So .... devolution for England?

Just when you all thought we'd finished talking about devolution and/or independence .....

So, Scotland stays in the UK but now, Westminster has to pony up with it's bribe of "extra powers".

And thus, the "West Lothian" becomes even more important.

The more powers are devolved to the Scotish government, the more iniquitous it becomes that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that affect English constituents, but not their own constituents. For example, income tax rates.

Suppose, for example, income tax is fully devolved. And then, we get a Labour government with a Scottish MP as Chancellor at Westminster. He can then raise income tax rates which affects English (and if it's not devolved, Welsh and NI constituents, but not his own.

Or, a Scottish Health Minister, or Education minister, or whatever, making decisions on those issues despite it not affecting their constituents.

And, if course, the potential for a Labour government only being able to get laws through that affect England by virtue of Scottish MPs when there is not a mandate among English MPs, and when those laws don't affect those Scottish MPs constituents.

There is no democracy in having laws made for us by people they don't affect and that aren't bound by them.

There is now a need, and an increasingly urgent need, for a solution to the WestLothian question, and I can't see a way of doing it without a major constitutional change in the UK.

What we need, IMHO, is a solution where either matters are devolved in all regions, or none. And thus, the benchmark will be Scotland, which sets the high water mark for devolved powers.

Treat the regions equally, the constituents of the regions with equal responsibilities and rights, and ONLY MPs (of whatever legislature) whose constituents are affected by an issue able to vote on it.

That is, some sort of federal arrangement.

Disclaimer: This is about as off-the-cuff as possible but since, in principle, I support the idea of giving as much power and responsibility to individuals and local governments as is possible and reasonable, to that end I'm for 'devo max' for all constituencies/regions.

EDIT - I posted this is the Scottish thread but it's relevant here since it addresses this issue directly. 'The Scottish referendum is bringing devolution to the rest of the UK - and not before time.'

I rather agree, Galant, but it's a matter for the English to determine how to do that in England, for the Scottish in Scotland, etc.

A Federal system would enable the other nations and the regions who have suffered from lack of investment to at least work their way up to a level playing field I guess.

The West Lothian question will be addressed but I agree with the Welsh First Minister:

Quote:

---

Carwyn Jones said: "I want to make clear now that promises made by three UK party leaders have to be delivered. Any reneging would be a gross breach of faith.

"The old union is dead. We need to forge a new one...now is the time to sit together, all four nations, & work this through

"Wales cannot, and will not, play second fiddle as we work up a new constitutional framework.

"We need to start these talks now. The British establishment almost lost the union - the people of these nations must rebuild it"

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29274994

Depending on how this is done it might actually turn into something rather significant with regard to Europe.

The fact that a supposed 'united Europe' suffers a lot of division and countries having their own divisions within themselves has always, in my mind, made a mockery of the idea. A devolved union moving away from centralisation and trusting its member parts/states might well be something of a combined inspiration/two-finger salute to Europe.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I rather agree, Galant, but it's a matter for the English to determine how to do that in England, for the Scottish in Scotland, etc.

---

I'm with you, though, not quite sure what the "but" is for?

I'm for a Federal system, provided it has clear limits on where Federal powers end. And No Commerce Clause!

A federal system is probably the most realistic option for the UK if it's going to hold together for the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galant

....

EDIT: I'm with you, though, not quite sure what the "but" is for?

---

I wasn't clear, was I? :embarrassed:

What I meant was that getting English matters decided by English ONLY MPs is a prerequisite for deciding what happens within England. I.e. whether we have a sole English Parliament, or choose to devolve some powers/money to regions, or to cities, is for the English to decide, not the current Westminster Parliament, inc. Scots, Welsh, etc. In the same way, if an issue (say, education) is devolved to Scotland and Wales, then it's for their MPs respectively to determine how they do it.

The smaller the councils the greater the incompetance.
No need for any changes, with the exeption that an agreement that Scottish MPs don't vote on English only debates. I don't see any would be against that. Probably wouldn't need to enforce it or write new laws at all.
The idea that local councils could have more power, greater powers over tax etc fills me with dread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy3536

The smaller the councils the greater the incompetance.
No need for any changes, with the exeption that an agreement that Scottish MPs don't vote on English only debates. I don't see any would be against that. Probably wouldn't need to enforce it or write new laws at all.
The idea that local councils could have more power, greater powers over tax etc fills me with dread.

---

The reason councils are full of incompetents is that anyone with any sense or ability becomes an MP / Senior Civil Servant etc. as that's where you can make real change. Besides this is not the question being asked as regionalism will go no further than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to start with. Over time we may see further decentralisation but it will be a slow laborious process. Not least as rebuilding our ageing infrastructure to meet 21st century requirements is going to throw up some pretty heavyweight arguments... London for example is facing a losing battle against unwanted invaders from the animal kingdom with rats probably being the least of their worries

Problem with devolving power is that you rarely get sensible regional decisions, just selfishness. e.g. if you give locals power to set transport policy, they set 20 mph speed limits everywhere even though they hate and ignore the very same 20 mph limits everywhere else.

