So .... devolution for England?

[adidan]

That empty vow was a stupid move, my Aussie and Scottish mates who came down from Edinburgh yesterday said they don't think anyone bought it and it probably helped the 'yes' campaign more than anything.

[Top_gun]

London can't break away. It's only resource is money, and that won't last. There is a benefit to having the land space, farming, distribution centres, nature, factories etc of the rest of the country. It is arrogant and naive for a city to think it would be better off alone, and it would not be. Same as a whole country of Scotland would not have been. FFS consistency in the logic please!

Hmm, let's see how far England without London can get with just land space, farming, distribution centres, factories, etc. Not very far, I think. Amazon doesn't pay much taxes despite having large distribution centres. A number of factories are in foreign ownership so all profits are funnelled out of the country. Farming is subsidised by the EU but considering there is a large anti-EU stance in England they well may spite their noses.

The CEBR has forecast that London’s economy will expand by 15 per cent over the next five years, accounting for almost a third of all UK growth. To say London exists only on money is rather a simplistic statement. We have our creative sectors, tourisms, cultural sectors, media, advertisement, third highest concentration of billionaires in the world, retail, etc.

As for IK9000 suggesting arrogance and naivety, London can certainly follow Hong Kong's example since they have done it for many years. I suspect the reason why IK is so worried is because he knows England can't really function well without having handouts from London.

ETA:

Firstly, I thought this forum had a zero tolerance on swearing and IK9000 used a swearing acronym in his last post.

Secondly, this is a fascinating topic and I was disturbed to see SeriousSam's post (#15) as adding no value to the debate and could harm a more passionate discussion.

[TooNice]

London can't break away. It's only resource is money, and that won't last. There is a benefit to having the land space, farming, distribution centres, nature, factories etc of the rest of the country. It is arrogant and naive for a city to think it would be better off alone, and it would not be. Same as a whole country of Scotland would not have been. FFS consistency in the logic please!

I totally agree that there is a benefit to have the rest of the country, though I am not convinced by the "only resource is money" argument. London is twice the size of Singapore, is a larger financial centre with generally more of many things, yet Singapore has one of the top GDP per capita, well ahead of the UK. At this time, money is a sufficient resource to have, and if nothing change forever (not going to happen), I wouldn't be too surprised if London could get by by importing what it needs. But if some sort of major disaster shock the entire planet that completely devalue money overnight (e.g. Hollywood movie scale natural disaster leading to massive food shortage), then I could see an independent London being one of the first place to fall..

[ik9000]

Hmm, let's see how far England without London can get with just land space, farming, distribution centres, factories, etc. Not very far, I think. Amazon doesn't pay much taxes despite having large distribution centres. A number of factories are in foreign ownership so all profits are funnelled out of the country. Farming is subsidised by the EU but considering there is a large anti-EU stance in England they well may spite their noses.

The CEBR has forecast that London’s economy will expand by 15 per cent over the next five years, accounting for almost a third of all UK growth. To say London exists only on money is rather a simplistic statement. We have our creative sectors, tourisms, cultural sectors, media, advertisement, third highest concentration of billionaires in the world, retail, etc.

As for IK9000 suggesting arrogance and naivety, London can certainly follow Hong Kong's example since they have done it for many years. I suspect the reason why IK is so worried is because he knows England can't really function well without having handouts from London.

ETA:

Firstly, I thought this forum had a zero tolerance on swearing and IK9000 used a swearing acronym in his last post.

Secondly, this is a fascinating topic and I was disturbed to see SeriousSam's post (#15) as adding no value to the debate and could harm a more passionate discussion.

Well, I'm a londoner too. And as for the rest you really are a whinger Top Gun. Not content with winding people up in another thread you seem to be singling me out here rather undeservedly. Debate a point fine, but let's not be petty. It's up to the mods what they allow, and FFS is open to many interpretations, not just your narrow minded one. Man I wish there was an ignore posts by function on here, I would add you first thing.

[Saracen]

....

Saracen, I'm wary of federalisation because I see the potential for a great balls up of inequality too marked. However if devo max is happening then there needs to be a vote on it down here, and definitely MPs who are not affected by it MUST be vetoed from voting on matters outwith their constituency/devolved region. Irrespective of their position.

What worries me is cabinet ministers setting policy who are say Scottish when that policy is English education. In that event we need a separate English parliament. Which is basically federalisation. It may be the only sensible outcome of this mess.

....

Exactly.

I'm no fan of federalism per se, but I regard Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters
(or ANYONE other than English MPs voting on, or setting policy for, English-only matters) as both utterly undemocratic and utterly unacceptable.

