UKC

As far as I can see a problem with a federal Union, and one of the drivers for the independence movement in Scotland, is that England is very large and is seen to dominate.

This of course ignores the differences in social, economic and political outlook/circumstances across England.

How should devolution to England be handled? An English Parliament of some kind? Probably, but for many in England that will be the UK writ small rather than marked change.

So regional assemblies? or push the powers of county councils? I'd prefer the latter, as the bodies already exist, and also they have some degree of 'nationalism' behind them which I consider to be essential for the functioning of governing organisations.

list of councils/population here:
http://www.centreforenglishpolicystudies.com/geography/archive-geography/co...

In reply to Dr.S at work:





Read more: http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Kernow-max-rallying-calls-Cornish-devolution/st...

In reply to Dr.S at work:





Pushing powers to local councils seems a bit ad hoc, and what do you do about areas that don;t currently have such a body? I would prefer to set up regional assemblies along the lines of NUTS 1 regions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

In reply to hokkyokusei:


The problem is this was rejected in the NE.. by almost 80% to not devolve…

3 referendums were planned a decade ago, one took place..

There's not much stomach for regional devolution it seems..

I actually do agree with you that it makes sense..

In reply to IainRUK:



Also, combined with the fact 9 or 10 English cities rejected elected mayors only a couple of years ago it would suggest that the English don't want another layer of government.

Surely, it makes more sense to just have English votes for English issues at Westminster?

In reply to Alan M:


It makes perfect sense... until you discover that such a policy would see the Tories having a significant safe seat majority in the house of commons on English matters. To say that Miliband has shot himself in the foot over Scotland is to put it mildly.

So you stop those pesky Scots voting on English matters and give it to one party instead and if you decided you wanted to reform the constituency boundaries to give a bit of balance, you wouldn't stand a chance because the Tories aren't going to mess things up for themselves.

In reply to ByEek:

Why is that a problem? they've been voted for afterall, and its the unfairness of Scottish MPs (a lot of them Labour) voting that is the problem.

In reply to ByEek:


Funny how the left abandon their principles of fairness and justice as soon as they don't suit them.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I guess if you are aligned with Tory ideals and principles, then you naturally wouldn't have any problem on them having their way on all matters English.

However, you are forgetting that those pesky Scots in the Labour party (all 40 of them) do vote along Labour lines on English matters (rather than Scottish p1ssing off the English lines) and therefore create a bit of balance in the house - even if they won't be impacted directly by the outcome.

In reply to ByEek:

Why do you have a problem with the tories being voted for and having representation? Unbelievable that people are saying this is why it shouldn't happen.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't have a problem with that. But it is a well established fact that Tories tend to have more rural seats that require fewer votes to be elected.

In England our electoral system revolves around a few key swing seats. There is little or no point in the rest of us voting. In other word - we don't live in a democracy in the true sense of the matter. I don't want to live in a single party state, even if you don't get your head cut off for criticising the ruling party.

In reply to ByEek:


Um. What?

You do know that if there was a uniform swing so that the electorate voted 50:50 conservativeabour, it would give a substantial labour majority?

Nothing wrong with that, mind, it's the strength of FPTP.

In reply to ByEek:

But they should have no right to vote on english matters... unless they want english MPs to vote on scottish matters (in the interest of balancing out the Labour bias in Scotland)

If the english don't want a tory government that is up to them to vote that way

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Agreed - but our skewed constituency seat map means that the will of the people in terms of percentages do not add up in terms of power held in Westminster.

Good politics is born out of having a government that can be held to account. Having seen the destruction done by Thatcher and New Labour as a result of a landslide electoral success, I don't buy the argument that a strong government can achieve things for the greater good.

In reply to ByEek:

No, they generally favour Labour. On average, seats won by the Tories in 2010 had 3700 more names on the register than those won by Labour. This not being good enough for you it seems your solution is to fiddle the system even more in favour of Labour.
Would you do this if there were 40 Tory Mps in Scotland?


That's not the argument. The argument is that English people should be represented by MPs from England.
How do think Monsieur.Hollande would react if we suggested some English Tories should sit in his parliament to balance things out?

It's mad.

In reply to ByEek:


The current constituencies in England favour Labour, not the Tories. Indeed, in the coalition agreement the Tories and Lib Dems agreed to (1) an AV referendum (wanted by the Lib Dems) and (2) reform of constituency boundaries (wanted by and favouring the Tories).

Then, when Nick Clegg lost the AV referendum he start pouting and said that in that case he'd no longer support the constituency reform. It's generally reckoned that a fair reform would give the Tories about 20 seats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well you see France in an independent country so it doesn't really compare.