I am in favour of some sort of federal union, however I found it quite weird how Westminister operates in this country. I much prefer having more powers put into local hands, but with that there needs to be some sort of check and balance, preferably in terms of transparency so locals can question and interrogate what is happening. As wasabi said there is often more incentive to make things difficult for locals when parents get a bee in their bonnet about the safety of our roads, especially when they think that speed is the culprit rather than unaware and otherwise nonchalant drivers.

Despite that I feel local powers are more likely to be beneficial than centralised decision making. It is difficult to understand the issue properly when you have no stake in it, when your world isn't impacted by the decision.

I am liking this renewed focus on how our politics works. It will be good for the UK even if they don't get it right the first time round, at least we are heading in a better direction than the EU is.

As a born and bred Londoner, I would not want to be part of a devolved England. London has its own layers of governance when you think about the GLA and London Councils though sadly the Tories abolished the Government Office for London. There is legislation place for the Local Authorities to work with the Mayor on strategic issues such as planning and transport. In fact, the more I think about it, I like to see London become a state in itself considering the city has nearly twice the size of Scotland in terms of population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adidan

A Federal system would enable the other nations and the regions who have suffered from lack of investment to at least work their way up to a level playing field I guess.

---

I don't see that happening.

I think if we have more federalised view, the richer areas will be more concerned about taking care of their own. As is people in London get pissed off with the reaction of say the North East when we spend money on something like Crossrail, because we receive less in benefits than we pay in taxes. The reaction sometimes feels like how dare you only subsidise us by xyz, it should be more!

I can't see people voting to help a different state. The 'socialist' people in Scotland were voting to not let the commodity wealth be shared, it isn't exactly subsidising the richer.

If we go down this path, the spending gap between provinces will surely widen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

As a born and bred Londoner, I would not want to be part of a devolved England. London has its own layers of governance when you think about the GLA and London Councils though sadly the Tories abolished the Government Office for London. There is legislation place for the Local Authorities to work with the Mayor on strategic issues such as planning and transport. In fact, the more I think about it, I like to see London become a state in itself considering the city has nearly twice the size of Scotland in terms of population.

---

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.

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. For pities sake, consistency in the logic please!


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.

The second Cameron blinked and starting making rash promises I saw this mess coming. He should have said "you're in or you're out. No concessions, no bribes, you're either in with the benefits of the union, or you're out and good luck to you." He didn't, he blinked, and what a mess we now have! Bet he's rubbish at poker.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

... 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. :D

- 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

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,

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dareos

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

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.

---

And therein, I guess, lies the basic contradiction at the heart of democracy versus representative democracy. Prople want the right to decide on things like spending, yet usually lack the background and/or expertise to understand the details of what can be complex issues.

On the other hand, the more remote people are from actual decision-making, the less interested in, and invested in, politics they become.

It's hard to get people to engage with politics if they don't feel their representatives actually represent them, as sadly is the cases with the modern 'professional' politicians.

But for all that those are problems with UK democracy, it pales into insignificance beside the disgrace that is MPs for constituencies not affected by a decision having a vote in making it.

If, in a hypothetical future Labour government, they do not have enough English MPs to carry decisions that affect England ONLY, then they have no mandate to make those decisions by relying on Scottish MPs, who constituents aren't subject to that decision.

And that total cockup of a mess is a situation bequeathed to the current Labour party, and potential future Labour government, by the last Labour government, by the vested self-interested fudge that was the devolution settlement they came to in 1997. They've done it to themselves, and had 13 years in power, much of it with huge majorities, to resolve the West Lothian question, and they chickened out of tackling it. Well, now, post-referendum, it's back, with a vengeance to bite them, and so far, the Labour leadership's position is looking incredibly venal, with even Labour MPs and ex-Ministers saying that it's unthinkable for Labour to go into a general election in barely over 6 months trying to argue that Scottish MPs must be allowed to vote in Englush-only matters because it'll be bleeping awkward for a Labour party than wins the election (assuming it does) if it doesn't have the power to carry English-only legislation without them.

The Labour party's interests do not trump the people's interests, and if they try that line, putting party before country, in an election, they'll utterly deserve what Tory campaigning does to them on that issue.

Cameron has got Miliband's gonads in a vice on this one, because, of course, the Tory self-interest would have been for Scotland to go independent, thereby neatly removing that Labour element in Scotland from future UK elections. Yet, the Tories backed the union with Scotland in it to the hilt, despite it being to their disadvantage. Miliband would be an idiot to think that won't get pointed out every time a TV station points a camera vaguely in the direction of a Tory candidate, too.

