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP) – a rough analogue to Reform. By the mid 2010s, DPP were the second largest party in Denmark, largely drawing their support from rural, manual workers and pensioners. Stymying this flow of voters and returning them to the left is a miracle of European politics. A case for left-wing beatification. Denmark has become the laboratory for any left politician wondering how to win back the type of voter that used to be their most loyal. Frederikson's party has returned, aggressively, to the traditions of the social democratic covenant. In everything they do there's an emphasis that trust and integration are paramount; a prerequisite for any redistributive politics to exist. This pathos would be familiar to anyone who had knocked a voter's door in one of the post-industrial red wall towns, like Hartlepool, that have emerged as globalisation's marked losers in the winnowed field of British life. In these areas there is a longing for the sense of being knitted together by societal norms, values and friendships that has gone missing. In their place; a country where the state seems to exist as a mechanism to help someone else – someone that you feel little sense of shared endeavour with – first, if it ever gets around to helping you. Frederikson's gambit has been to restore the legitimacy of left politics through forced assimilation: either the population becomes more incontestably Danish or the social democratic tradition dies like an unwatered plant. In the front page of the SDP's 2018 strategy pamphlet Just and Realistic she appears above a quote reading 'You are not a bad person because you do not want to see your country fundamentally changed. And you are not naive because you want to help other people live a better life.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This last chance saloon mentality led to dramatic policy shifts – significantly more coercive than any in the recent Labour tradition – paired with a language of morality and a sense of self-belief that contrasts the more apologetic tone and secrecy of Starmer's Labour. The Danes do not try to debate immigration with their working class voters. They spend their political capital at elections on arguing successfully for traditional left policy – increasing public spending in a society where 88 percent of voters are happy paying some of the highest taxes in the world. Could Frederiksen's example help Labour's least popular Prime Minister in generations? Could it help him win again in those white majority, working class areas the party is currently projected to lose to Reform in 2029? Where Labour needs to be careful is not to re-enact the same decade-long mistake it made with the wholesale adoption of the identity politics of America – without checking its relevance to Britain. The Danish political debate on immigration and multiculturalism orbits around the 'Ghetto Package' of 2018. Introduced by the right, Frederiksen's winning coalition of 2019 continued the policy with few adjustments, save it being renamed the 'Parallel Society Act.' The Act empowers the government to designate areas 'vulnerable' where they exhibit a mix of factors related to a lack of education, low incomes and higher than average crime rates. People that might in a less PC-era have been referred to as 'the poor'. There's a further factor common to all the 'vulnerable' areas – most of their residents are officially designated as 'Non-Western'. This group includes migrants from South America, Asia and Africa and their children. A cynic might argue that 'South America' is included in the list in order to muddy the waters on whether the policy is ethnically-targeted and discriminatory, something the European Court of Justice will decide later this year. When an estate receives the 'vulnerable residential area' designation, sanctions are enacted. The owning housing association or municipality must reduce the number of social housing units in its stock to 40 percent. Participation in crime becomes collectively and more harshly punished, with an entire family liable to be evicted for a crime committed by a relative. Since the act came into effect thousands of social homes have been lost. While thousands were sold to private investment firms, multiples more have simply been demolished. Thousands of families have been evicted, 11,000 are expected to be moved on by the time of the programme's end in 2030. The effect on Denmark's overall stock of social housing is small and the 'ghetto laws' apply to a comparatively small amount of that population, less than 1 percent. However, it is hard not to see these punitive measures mostly as a means to make an example of communities based on their ethnic heritage. The accompanying, much-maligned policy of taking assets from refugees had only ever been applied in four recorded cases by 2022. These are policies designed to make an example in rhetoric more than they are designed to make progress with integration into Danish values. What could Labour learn from Frederiksen's success? Could the party create its own equivalent vision equivalent to 'Just and Realistic'? Not a 'Nation of Strangers' but a more positive and hopeful proposition, that showed a belief in Danish society's ability to absorb and overcome its issues, so long as everyone feels a sense of shared purpose? Any leader of the left today must be able to face up to the collapsing consensus of the liberal political era, acknowledge the difficult reality between the politically convenient myths, as Denmark did. Among those myths; most parties of the Left in the Western World are parties of the working class. They aren't. Most have spent a generation haemorrhaging working class support and members. Further, after a rate of migration outpacing the rate of housebuilding for a parliament, the majority of the public thinks immigration levels are too high. Especially so those in the left-behind areas that notionally