The fact is Scots decided at 55% to stay in the union. As a result it is to be expected that, as an union, English MPs will influence policies in Scotland one way or another, and that Scottish MPs will influence policies in England one way or another.

It's going to be about getting the right balance. But in practice it will be very difficult, as long as we are in a union and that we share resources decisions taken in England will affect the rest of the UK.

Also a lot of power goes to the executive so I am wondering, is there going to be an English executive ?

I don't think a situation where we end up with a federal state where the "central government" is also the government of an "English state" is desirable, that's more or less where Cameron seems to want to go though, as it would obviously benefit him greatly.

There should be a separate English executive IMHO.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


According to your link, it was in response to a refusal to reform the House of Lords, rather than losing the AV referendum.

It's difficult to decide what fair boundaries are, but pretty obvious that relying on MPs in Scotland to make laws in England is not a fair solution!

In reply to ByEek:

All good points, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to the English question?

Landslides will happen in a FPTP system. They are even possible in a proportianal system (but rarer).

In reply to ByEek:

Er, no. Unless you can fault this analysis :

http://www.instituteofopinion.com/2013/05/electoral-bias-and-the-2015-uk-ge...

Rural constituencies tend to be larger, both physically and in terms of numbers of voters. 8-12 year boundary reviews are ridiculously long, given population movement, while the suggestion that constituency sizes should adjust for unregistered residents is of course ludicrous. If anything, voter registration and voting both need to become significantly stricter, particularly postal votes need to be harder to get.


Good point, and this is a serious weakness. But unless FPTP is ditched, it is hard to see a clear remedy. Personally I think FPTP has largely outlived its validity, at least we need multi-member constituencies to even things out somewhat, while still retaining a local component. Most of the excuses for defending the status quo in England at least are from obvious vested interests.

It would also be a great improvement if the population lost the habit of "I vote for them cos me dad did, and his father before him". There are signs that this is happening, but only in a piecemeal way and who they will then vote for is highly unpredictable.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Scotland and England both regard themselves as countries in their own right. Thus on the issues that they have decided to act on independently there is no reason one of the country's representatives should vote in the other country.


Yes, but eau in a fair and equal way and basically on things that are govern by the UK rather than devolved to constituent parts.


Decisions taken in France affect Germancy and visa versa.


To be reviewed.


You seem to be unable to distinguish between England and the United Kingdom or "Britain". Nobody is suggesting that a the government of an English State should also be the central government. That would be as unfair as Scottish MPs voting on English only issues.

Where are you getting this mad idea?


Possibly

In reply to Postmanpat:



Hey not really. Or it does through Europe which has a separate parliament.



Yet it's what would happen. Simply because budget decisions for England have knock on effect on the rest of the UK.

Any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that's the Barnett formula for you. You know, the one they pledged to keep.

I think that's where the madness is, because currently, block grants for Scotland, NI, and Wales are set depending on budgets set for England.

If only English MPs vote for English budgets, you are basically giving the decision on the budget for the whole of the UK only to English MPs.

That's why I think we need a separate English executive.
Budget should be set at national level including all MPs, and England should get a block grant, like Scotland, NI, and Wales, and then they can do anything they want with that block grant.
When we say "English votes on English matters" I completely agree on the principle but in the current system, pretty much all English matters, when they come to budget, are in fact UK matters, thanks to this stupid Barnett allocation system based solely on English spending and population share.

Does it make sense ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It is a fair point. If we have more Scottish devolution, and a rule that Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs cannot vote on English matters -- which is what Cameron has suggested -- then we're left with an executive at Westminster that is both the central executive and the England-only executive.

Thus, the next stage would have to be a separation of those two. Since the England-only executive could end up with control over ~ 85% of so of the overall tax revenue in Britain, this is going to make things tricky for the central executive. For example, the central executive would control defence and foreign policy, but not have much control over budgets.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yep, I can't agree more.

I think if we are going this way and we keep Barnett, then England needs a block grant, devolved powers, and its own executive. In effect an English parliament, even if we decide to "reuse" English MPs to avoid having even more politicians to feed, that's what it will be, another layer of government.

But then it will need to be clear what devolved power this English subset of Westminster has, and allocate a block grant in function of that. All other budget decisions will have to be taken by the whole of the UK.

In reply to ByEek:


It is pretty much a democracy in every sense of the word.

Scottish issues would still be a minority issue under any other system, minority parties have no power at all, even in those states with enforced electoral plurality.