The Tories will have a field day with this if Miliband doesn't get his act together. They have the moral high ground on this. They put country before Party, but if Miliband puts Party before country, both the Tories and every TV interviewer is going to make any senior Labour figure squirm in every interview.

Maybe this election campaign might be halfway interesting after all.

I'm concerned by the idea of a Federal UK, if not for the acronym then for the inserting of yet another layer of government which will likely not be directly elected, but instead chosen by political parties. I also don't believe that a federal government makes any sense when you group roughly 80% of the voters in a single clump and the UK doesn't have a natural regional split between the county level and the country level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

I'm concerned by the idea of a Federal UK, if not for the acronym then for the inserting of yet another layer of government which will likely not be directly elected, but instead chosen by political parties. I also don't believe that a federal government makes any sense when you group roughly 80% of the voters in a single clump and the UK doesn't have a natural regional split between the county level and the country level.

---

I don't think there's a chance in hell that an appointed government, chosen by political parties, would be acceptable to the people .... or that it'd work. After all, which MPs get to choose? Because if all Labour MPs in the UK have a say when they don't have a majority in England, we're right back to the initial problem.

We either need an entirely elected English Parliament, or Assembly, or whatever you call it, just like Scotland and Wales have, or we need current MPs for English constituencies sitting in a part time English Parliament at Westminster, say 2 days a week, or we simply need legislation preventing non-English MPs voting on English-only matters that are devolved in other regions, like education policy.

Either of the latter would also require ministers from English constituencies deciding English-only issues, again like Scotland or Wales, and again, could be drawn ftom existing Westminster MPs without adding cost or bureaucracy.

States in a federal system also don't need to be equal size. Consider Texas and California on one side, and Rhode Island on the other. Consider Germany on one side, and Greece on the other. One has long been a federal system, and the other is rapidly getting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Which is what we had before devolution. So fine, I'll go for that. Let's go back to one country, one UK government, and scrap devolved assemblies. But it's not, we're told, what Scotland or Wales want, which is why we got devolved assemblies in the first place.

Or, alternatively, let's tear up the referendum and take Scotland entirely independent. That works, too.

What's not going to work is a system where a policy area, say education, is devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI and only members of devolved assemblies get a say in those policies, but in England, a Labour government can force through policies only by Scots MPs votes, against the wishes of the majority of MPs for those constituents affected by the decision.

Scotland wanted devoution so it could decide an increasing number of issues for itself. Well, fine. But it shouldn't expect to decide those matters for itself, and then decide them for England, too.

Scotland wanted to decide Scottish matters. I have no problem with that. But Scottish MPs, or rather, Scottish Labour MPs should then butt out of English-only matters .... just like SNP MPs do. Only, it shouldn't rely on a voluntary system, as with SNP not voting on English issues but only UK ones at Westminster. It should be legally binding.

And down here, if Labour get a majority of English MPs, and it could well do, then it doesn't need Scottish ones for English issues. But if it doesn't, and can't get a polucy through without Scottish MPs, then it's undemocratic to ram it through with them, as they don't rroresent people affected by the decision.

As for money, that's (relatively) simple. All MPs get yo decide a system for financing each devolved country. And they fo that, now, via the block grant and Barnett formula. Once funding is allocated to that region, that devolved assembly gets to decide how to apportion it. Once allocated, Westminster doesn't tell Holyrood how much to spend on health versus education in Scotland, or in education, how much to spend on free prescriptions or cancer care. And Scottish MPs don't get yo have the deciding bote on how it's spend in England either, it being none of their damn business since it doesn't affect their constituents.

It's simple democracy. Decisions affecting ONLY a devolved region are made by representatives for the constituents of that region, be it Scotland or England. Decisions affecting all, like defence, are made by all MPs.

What's not on is for Scotland not only to have it's cake, but to have English cake too. Scotland wanted devolution, apparently, and nearly independence. Fine .... but now so does England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

And therein, I guess, lies the basic contradiction at the heart of democracy versus representative democracy. Prople want the right to decide on things like spending, yet usually lack the background and/or expertise to understand the details of what can be complex issues.

---

This is why I wouldn't support a referendum on the EU given the complexity of its remit. I guess the interactions with some of your members has now deeply enforced my views.

As for the West Lothian question, it's a longstanding matter and I'm against any knee jerk reaction which does not give balance to political decision making. In principle, I support the notion that Scottish MPs have no right to vote on English matters but in practice I'm happy for the West Lothian question to be unanswered until an acceptable and fair solution is proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

This is why I wouldn't support a referendum on the EU given the complexity of its remit. I guess the interactions with some of your members has now deeply enforced my views.