Personally, I'd rather there had never been ANY devolution, and that we ran the UK as one unit, but if the Scots, Welsh or whomever want devolution, fine. I wouldn't stand in their way.

BUT .... along with non-Scottish voters having no say in matters devolved to a Scottish Parliament comes the reciprocal of that, which is Scottish voters have no say, at all, in matters outside Scotland where the Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction inside Scotland.

And simple fairness suggests that if Scotland gets it, you can't deny it to Wales or NI. Either we have devolution, or we don't. Either it's right, or it isn't. And it seems that, sadly, that horse has long since bolted from the stable.

So, the ONLY acceptable way forward is for the same constitutional solution to apply to England. If it does not, Westminster is going to achieve the near impossible task of finding itself held in even more disdain or even contempt than it's already managed, up to and including the expenses debacle.

So while I have the same reservations about a federal system, I can't see a viable, practical alternative .... short of the English voting for a complete breakup of the Union, and letting Scotland, Wales and NI do whatever they want, with the English seceding from the Union. If we don't get the West Lothian question properly settled inside a Union, then I'd be pushing for the latter.

And if Miliband thinks that the fact that it'll be against Labour's vested interests justifies screwing over the entire English nation, well, tough poop, Ed. You're losing credibility in Scotland hand over fist. Don't take what support you do have in England for granted. This is fundamental democracy, Ed. And a visceral matter for a lot of peopke. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle in England, now, and if you seek to duck it putting party before country, Labour will pay a harsh price for that. Quite a few Labour MPs think that, and several have publicly said it.

And Miliband, it was your party that let that genie out of tne bottle in the first place. Never forget that, either. You lot caused this. Now suck it up, and find a solution. Quickly. Or else.

[Splash]

Man I wish there was an ignore posts by function on here, I would add you first thing.

http://forums.hexus.net/profile.php?...gnore&u=154610

That should do the trick for you (alternatively click Top_Gun's name>profile>add to ignore list)

[peterb]

Firstly, I thought this forum had a zero tolerance on swearing and IK9000 used a swearing acronym in his last post.

Secondly, this is a fascinating topic and I was disturbed to see SeriousSam's post (#15) as adding no value to the debate and could harm a more passionate discussion.

If you wish to complain about a post, there is a report post button. Experience tells us that when community members take matters into their own hands with comments like this, it often has unintended and unfortunate consequences.

[Saracen]

... I thought this forum had a zero tolerance on swearing and <removed> used a swearing acronym in his last post.

Well, we do, kinda.

I kinda have a layered approach ....

- some swearing will get you a pointed warninh, or even a suspension. That's rarely necessary.

- sometimes temper, or booze, results in, ummm, ill-considered phraseology. That gets you a slap. Which is sufficient. Usually.

- some swearing gets a silent edit. We just remove it and say nothing. Or I do, anyway. Nobody has yet been daft enough to challenge a mod for doing that.

- and VERY mild swearing we might just let go, providing it's not too often, too prevalent.

The intention is to keep swearing at both a low volume, and low level of severity. The intention is that anyone visiting here shouldn't be worried if their young children did, too. But the intention is also to not be too aggressive about how we do it.

By and large, I think it works, and the vast majority of members either just behave, or srlf-sensor the vast majority of the time. Swearing's never really been much of a problem.

And partly, it's not been a problem because, yes, the rules have a "no tolerance" stance, but we seek to enforce that with as light a touch as we possibly can.

If I remember rightly (back to writing much of those rules all those years ago) I said domething like "No swearing, and we reserve the right to ..." edit, etc,. And we do. If any mod sees ANY swearing, we MIGHT ignore it, edit it or suspend whoever did it.

The whole thing is about trying to get the right atmosphere without stomping about in too heavy-handed a matter, so most moderating ultimately comes down to judgement calls.

I think we end up with about the right balance, and it's about 10% due to rules and mods, and 90% due to most members (with an occassional slip) being entirely comfortable with the overall ambience here.

[wasabi]

I remember back when House of Lords reform was being kicked about in the 90s, there was talk of having it being an elected body based on regions, possibly with PR within each region. Not quite the same as federalism, but perhaps a good way to give regions a formal voice at the national level, and bolster the legitimacy and strength of the second house.

However reform of the upper house seems to have stalled at dropping hereditary peers while still leaving it stuffed with the experienced, or cronies, depending how you view it.

Agree that it is grossly unfair that Scots get to vote on issues that affect England. Surely they can implement a rule where they're blocked from voting on anything which is a devolved power? Undoubtedly Salmond's lot would whine about that too.