The obvious question here is why such a small number of disgruntled Scots should be given so much power over the electoral system in the UK. The only answer is the amount of damage they can cause if they don't get their own way.

There is nothing eternally interesting about anything the Scots have to say regarding regionalisation and it's irrelevant for the rest of the UK.

The referendum has shown that there is nothing positive behind the campaign except a parochial desire for independence.

In reply to winhill:

It is a democracy. But that does not mean that it is not a flawed democracy, with serious problems that need to be recognised and addressed.


For the same reason that it is neither sensible nor appropriate to be triumphalist over the defeated Yes voters - because we regard them as our fellow citizens and want them to stay in the union, on a consensual basis, even though they lost the vote.


Not true. There is a distinct Scottish identity, which is entirely reasonable and justified, even if its expression is sometimes parochial or nasty. So it is worth going the extra mile to try to accommodate the Scots, even if sometimes it can feel like the tail is wagging the dog.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Having listened to a council main planning committee comment on a critical and disastrous idea for our local Delamere forest, I would have no confidence whatsoever in the abilities of the councillors to analyse any situation and make a realistic judgement. Most of them seemed to be people who had failed to make a success in the industrial or commercial world.

In reply to altirando:

That is the big problem with overdoing local powers - you end up with (mostly) 10th-rate people in positions of power. The idea appeals to those who haven't experienced it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Scottish parliament being a good example. I have it on good authority that Alex Salmond himself missed the quality of debate he enjoyed at Westminster; Holyrood was just too easy a ride.

In reply to Simon4:


If they're not recognised I'm sure how we know whether they're serious or not.



If the Yes vote had won then we simply wouldn't be bothering to address some supposed crisis in UK democracy or regionalism, they'd be no argument for devolution to the regions.

Even the Yes voters and the 45 seem to agree that the Nats simply failed to present a convincing case beyond parochialism, look at the likes of Andy Murray, persuaded by nothing more than the style of the campaign, the content simply Meh.

The anger the Yes losers feel is a result of that parochial emotional investment rather than a sense of loss of actual tangibles.

Similarly the MeToo jealously of the English nationalist right is a by-product not an original demand.

In reply to IainRUK:



In France it's been a fiasco, just jobs for the boys (and girls) and a ridiculous waste of money. No one will admit this, of course, but at present they are cutting the number of regions in half. What will be done with the prestigious regional assemble buildings that are no longer required hasn't been talked about much. If the EU is anything to go by they will be used alternatively not to sack anybody , giving extra excuse for unnecessary expense shuttling the papers back and forth like between Strasbourg and Brussels!

In reply to Alan M:


Why? Can you give an example of when the present simple system of all MPs being equal has caused a problem, a scandal or even an inconvenience?

You are allowing yourself to be dragged down the road on nonsense by unscrupulous fools.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Too true. And look at the corruption endemic in places like Ken Livingstone's London. In principle I'm in favour of decentralisation but there's many a slip between cup and lip.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Foundation hospitals and university tuition fees. Both high profile measures for England dependent on the votes of Scottish MPs.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes, but where has it been suggested that this a good idea? As you point out, it creates new problems which will need to be addressed.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


You are being ingenuous here, English MPs do vote on Scottish matters when the vote concerns all the country as it often does, as do the debates. The Scots have just voted against breaking the country up and now you bunch are all calling for the opposite just to scrape the barrel and avoid your beloved Tory party being voted out in the next general election.

If ever an English Parliament were to be set up, Westminster would become an empty shell and the road to the destruction of Great Britain would be a open highway. Think a bit for goodness sakes, a short term gain for the Tories is not worth the destruction of the Union

.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Only for someone who is desperately keen to break up Great Britain, just to keep his wretched party in power. Accept democracy, the tories will be voted out next election - stop you gerrymandering, you're worse than Salmond.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Bollocks, Scotland just voted on this and all the polls show that the population of England don't want to break away from a union... stop your gerrymandering, just because Cameron has had a "bumper idea" to stay in power you don't have to follow him.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So you're saying the Tories were against tuition fees?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You really have been away a long time. Try telling even an ardent unionist that Scotland isn't a country. And then duck…….

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You need to read more Bruce. Labour suffered a rebellion by it's English backbenchers which was offset by its Scottish MPs. Isn't that in your books?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


>
You Maoists never really got this democracy thing did you. Maybe that was Salmond's problem as well.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The starred but is what is important. Currently Scottish MPs vote on English matters regardless of whether they affect just England or the whole of the UK. People have sort of put up with this for now but as more and more decisions about Scotland are taken by the Scottish parliament, it is getting less and less tolerable for many in England. It's not really anything to do with who is in power, just basic representation.