As for the West Lothian question, it's a longstanding matter and I'm against any knee jerk reaction which does not give balance to political decision making. In principle, I support the notion that Scottish MPs have no right to vote on English matters but in practice I'm happy for the West Lothian question to be unanswered until an acceptable and fair solution is proposed.

---

I agree the timetable is .... optimistic. Also agree it's better to get the right solution than a quick one. But it does, IMHO, need a solution.

The problem will be getting those with vested interest to agree on what constitutes "acceptable and fair".

It does seem to me, however, that if a solution can be found for, say, Scotland, it should not be beyond the wit of man to find one for England. It remains to be seen if it's beyond the wit of politicians, though.

Andrew Neil tackled Jim Murphy today on a tuition fee top-up vote in 2006, pointing out that Mr Murphy voted for the top-up to be increased, which affected English students, despite it not applying to Murphy's own Scottish constituents. The assertion made was that that vote only passed because of the support from 38 Scottish Labour MPs, whose action increased fees for English students, but nor Scottish ones.

Whether correct or not, I don't know, but it illustrates the point.

As for the EU referendum, it suggests an even deeper issue with the principle of democracy, which is that it's not a meritocracy. While, in theory, people voting having a detailed understanding of what they're voting for sounds great in principle, the problem is that in practice, you'd wind up with an intellectual elite running the place, with the vast majority disenfranchised.

The other problem, of course, is that if you lock 12 economists in a room and ask them to decide the economic merits of leaving the EU or not, you're likely to wind up with at least 15 different opinions .... and a fist-fight. And that's just the economics. It also comes from someone with a fair bit of personal experience of being locked in a room with a load of economists.

Having the expertise and experience to understand details and nuances sounds great in principle, but do we really want to tell people they need that before they're allowed to vote?

The main argument, in my view, for an EU referendum is, like Scotland, to settle it, whichever way it goes, for "a generation". Without that, it has no mandate from the people, which simply leaves an open goal for UKIP.

At its heart this debate is about what the future nature of democracy should be in the UK. Now as has already been highlighted this poses some difficult and divisive questions. Taking the recent referendum on Scottish independence as an example, this has shown that there are some very significant undercurrents which can impinge on an individuals decision making processes. It was no surprise that Glasgow, which has some of the worst deprivation in the UK voted a majority yes result. A lot of them feel disenfranchised by a perceived Westminster elite lording over them. So independence was a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak existence, something the nationalists used with great effectiveness to garner increased support. Do I blame them for being "duped"; categorically no. Am I uneasy about the potential implications; very much so yes.

To me it comes back to the question of "why are we here?" In many ways you could liken our society to a hive mind, albeit one riven by disagreements about a great many subjects. For example earlier today I read with interest about the latest Mars probes sent to investigate its atmosphere. Yet if you read the comments on the BBC a number of individuals bemoan the cost of such ventures when there is so much hardship in the world. That I find such views as an anathema to what it means to be human does not negate the fact that they have a point. However, such sentiments are born of the "here and now". It does not take into account the the future implications of such research and how it could improve our understanding of our own planets atmosphere. Something we may be very grateful for in the long term...

So, getting back to the subject at hand, how do we reconcile the ultimate dichotomy of democracy; equity vs. suitability? Honestly at this point I don't have a workable answer. I have ideas but am more than aware that its complexity virtually negates an individuals ability to solve the problem. Not least as perception is regarded as reality by a large proportion of people, especially politicians. To me as a scientist I regard such a view as rank stupidity, yet as a philosopher I understand that how we see the world is a uniquely individual experience.

Ultimately I feel that our future depends on becoming singular of purpose, yet free and open enough to allow individuals to seek meaning within that construct. Why? because without them you have a hole in your being, into which the unscrupulous can trick you into filling with pointless needs and wants. What they should be is a whole other debate. However, it is something we will have to come to terms with in the long run. Currently the basis of our society is a giant Ouroboros consuming everything in its path and leaving destruction in its wake...

Hard to believe that it is less than a wek since the referendum. I don't think any of the three main party leaders covered themselves in glory following the knee jerk reaction to just one opinion poll that put the 'Yes' campaign slightly ahead. Yet as a result of that, Cameron, Milliband (and the other one.... oh yes, Clegg) made promises on behalf of Parliament that they are not in a position to deliver.

Farage (rather astutely) stated his position and distanced him from that decision, and subsequently stated that as he hadn't signed up to that, he wouldn't feel obliged to honour it. I think he sees his eye on political advantage, but may resonate with a lot of English voters.

But given that knee jerk, I rather wish the vote had gone the other way because it would have been a clean break. Yes, there would have been negotiations, but there were defined parameters (and it would have sorted the "WestLothian" question.)