[Saracen]

I remember back when House of Lords reform was being kicked about in the 90s, there was talk of having it being an elected body based on regions, possibly with PR within each region. Not quite the same as federalism, but perhaps a good way to give regions a formal voice at the national level, and bolster the legitimacy and strength of the second house.

However reform of the upper house seems to have stalled at dropping hereditary peers while still leaving it stuffed with the experienced, or cronies, depending how you view it.

Agree that it is grossly unfair that Scots get to vote on issues that affect England. Surely they can implement a rule where they're blocked from voting on anything which is a devolved power? Undoubtedly Salmond's lot would whine about that too.

I doubt Salmond's lot would object. He certainly didn't. He explicitly supported Scots MPs not voting on English-only matters, perhaps because he simply doesn't have a dog in that fight, but perhaps also because it's entirely consistent with his nationalist arguments.

[Top_gun]

I remember back when House of Lords reform was being kicked about in the 90s, there was talk of having it being an elected body based on regions, possibly with PR within each region. Not quite the same as federalism, but perhaps a good way to give regions a formal voice at the national level, and bolster the legitimacy and strength of the second house.

A Labour government issued a white paper on elected regional government in 2002. The plan was shelved after the North East region voters rejected the proposal in 2004.

[Saracen]

A Labour government issued a white paper on elected regional government in 2002. The plan was shelved after the North East region voters rejected the proposal in 2004.

In part, at least, because a lot of people saw it as an expensive talking shop, an extra layer of government, with little real power or responsibility.

A regional government with real teeth, like local tax-raising powers, might be seen differently. Maybe.

I remember watching a local referendum in Florida years ago. It was about a proposed new toll bridge over a river. Only local people would use it, so IF it was to be built, local money would pay for it, with local people repaying it with tolls.

Put that kind of direct decision-making in people's hands, with a direct say in what does or doesn't get built, BUT if you want it, you pay for it, and you can invigorate local interest in politics. Maybe regional government, with real power, and money, would now get support, especially after the Scottish vote has got a lot of people thinking.

Maybe.

PS. The vote was "no" on the toll bridge, but at least, those paying for it got to decide whether to do it,

[wwinter86]

If English MPs are not to be able to vote on Scottish issues then I think Scottish MPs should not vote on English issues.

[Dareos]

Which is all very well, but in practice proves rather difficult. If all monies gathered in Scotland were to stay in Scotland and the same practice in each of the 4 nations then this would be more palatable, but if monies gathered in each country are then sent to London to be distributed as London sees fit, and then MP's for one country decide to build something like a high speed rail link that goes nowhere near any of the other 3 countries but expect more of a share of the distributed monies to pay for it...

which is a ramshackle way of saying.. Each country's MP's should have a vote on anything that money raised in their country goes on, or the money shouldnt leave the country in the first place.

[ik9000]

Which is a ramshackle way of saying.. Each country's MP's should have a vote on anything that money raised in their country goes on, or the money shouldnt leave the country in the first place.

and that is the problem. If you look up per region GDP, London dwarfs any other, and the South East and then Greater Manchester follow next at a fraction. If all the money raised in London stayed in London the wealth disparity and grumbling about how much London gets vs elsewhere in terms of infrastructure etc would be increased not lessened!

[Top_gun]

In part, at least, because a lot of people saw it as an expensive talking shop, an extra layer of government, with little real power or responsibility.

A regional government with real teeth, like local tax-raising powers, might be seen differently. Maybe.

I remember watching a local referendum in Florida years ago. It was about a proposed new toll bridge over a river. Only local people would use it, so IF it was to be built, local money would pay for it, with local people repaying it with tolls.

Put that kind of direct decision-making in people's hands, with a direct say in what does or doesn't get built, BUT if you want it, you pay for it, and you can invigorate local interest in politics. Maybe regional government, with real power, and money, would now get support, especially after the Scottish vote has got a lot of people thinking.

Maybe.

PS. The vote was "no" on the toll bridge, but at least, those paying for it got to decide whether to do it,

I've been involved in local groups campaigning on planning and transport issues in London. I'm aware of the various policy documents (local, region & national) and how the governance works in London. Part of me like the idea of more people having a greater say but another part of me understands their flawed judgments since they haven't read the documents and just argue on feelings rather than facts.

Is regional government expensive? I was talking to a chair of one of the local Lib Dem groups who campaigned against the London one but didn't seemed aware of the costs and just assumed regional government was expensive without realising running cost (staff, building, etc) was just 2% of total budget cost.