In reply to MG:
and an elected Senate { Upper House} system to replace the House of Lords like Australia?

In reply to Postmanpat:

So if the tories were against tuition fees - set up under Blair but at a lowish rate - I know because my eldest daughter went to university in London at time, we had to pay some fees but not the ridiculous ones introduced by your tories, which we couldn't have paid - experience beats reading - why didn't they abolish them?

Reading "the voice of Cameron" and various other Tory scoundrels on this thread, bring up an issue so strongly, and one that has been barely touched on previously, one wonders if those who said Cameron didn't want the "No" to win? He's certainly been very quick, quicker than his usual self, in bringing up this business of an English Parliament, or restricting the rights of Scottish MPs in Parliament. Not only is it a blatant provocation, and insult, to the Scots but it is an overtly dishonest way of staying in power. When did he suggest this before?

At a time when most agree that the government should listen to the population of Scotland and smooth over conflicts what does he do but start one up. A total blagard, dishonest to the bone, and incompetent too, like the poodles who follow him. Really the idea of setting up an "English Parliament" for 85% of the country when people like him are already the best that can be found for one parliament makes one wonder how competent members could be found for two

Time to stop this idiocy, the pressure of the last few weeks seems to have cooked a few people's brains!

In reply to Postmanpat:


It seems to be what Cameron is trying to do, it's what "English vote for English matters" would do. Obviously, it would benefit his party's influence greatly.

The devil will be in the details, as I pointed out before most of the "English matters" are in fact "UK matters", because the Barnett formula takes spending in England to calculate the block grant of every constituent nation.

There is a big risk of an unfair Tory power grab here. Let's see what they come up with.

In reply to MargieB:


+1

In reply to MG:

The problem is that there aren't so many "English matters" that do not affect the whole of the UK, everything that affect spending does. Plus as we pointed out the shared executive causes problems.
That's why many are pointing out the risk of an English/Tory power grab of the whole of the UK.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



AAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH. Read my post, read my post, read my post. read my post.

The Tory position (which,as it happened, changed, is not the point under discussion.. The point is that without the Scottish Labour MPs it wouldn't have passed.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Well if you want to go back to just one parliament for everyone, that is one solution. However, if you accept Scottish matters decided by MSPs only, you can't really object to the same matters being decided by either English MPs, or possible an English parliament. There is overlap each way, sure, but you can't have a such a lop-sided arrangement as at the moment, particularly after the Yes campaign brought it into such focus.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They only affect the whole of the UK because the Barnett formula links spending. If that is changed so there will be more English only matters.

In reply to MG:


It's not really lopsided. Most of the English matters are UK matter. And when the matter are exclusively English, SNP MPs abstain as a matter of principle. If Labour/LibDem/Tory Scottish MPs were doing the same there would be no problem.

In reply to MG:

Britain has just pulled though a fairly serious attempt at breaking it up, it's surely not the right time to commit hari-kiri? An essential factor in maintaining the unity of any country is that all elected representatives in the central assembly be on an equal footing. If you attack that you attack the union, the existence of a united country and facilitate the work of those who want to spit it up.

There may be a minor issue caused by 15% of the country feeling they need power of decision over matters that concern only them and this basically erroneous road has been followed for too long to reverse it but that is no reason for the rest of the country to allow itself to be shaken. Let the 15% have what they want, it's a reasonable compromise, but the rest should stick to a system that has done well up to now, concentrating on improvements which are really needed - the reform of the House of Lords being one... but that wouldn't help the floundering tories at the next election. No matter, let them flounder if that's what people want... with a bit of luck I will be along to participate in their demise so I do feel concerned

In reply to Postmanpat:


I agree with that, but as you know they have committed to retain the Barnett Formula.
Not necessarily a problem if we have a separate English executive, unlink Barnett from spending in England, and assign new block grant for England. At which point UK parliament would effectively be an empty shell. But that doesn't seem to be the plan.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You clearly don't understand the problem here. I suggest you google West Lothian Question.

In reply to MG:

I think he knows what the WLQ is. The problem is the risk that they use the WLQ question as an excuse to set Tory spending policies all across the UK through English budgets, even if Labour has a majority in UK Parliament.
That would make the job of any Labour government extremely difficult, or even impossible.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Aren't "they" a terrible lot? Sinister, scheming, out to get you. Shocking.

In reply to RomTheBear:

There is plenty of low politics involved on all sides. That's because they are politicians.

But it is not really in the long term Conservative interest to impose their spending plans on a reluctant Scotland through the backdoor. Not unless they just want rid of Scotland, in which case why defend the union this time?