But it didn't, and having stuck a plaster on the sore to do a quick fix, that sore is now starting to fester - and left untreated could turn to gangrene.

Personally I think it iniquitous that a Scottish MP should have a vote on legislation that has no impact on the constituency they represent and scandalous that it is still unresolved after over 40 years, although perhaps that reflects the complexity of the issue, and the undeniable fact that it has been in the Labour Party's interests not to resolve it - and it seems Milliband is already trying to find a weasel way round the issue by trying to de-link constitutional reform with devolved powers.

So to additional regional assemblies. Politicians rarely relinquish power, so I fear that additional English assembly would ad another layer of bureaucracy on top of the Westminster one, although that might work for Wales. One thing is certain, it will increase the level of taxation to pay for the bureaucrats to run it.

It has been proposed that devolved powers go on to a regional level within a country with devolved powers extending to everything except national defence and foreign affairs - similar to the US model.

There are dangers with that. The regions would be much smaller than the States that comprise the United States. There is a danger that it would promote inequality - for example a region with a high level of unemployment would have a large social security bill,which it would have to meet - either by borrowing or raising tax. Answer - for someone living there and in employment - is to move to a lower tax region. And that is easy to do in a small country like England. It would also make a mockery of a "National" Health service - unless that was a power retained by Central Government.

So the whole thing is a dog's dinner. Constitutional reform is - as was quoted yesterday on the radio) a bit like porcupines having sex - it should be done very slowly and very carefully - but our leaders have boxed themselves into a corner and hasty legislation leads to bad legislation - and this is one area where bad legislation just isn't acceptable.

Cameron and Milliband (and the other one) - you really have messed this one up - big time.

Ik9000, i did reply to your post but its been lost in the ether. Saracen and Peterb have pretty much covered what I was going to say, and far more succinctly.

This is a fascinating thread, and so nice to have one without the Yes campaign folks diving in to whine and grouse (yes, I voted "no" - deal with it!)

I'm of confused nationality - born in England, but have been in bonnie Scotland so long that I could probably take the citizenship test. So I guess I count as the token Scot :ill: (EDIT: sorry dareos - didn't spot your post - so that's two foreigners here!)

Folks up here don't seem to be able to understand what the big flippin' deal is over the "West Lothian Question", one opinion I've heard being "If they're no doing stuff that's English only, could they not be spending more time on stuff for the UK anyway?". And remember that this WLQ has been going on since Victorian times.

Folks speak of a "bribe", but it's only such if it's delivered. And at the moment we're hearing a lot of hot air about how it's got to only be delivered once England's got it's settlement worked out. I didn't realise that campaign promises came with small print. Remember that the "bribe" is merely bringing forward powers that have been suggested were coming anyway - so it's a pretty thin bribe.

The points being made about London are good ones - from the view here it's one of the four places that have a strong case for devolution. The other three being Northumbria, Wales and arguably Cornwall. But there's been some comment that the "regional assemblies" perhaps wouldn't be a good solution - e.g. the example I saw being that Norfolk tax payers may not be impressed with a regional seat in Norwich. And I love the joker who suggested a "Region of the Roses" with Yorkshire and Lancashire sharing one authority!

I hear all this hand wringing about the "break up of the UK" - well folks that's going to happen if something isn't done pretty sharpish. And would a federal UK be such a bad idea - after all it works seemingly well for the Swiss and the Germans - maybe we should be studying their ways? And for another view on the FedUK I found this article "Dear Scotland" quite interesting. The UK needs to evolve or die.

Ignoring Ed Milliband's foot dragging, here's what I'd do:
1. Immediately stop Scottish Labour MP's from voting on devolved issues. That deals with the WLQ and dampens the fire of UKIP and the other right-wing loonies;
2. Grant the "increased devolution powers" promised in the "Vow" to Holyrood. That keeps the SNP (and their Green hangers-on) quiet and at least salvages some credibility for Westminister.
3. Raise a study group to look at bringing Welsh devolution into line with Scottish one - either as it is now, or post-vow;
4. Raise a second study group - cross-party - to look at increasing English democracy/accountability. One place I find myself in agreement with Cameron is that English empowerment is not something you want to rush into - it needs to be carefully planned and studied;
5. Offer London some form of devolution (probably akin to current Welsh one);
6. If study group in #4 comes back with regional assemblies then take those onboard instead of the current House Of Lords. We need two chambers, but the regional ones probably are more "democratic" than the House Of Lords, and there'd be Labour and LibDem support for scrapping the HoL.

Unfortunately the politicians seem to have misunderstood, thinking that they can bluff and bluster and return to the status quo - this is not the case. If Holyrood doesn't get the promised extra powers then it's easy to forsee an SNP elected first minister promising another referendum for independence - one that this time will definitely go their way. And once Scotland leaves, there's going to be substantial pressure for Wales to follow suit.