left wing parties should feel a natural compassion and solidarity toward. Another myth is that a multicultural society leads to integration by default. We are beginning to see parallel societies in England – as evidenced by the exceptionally poor levels of English spoken in places like Leicester, a recipe for pariah status. Alongside this, the emergence of a form of politics that votes along ethnic, racial and religious lines more so than by ideology. It is difficult to imagine the kind of cultural chauvinism whereby Danes see their society as superior taking root in Britain, but it's exactly this that leads to both their approval of high taxation, high trust and to their unforgiving focus on integration. But just like we are not America, we are not Denmark. Danish ghettos are a result of the country's quietly unacknowledged, decades long, nativist approach to housing. In the supposedly liberal nordic countries, Asian and African migrants and asylum seekers have been pushed into conurbations of undesirable housing and became second-class citizens. The Danish Left has been more forthcoming than Britain about the effects of this ghettoisation, phlegmatic when it comes to publishing the racial details of criminality and working backwards from the numbers. But Britain, by contrast, has not developed a culture of sublimating morality to statistics and that is a strength – Britain loves a triumph over the odds, we give second chances. At no point in history was there a working class life that wouldn't be doomed by quick statistical contextual rundown. Britain has done significantly better, historically, in creating a country where migrants contribute and become part of the country's social fabric. Contrary to the dominant liberal left view of Britain as an avowedly racist country that has barely moved on from the 50s, the most diverse areas of Britain are the most socially mobile. Almost every ethnic group out-performs white working class children at school. We have fewer 'ghettos'. Our housing policies have largely mixed social tenants with private tenants in the same estates. It's almost certain that Britain would never tolerate a racialised idea of a person as 'non-western'. If applied as in Denmark, this label would encompass the former Prime Minister, celebrities like Mo Farah, Linford Christie, Idris Elba, Bernadine Evaristo and the Reform chairman Zia Yusuf. Most of all, it would be an enormous mistake to interpret the SDP's success as solely oriented around issues of immigration. By 2022 the issue had largely fallen away from Danish political debate, with only the rump of Danish Democrats (the DPP successor party) still citing it as one of their main political motivations. Frederiksen had succeeded in neutralising the issue, but she had won on a platform of reducing cuts to social welfare and maintaining taxes much higher than in Britain. Her voters in 2022 placed welfare as their highest priority. Labour, boxed in by fiscal rules and an unwillingness to make the case for taxation, is about to enact the biggest cuts to social security since the coalition. Where Frederiksen did truly excel was in leading her party openly and authentically into this new era. Starmer has so far chosen to hold this conversation in the back offices of Labour HQ, ignoring his party's members, winning consent to lead with a fake mandate. Now, trailing in the polls, time has run out for back room meddling. Labour needs its own reckoning. Related
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
University of the West of Scotland staff ballot for strikes
The University of the West of Scotland (UWS) branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland University Lecturers' Association (EIS ULA) opened a statutory strike ballot on Monday, June 23, in response to the university's refusal to guarantee no compulsory redundancies under its Organisational Change Project (OCP). The ballot will close at noon on Tuesday, July 22. READ MORE: 22 powerful images showing thousands marching in Glasgow to support refugees Garry Ross, EIS National Officer for Higher Education, said: "It is deeply regrettable that the University of the West of Scotland has chosen to make this large number of job cuts and pushed staff to the point of balloting for strike action. "The proposed redundancies are a short-sighted and damaging strategy that will have a devastating impact on the livelihoods of dedicated staff, many of whom have worked at UWS for years. "Furthermore, it will inevitably lead to a decline in the academic provision, research capacity, and overall student experience at the university. "We urge UWS to step back from this path and engage meaningfully with the EIS ULA to secure a no-compulsory-redundancy guarantee." READ MORE: Council reprimanded by watchdog over delays affecting abuse survivors The ballot follows ongoing disputes with university management over the OCP, which includes plans to cut 75.2 full-time equivalent academic posts. The union has raised concerns about transparency and consultation during the process, lodging a formal dispute in March. EIS ULA argues that compulsory redundancies threaten job security, academic standards, and research at UWS. The union said it has a strong mandate for industrial action following a previous consultative ballot that showed broad support for a strike if redundancy guarantees were not provided. READ MORE: Work begins on 'major' school expansion to increase capacity by 500 pupils Members are determined to protect jobs and maintain the university's role within the Scottish higher education sector. EIS ULA is urging UWS management to re-enter negotiations and work towards an agreement that avoids compulsory job losses and safeguards the institution's future. The union said it remains committed to finding a negotiated solution but is prepared to take strike action if necessary to protect its members and academic standards. UWS has been approached for comment.