Their interest is in making sure that an elected Conservative government can execute its policies in England as it would be elected to do. Your interest appears to be in finding an undemocratic way to stop this.

There is of course, a deep problem, in that if Scotland has fiscal autonomy within a federal State it's policies will have an impact on the currency and borrowing costs of the whole of the UK.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



University top up fees and foundation hospitals spring to mind!! When I get a bit more time I will write another reply with a list of other laws that have impacted England and relied on non english member votes. On at least one of the above the margin of the win was less than 10 votes.

Like it or not the Union now has to change to be fairer and more democratic. You cant have a union with 3 parts having devolved issues only decided by their own parliaments and the 4th part being open to everyone. Especially if those votes from the other parts might make the difference on implementing laws in the 4th against the majority wishes of the elected members for that part of the union or even public opinion.

For me we can go several ways.

1) English parliament ... im against please no more layers of government or members to elect

2) restrict the final vote to english mps which still allows all mps to debate

or allow all mps to vote but the law can only be passed if a majority of english mps voted for it.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It might not be their long term interest. But how many politicians really think long-term these days ?


No I'm perfectly happy with English MPs deciding on English matters, as long as they are, indeed, really English-only matters.


Well it hasn't got fiscal autonomy, and there is clearly no plan for total fiscal autonomy (at the very best all income tax revenues will be devolved), plus all the borrowing is done on Scotland's behalf by the UK with strict limits. So there isn't too much risk of that happening at the moment.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm still waiting for you to explain how the "Barnett formula" works, how it has the massive power you, and others, seem to give it. Could it be that you don't know and just use it as a mantra?

PS. Concerning tuition fees, if you mean under Blair, you are twisting things a bit, Scottish Labour MPs may have voted for, they followed the whip, as did the majority of English Labour MPs (to their great shame IMO) but that hardly fits the bill. So in fact there's only hospitals? I don't know what happened there but if it was like for tuition fees, that is the Scottish MPs voted along with their English colleagues it can hardly be a considered an example of Scottish MPs helping overturn a government proposition.

In reply to MG:


Well I think your trust in David Cameron to not play dirty political games is misplaced But hey you're allowed to trust him if you want.

In reply to MG:


I already have... it's a poor argument saying those who disagree with you "don't understand" or are "ignorant". It's not rare on ukc but it's a poor argument.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, that is what you are suggesting Cameron is doing vie Macheivellian schemes by which Tory policies in the future can be imposed on a devolved Scotland.


Good.


Tax independence alone gives them plenty of opportunity to destabilise the UK.

In reply to MG:


So Parties don't "scheme" or plot to get what they want? You sound as if you were born yesterday, most of us weren't.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It could be but it isn't. Although I could barely have told you how it works a month ago. Actually I missed your post of yesterday but when I eventually spotted it I reckoned you could probably find something to read on it which would save me time.
It's not a "formula" by the way. It was stop gap measure according to Barnett himself which he believes is unfair and was based on inaccurate numbers in the first place.


Agh,so now you've googled it. What has their following of the whip got to do with it? Quite simply, enough English Labour MP rebelled that if the Scots had not been allowed to vote it would't have passed. Which is what I said happened.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What you see as a Macheivellian scheme strikes me as classic Westminster power games.


Yeah !


Which tax independence ? Most likely we'll get only income tax powers.

In reply to Alan M:


Totally agree.



I suppose this might be possible but what about measures debated in Parliament which essentially affected N Ireland, Wales or Scotland. Would you want to apply similar restrictions then?... The whole House debates then only a handful of MPs can vote? It really rather devalues the role of each MP... Who would decide if a bill was "local" or not.

I would apply the old saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

PS. What about a bill concerning just the River Rother, the whole House can debate but only the MP concerned votes. there must be a constitutional issue in there somewhere!

In reply to RomTheBear:




That in itself. But hopefully, given they are only 10% of the economy and won't get full tax independence the ever patient English will just accept the relatively minor impact of a bit of fiscal profligacy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You usually make good comments but that one was below your usual level.
You know very well that Scotland will have only extended income tax powers (as it already has some, unused), and that it's unlikely that they will be put to use in any significant way as long as the other major levers of the economy are in UK's hands.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But these Scottish MPs are MPs of the UK of Great Britain and N Ireland, that is to say our country, so whey the hell shouldn't they vote on it? You seem to have taken the anti-unionist line altogether now, it was appearing a while ago but now it is flagrant. Funny, just when some Tories do the same. Will they change their name soon? At present it is Conservative and Unionist Party... have you decided to drop the Unionist?