Although I didn't vote for the SNP, I've got to say that they're actually doing a pretty reasonable job up here. Only area of major disagreement being that they've continually frozen council tax, which means that council-provided services have had to be cut.

When I fill in a census form I declare myself to be British. I am fed up to the eye teeth with all this Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish lark. We are (supposedly) united and in my view that's the way we should be governed.

Devolved government is just another layer of talking shop which only got credence from Westminster's increasingly myopic London-is-the-be-all-and-end-all attitude. True, government of the united kingdom needs reform; but devolution was the pressured response of the beleaguered desperate to hang on to votes. It's hopeless.

We need an end to the two party shouting game and an end to the useless House of Lords. The people of the UK have changed; there is no room for ridiculous old traditions. Old traditions can't deal effectively with new problems.

We'll be forever bickering like kids unless we have a political system that works as one and stops all this pulling and pushing in this and that direction. We don't need West Lothian questions we need UK answers.

I'm going for a lie down.

I agree with pretty much all that, Crossy. I certainly agree with the general tone, and with points 1 to 4.

The only thing I'd add is that in this world of devolved powers, and/or a federal UK, then points 5 and 6 are matters for an English Parliament, not. U.k one. If England wants power devolved to English regions, fine. If it doesn't, fine. And how Scotland handles it is for Scotland, not England.

The principle seems clear to me - either we're a unified country and we all decide all matters together, or we aren't. And implicit in that is that given that England is 85% of the population, if the bulk of the view of England is for a, for example, Tory government, then that's what the government is likely to be.

If some regions don't like that, and want a devolved government, then fine. But then, if it's a devolved matter, it's a devolved matter for everyone.

Quote:

---

Folks up here don't seem to be able to understand what the big flippin' deal is over the "West Lothian Question", one opinion I've heard being "If they're no doing stuff that's English only, could they not be spending more time on stuff for the UK anyway?". And remember that this WLQ has been going on since Victorian times.

---

If they don't understand, ask them how they'd like it if we Scots MP had no say over, say, free prescription charges in England, but English MPs (I mean, MPs for English constituents) had a say on presciption charges in Scotland, and that despite Scottish MPs voting 100% for free prescriptions, they were implemented anyway because of votes from English MPs.

It's pretty simple. If it's a devolved matter, ONLY those affected by a bit of law get to vote (via elected representatives) on that bit of law.

/nit-picking mode on

The West Lothian Question dates from Tam Dalyell in 1977 in a Commons debate on devolution.

The constitutional issue it refers to does, yes, date from Irish Home Rule debates in the late 1800s.

Edit - Willian Gladstone, 1886. Thanks, Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by santa claus

When I fill in a census form I declare myself to be British. I am fed up to the eye teeth with all this Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish lark. We are (supposedly) united and in my view that's the way we should be governed.

Devolved government is just another layer of talking shop which only got credence from Westminster's increasingly myopic London-is-the-be-all-and-end-all attitude. True, government of the united kingdom needs reform; but devolution was the pressured response of the beleaguered desperate to hang on to votes. It's hopeless.

We need an end to the two party shouting game and an end to the useless House of Lords. The people of the UK have changed; there is no room for ridiculous old traditions. Old traditions can't deal effectively with new problems.

We'll be forever bickering like kids unless we have a political system that works as one and stops all this pulling and pushing in this and that direction. We don't need West Lothian questions we need UK answers.

I'm going for a lie down.

---

I used to be British. Now I'm English.

Agreed, I'd rather we were a UK, working as one, but that's not what Scotland, Wales or apparently NI want. So, should we force those in that 15% to live by our decisions, because the other 85% want it different?

Getting rid of all devolved assemblies is one solution to all this, but I suspect, and maybe our token Scot crossy or one of the 'proper' (;)) Scots could comment, if we attempted to dissolve all devolved assemblies and revert to a single Parliament in Westminster it wouldn't .... erm .... go down well in Scotland, Wales or presumably NI.

Arguably, if Labour hadn't set up devolved assemblies, the discontent might have just rumbled on. But, right or wrong (and probably right, IMHO) they did. It's now a done deal, a fait accompli, and trying to unpick it would cause major ructions. Hence, analogies about genies and bottles.

So, the situation is what it is, and we need to come up with a solution that's fair to everyone. Which means, somehow, the WLQ needs addressing. And pretty quickly.

I do, however, agree with Crossy that linking it to the referendum promise is unacceptable IF that means delaying Scottish devolution. The promise was unconditional.

If, however, the "link" means trying to get the WLQ resolved on the same timetable, fair enough, as long as it's resolved properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I used to be British. Now I'm English.

---

I'm British. I am a mix of English, Scot, and Welsh (in no particular order). I have family all round the UK and am proud of that. I disagree with devolution full stop, though I understand the sentiment behind it. A Federal system does seem a fairer way, but the execution I don't think will work. Our regions are too small and i think federalism will increase inequality rather than solve it.

But I would keep an unelected house of oversight. It brings balance. Elected officials are too busy worrying about re-election and vote pandering. I am far more in favour of a house of expertise (emphasis on expertise rather than cronie-ism) and it helps to slow down and moderate rushed and poorly executed laws from being passed. Think about the recent rebuttals to various laws the lords have batted back as "try again".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I do, however, agree with Crossy that linking it to the referendum promise is unacceptable IF that means delaying Scottish devolution. The promise was unconditional.

---

A politician keeping a promise? Shocking! :o . And why is this promise so set-in-stone? Was it really made that concretely and without caveat? Constitutional reform should follow due process. Noob-headed politicans making rash promises should be exposed as the dimwit they clearly are and made to follow proper procedures. Whinging SNP or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

as long as it's resolved properly.

---

But that will take time! It can't be resolved properly in an artificially compressed time line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

....

But that will take time! It can't be resolved properly in an artificially compressed time line.

---

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Cameron supporter. I didn't vote for him last time and probably won't next time. But on this, the principle behind the constitutional issue of the WLQ, he's dead right - MPs whose constituents aren't affected by a law have no place voting on it.

And if Labour don't come up with something concrete on it, they're going to have fun trying to defend the notion that they xan ram through policy in England without a majority of English voters by relying on Scottish MPs whose constituents aren't affected because of devolution. So yeah, Ed, go to a general election telling the English that devolution and self-determination on devolved issues is fine for Scotland, Wales and NI but the English don't deserve the same.

And consider, Ed, you got just 10 out of 197 seats in London and the South last time, and you need to win quite a few back if you want Number 10. Do you REALLY want to try that, by telling us that you heed Scottish MPs to implement yoyr polucies in England if you fail to get a majority down here?

Here it is, Ed.

If you get a majority in England, you don't need Scottish votes for English issues. If you don't get a majority in England, you've got no democratic mandate for imposing polucies against the wishes of the people affected by them. Which means, in England, you'd have to do what governments elsewhere in Federal systems do, and negotiate a compromise.

But if you really want to try to win back those seats by telling the voters you don't care what the actual voters think, you just want to impose your views using Scottish MOs to do it, go right ahead. You've already alienated the Scots to the point that you, personally, are less trusted by Scots than a Tory PM (yeah, Cameron polls higher on trust by Scors than than leader Miliband does, believe it or not), so go for the jackpot and see how nany English voters you can alienate, too.

@IK9000 .... it can't be done, or rather, done properly, on an artificial timeline, but it cannot just be booted into long grass by the Labour leadership either, who really want to avoid even discussing this, to the point where they have to make even prmiises on points of principle, until after the election when they can safely ignore it for years, hoping we'll forget and it'll go away.

We don't need to have detailed implantation of a solution in a few months. We DO need to have agreement on resolving the problem, even if it takes more time implementing it. After all, as was pointed out earlier in thus thread, this issue is not new. Politicians have been discussing it since the century before last. How much flipping time to they need? Another 120 years?

I have a strong suspicion that the mooted "mansion tax" will get a lot of people thinking, even those without a £2M house; "once they've wasted that money am I going to be one of the ones next on the list for their moneygrubbing". As someone mentioned earlier the coming general election looks as though it will be rather interesting, though not necessarily in an entirely good way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeriousSam

I have a strong suspicion that the mooted "mansion tax" will get a lot of people thinking, even those without a £2M house; "once they've wasted that money am I going to be one of the ones next on the list for their moneygrubbing".

---

It never works like that.

It will be strong support for the "mansion tax", until all those with mansions leave the country because theyre sick of being forced to pay for the "feckless", at which point all those that supported the idea will find themselves protesting about it because they never thought it would ever apply to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The only thing I'd add is that in this world of devolved powers, and/or a federal UK, then points 5 and 6 are matters for an English Parliament, not. U.k one. If England wants power devolved to English regions, fine. If it doesn't, fine. And how Scotland handles it is for Scotland, not England.

---

Quite true - sorry, didn't make myself clear enough. And when you say "English Parliament" you mean exactly that. English political setup can, and in fact should, imho only be the purview of the English people and the politicians that (pretend to?) represent them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The principle seems clear to me - either we're a unified country and we all decide all matters together, or we aren't. And implicit in that is that given that England is 85% of the population, if the bulk of the view of England is for a, for example, Tory government, then that's what the government is likely to be. If some regions don't like that, and want a devolved government, then fine. But then, if it's a devolved matter, it's a devolved matter for everyone.