Concerning the "Barnett formula" I too read about when people were saying the whole country was up in arms about while I had never heard it even mentioned but after reading about it I can't see why it is being bandied about all the time. As you have too I wondered if you could explain why you thought it was so significant for Scotland, it looks as if it is favourable for Scotland.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



well that would be for parliament to debate and work out the mechanisms for deciding if it's an English only issue. If they can decide on Devolved issues for the 3 other parts then it wont be too hard to decide on which issues relate to England only. I would guess the speaker of the commons would then alert the house to if its an English or UK wide issue etc. Or, English issues could just be dedated on another day etc

The problem is, the current set up now with greater devolution going to one part atleast will unbalance the rest of the union. Scotland can't be treated differently to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.



If its a uk wide issue then they all vote if its a devolved issue only those mps responsible for that devolved area vote.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, bit of a low blow. Must be the influence of Bruce rubbing off on me.


Actually that is not clear. there is a huge amount still on the table to be squabbled over. For example,the Barnett formula could be rejigged to make the transfers more equal in exchange for a) Greater fiscal autonomy b) Stopping Scottish MPs voting on English only issue.

That is just one example of many deals that could be struck

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I've got some good news! All of this is to be enacted after the next general election. So parliament will be going to the people on this. After the Tories have been voted out, Our Fearless Leader Ed Miliband will dump the idea!

So you don't need to worry.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

For the same reason English MPs can't vote on the equivalent in Scotland.

Your innate conservatism seems to have trapped you, as always, in some sort of 1960s neverland in which Scotland is a province of Britain differentiated only by the wearing of tartan skirts. It's not like that anymore, indeed it never was Bruce.

You need to get out your of union jack underpants leave the Home Counties and catch up.


Who said people were up in arms about it? Which people? Yes, it appears to favour Scotland because it enshrines higher public spending per capita in Scotland compared to England. The English have a vague notion that this disparity is unfair although I doubt that one in ten had hard of the Barnett formula underlying it until two weeks ago.

In reply to climbwhenready:



I wouldn't be so sure, there is no guarantee to have a Labour government. The odds are creeping up slowly in favour of the Tories.

We'll see.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sound of jaws music in the background…..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>>


Have you lost it Bruce?

Your arguement is that it's Ok if the scottish MPS vote provided they follow the party line?

Please explain how it is fair that a Scottish MP can vote on English matters where scotland has devolved power(e.g. education) when an English MP cannot vote on the same matter in scotland? it is blatantly unfair. yes, there are I'm sure matters surrounding education that are ata whole UK level, which both should be entitled to vote on, but where it is a matter for devolved powers (be them Scottish or Welsh) then they should be decided at a country level.

The party the MPS belong to is irrelevant.

In reply to Postmanpat: )

Or in my case, carmina burana

In reply to hokkyokusei:


There is a basic flaw with that map - and probably why the NE voted against the proposal a few years ago. The North East on its own (Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Durham & Teeside) would be too small in terms of population and revenue raising ability. Similarly the North West region as shown on the map is too 'stretched' People in the northern half of Cumbria have more affinity with the North East than with Greater Manchester -- their regional TV news is tied in with the North East.

The North needs to be a Super Region - basically everything north of the M62 Corridoor -- it would then have a population to match the Greater London Area or Scotland -- and if it's right for 6 million Scots to be able to have a large say over their own affairs, it's certainly holds true for 6-7 million Northerners.

Splitting the North down the Pennines would do nothing to address the chronic lack of modern efficient cross country road and rail links that is holding back development in the North. HS2 If and when it gets built will do nothing for the north other than make London more accessible for commuters from Manchester and Leeds.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But this has been going on for a while without the world coming to an end... it's a bit like in a family, if one member is a bit assertive and insists on having the chicken leg all the time the others just let him have it, perhaps with a glance to each other but as it's no big deal either they don't make a fuss or install a complex system for deciding who has the chicken legs according to some "drum stick formula".

Sometimes in trying to be absolutely fair you can create more problems than you solve. Usually a bit of adult common sense is best.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Have I missed the announcement for the "Crappest analogy of the year competition"?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Only for schoolboys and barracks room lawyers, I was both one once it's not the best solution, even if being a school boy (or girl) is hard to avoid.