---

Problem is that we aren't a united country - NI, Wales and Scotland already have devolution - so the mission is to make that work better. And I'll argue that given 3/4's of the country has devolution, then England must get it too. But the point is whether "England" as an entity or whether some further sub-division is needed. Being Scotland-based I don't feel able to comment either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

/nit-picking mode on
The West Lothian Question dates from Tam Dalyell in 1977 in a Commons debate on devolution.
The constitutional issue it refers to does, yes, date from Irish Home Rule debates in the late 1800s.
Edit - Willian Gladstone, 1886. Thanks, Wikipedia.

---

Quite true, I omitted that bit of information (it was on BBC Scotland on Tuesday morn). Continuing the Hexus mission to educate and inform? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

....

Problem is that we aren't a united country - NI, Wales and Scotland already have devolution - so the mission is to make that work better. ....

---

Exactly. Personally, I'd be quite happy with devolution abolished and the UK run as one country. However, first, it isn't going to happen, and second, I understand why Scots. etc, feel they want more say.

Or, I'd be quite happy with Scotland (and, if the people wish it, Wales and/or NI) being fully independent, separate states.

But if we're a single state with certain powers and policy areas devolved, then it MUST apply in both directions. If Scotland wants it's education policy decided by MSPs in Holyrood then it's MPs have no democratic mandate to comment on it for England, or for that matter, Wales or NI.

What I don't understand is how Labour (leadership) seem to think they can somehow fudge that and get away with relying on Scottish Labour MPs to dictate to England on devolved issues if (and repeat IF) they fail to get a majority in England, just because it suits their vested party self-interest. It is simply undemocratic, as more than a few Labour backbenchers have pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But if we're a single state with certain powers and policy areas devolved, then it MUST apply in both directions. If Scotland wants it's education policy decided by MSPs in Holyrood then it's MPs have no democratic mandate to comment on it for England, or for that matter, Wales or NI.

---

Agreed. And what if the CABINET is Scottish MPs? Then even with a veto on Scottish MPs voting, the agenda is still being set by Scottish MPs on matters that don't affect them. Presumably this would rule out Scottish MPs being eligible for Cabinet Minister for Health, Education, and anything else that has been devolved? And what about Chancellor - given that the majority of the people in the UK live in England, should we allow a Scottish chancellor, who could well and truly shaft this side of the border, knowing it wouldn't be so bad for his kin north of it? This is where the call for an English parliament comes from.

The problem is the more tiers of government the more costs, bureaucracy and political guff gets created. It benefits no-one.

So: English MPs only for the relevant cabinet positions for anything that is devolved, no Scottish or similar devolved MPs allowed to vote on English matters, and parliament sitting some days for English only matters seems the most sensible compromise IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobF64

It never works like that.

It will be strong support for the "mansion tax", until all those with mansions leave the country because theyre sick of being forced to pay for the "feckless", at which point all those that supported the idea will find themselves protesting about it because they never thought it would ever apply to them.

---

Yes, and labour have a wonderful track record of "mission creep" with poorly drafted laws applying to situations they weren't drafted for. Such as councils snooping on people's bins under their farcical "anti-terror" laws.

I'm not a fan of the tories, but I can't abide seeing that slimey creepy bunch of labour half-wits back in power. Given how they shafted the country through their recklessness and short-sightedness I really don't think they are fit to govern. Regardless of who is at the helm.

Why oh why is there not a sensible alternative. And don't mention UKIP. I said sensible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

Yes, and labour have a wonderful track record of "mission creep" with poorly drafted laws applying to situations they weren't drafted for. Such as councils snooping on people's bins under their farcical "anti-terror" laws.

---

Well, it will be 'fiscal drag' - a bit like death duties, which originally applied to the wealthiest in the country (sounds familiar) but as the threshold was frozen, more and more people find themselves (or their survivors) caught in the net. The same will be true for 'mansion' tax. The name just drips of socialist spite.

But this is really off topic - belongs more to a Labour party conference thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

Why oh why is there not a sensible alternative!

---

I tend to think that the political parties we have to choose from exist as they do because of our electoral system. First past the post and extreme weighting of support for one party or other in certain geographical areas have meant that small or new parties never stand a chance unless they wait around for decades acting as pressure groups, like the Greens. UKIP aren't really a new party, they're just the extreme right wing of the tory party!

In addition, a general lack of engagement with politics and allied lack of understanding of things like proportional representation or the fundamental legal principles that govern our country means that there is little interest amongst the wider population. We don't even have a written constitution in this country and technically we're all still subjects of her majesty the queen so culturally we're disengaged.

This is, I think, why there will be so many arguments against federalisation, although I also think that a federal solution would help change that culture while alr solving the West Lothian question.