England is 85% of the population, maybe the views of the other 15 could help sometimes, in return England gets a generous share of oil and sheep. Everyone should cool down a bit and try to encourage laid back friendly cooperation not bicker about crumbs. Otherwise they'll be more demands for referenda and such like

>"HS2 If and when it gets built will do nothing for the north other than make London more accessible for commuters from Manchester and Leeds."<

Worth remembering also that Manchester & Leeds are barely in 'The North' even from a population perspective. From a geographic perspective, they're somewhere between 'The South' and 'The Midlands'.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Straw, camel, back.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


How is it not unfair?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well it's no worse than the couple divorcing analogy we've that's been droned out for weeks.

How about looking at it like being in a lifeboat heading for the rocks in a choppy sea, you don't argue about who has the best oar you all get rowing and never mind if one is a little longer or straighter than another?

That's even worse. How many do you want?

In reply to Postmanpat:


My point is that it doesn't matter, there are more important real "problems" to solve rather than create artificial ones.

It's pretty clear what's behind this one anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




It doesn't matter how many crap analogies you come up with, you can only win once.

You think addressing the West Lothian question is a Tory plot? Do you think Gladstone and Dalyell (y'know, one chap raised the issue and one coined the phrase) were Tories?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

For which read "It doesn't bother Bruce so why should it bother anybody else".

"Rule Britannia" eh, Colonel?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I agree, if the English want English vote for English matters then they have to set up an English parliament and devolve powers to it.

That will leave you with a weak UK government that would basically be an empty shell.

I have no problem with this concept as it would bring us slowly to independence, which is a neater and simpler option IMO, but I doubt that's what the unionists had in mind.

Overall I still think dissolution of the Union is the best way to end the West Lothian Question, but 55% of Scots disagree with me Damn !

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Perhaps, so, but that could be addressed by varying the amount of representation each regional parliament/assembly set to Westminster. There would be two pots for revenue, that which was raised and spent locally, and that which was raised national and redistributed nationally, akin to the EU.

I'm not saying it's a panacea, I'm not saying I've even given it much thought, I just think the solution lies in that direction rather than the unwieldly concept of Welsh, Scottish, & Northern Irish MPs having to leave the room while English matters are voted on.

In reply to hokkyokusei:
>
blurty said the other day that until the mid 20thC a bout 40% of revenue was raised and spent locally. Don't know if that's true.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Certainly wouldn't be very equitable today when the likes of Corporation tax is taken in to consideration. The vast majority companies in the Financial Services, pharmaceutical, retail, and technology sectors are based in London or the SE. By comparison major industrial and commercial concerns have largely been eliminated from the north. This is why there needs to be a positive redistribution of resources in favour of the north to make it a more attractive place for business to locate instead of the overcrowded south east. When you look at the cost of the 50 miles or so of Crossrail, ( most of which is in very expensive tunnels) you could probably build 2 or 3 times that amount of overground track providing better links between the northern population centres.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


It's pretty clear that Cameron and others are exploiting the referendum result and this question to prepare the next general election. As already they have been forced into a coalition and this is unlikely to be possibility next time they need to do something given their ratings. Do you think the way this idea was spewed out all over the screens so quickly after the referendum result doesn't indicate that it was prepared or do you thing Cameron is particularly know for his rapid responses?

If, as you suggest, the question has been about since way back then is it coincidence that it's getting so much coverage just now? Scotland has had it's own Parliament for quite a while, why is it such a big problem all of a sudden?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I do tend to base what I say on what I think, any problem in that?

Sorry I don't base it my master's voice, I've never been good at that. Tory head office have got the party line out smartish this time, I've got to give them that, but, as I've already said, that just shows that they had it prepared in advance.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Do you really think that 45% of Scots were muttering "got te fix that dam' West Lothian Question!" as they went to vote?

They can't all have been on Postmanpat's "friends" list on facebook, not all one and half million of them.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, if you extrapolate from your own views that it is the consensus view ,as you are on this.


Far be it from me to suggest you do. I'd been muttering about this for months ahead of the referendum so it would be bloody strange if they hadn't spotted it.

Perhaps it would be better if Cameron mimicked Milliband's impression of a floundering fish. Is it your view that politicians should not promote something they believe in if it is also likely to be popular with the electorate?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You may have a point here Cameron is just being demagogic, playing up to the UKIP voters, and yes it is my view that politicians shouldn't play up to the UKIP voters, not try to be popular at any price.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Ruminating on this over a bowl of pasta, I was actually amazed by home quickly and bluntly he came out with his "wot about the English" line the day after the referendum.

I think he genuinely feels it needs dealing with and genuinely thinks much of the electorate, not just the Ukippers but many disaffected labourites, feel it needs dealing with it. Obviously he also exploits it to push Milliband into a corner. All's fair in love and war. Motivations are complex.

However, I think the real reason he came out so quickly and aggressively was to head off his own backbench. In this sense he is revealing not an ear for the electorate, but the very Westminstercentric obsessiveness that the electorate hates. That may be the message the electorate takes away.

In reply to Postmanpat:



We need a like button

In reply


I disagree - it will leave you with a UK govt dealing with external affairs, and any pan-national issues, and national or regional governance for devolved matters - why can't both be strong?

On the 'muppets in local govt point' - currently there is little perceived responsibility, and so poor people are attracted - a city like Bristol or counties like Lancashire are big enough to provide competent people.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I agree with that but I still think that's quite a limited scope for a UK government. Basically you would have effectively four independents states with a currency union, a stability pact, and a military alliance.

Very close to what Mr Salmond, was in fact, suggesting

Which is why I think it will not happen this way. England will remain the core of the central government, and powers devolved will be much more limited than what some people might think. In fact looking at the proposals, they will be quite limited.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

But doesn't the idea of an English government look like English Nationalism. I don't think the best way to fight Scottish Nationalism is English Nationalism, it's falling into Salmond's trap.

It's also a bit ridiculous given that England is 85% of the country. Best to leave the West Lothian question where it belongs in the Nationalist's box of tricks to confuse the issue. It's a non problem for the average man sitting in the number 47 bus, or whatever.

In reply to RomTheBear:

except that if you take the US example, Federal level stuff exists for environment, medicines, some elemements of health care etc etc - picking what should be done at a UK level, and what is better devolved is the tricky thing...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Wishful thinking and blinkered.

It's probable that the next government will be Labour with an historically low % of the popular vote. I really believe that this could lead to backlash in the form a right wing populism. It isn't really how I want to enter the 2020s so I'd rather sort something out that is fair to all parties.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Wishful thinking, I'll accept that, a matter of opinion but why "blinkered"?

how many were worried about the W Lothian question 6 months ago and how many are in the general public today? It's all just the sort of base politicising that gets politicians a bad name... playing on the worst instincts in people too. They'll never beat the UKIP by descending to their level.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Fair enough.


It's hard to tell, I only meet so many people and I haven't seen any polls. My gut feeling is this will be exploited as further Scottish devolution is in the news, and further exploited if a not very popular Ed Milliband gets to Downing Street.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

This has been attempted very democratically in the past. Unfortunately, this has almost no chance of working and the federal UK that is essential to solving a long list of the country's problems can only be achieved by political LEADERSHIP.

This same leadership involves a variation on turkeys voting for christmas. It needs the westminster parliament to reduce to perhaps 200 and 300 members and politicians seeing the future of politics in the new federal state parliaments.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

cheer up Jim, change does on occasion happen - compare the UK in 1900 with the UK today.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Isn't this precisely what they are doing/about to do?

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Yet you think its great Scotland got all the extra SMP's...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You must know something we don't!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

If they go for an English parliament or stop Scottish MPs voting on English issues Scotland will leave.

The only solutions for keeping the UK are -

1. status quo but with more powers for Scotland

2. devolved English regions

Nb 1 - while it might seem unfair that Scottish MPs vote on English issues, it's not quite that simple. The relative sizes of the UK mean that English decisions have much more of an impact on Scotland than vice versa. English spending actually directly impacts Scottish spending via the Barnett formula.

Nb 2 - Scotland will probably leave eventually anyway. See demographics of the No vote.

In reply to balmybaldwin:



It's not entirely fair. But the alternative - that they can't vote on English issues - is, I would argue, less fair. What happens in England has a significant impact on the rest of the UK. That doesn't work the other way.

The only properly fair ways to do things would be to abolish the Scottish Parliament or to have English regional parliaments.

In reply to Donnie:




I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I'd say 2 is quite unpopular in England, we don't have strong regional identities and people don't want more politicians. I think there's more chance of 1, people putting up with the disparity to keep the UK together, so long as UKIP and similar minded Tories don't succeed in whipping up the issue (I changed my mind since Weds, pretty much agree with Bruce now).

In reply to Donnie:

Why would an English parliament make Scotland wish to leave?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Because decisions taken for the UK would be taken only by English MPs

In reply to Donnie:

The problem is England, what do you do with it? One question that no one seems to answer is why does England have to be split up in to regions? So the UK would effectively be 3 Nations and a host of regions? That to me seems like it could ignite English nationalism to the point of destabilising the UK as a whole.

The second issue is that the English have on numerous occasions 2004 and 2012 voted against extra layers of Government. The North East ruled out regional parliaments in 2004, a host of cities ruled out elected mayors in 2012. regional identities do not exist in the England. You simply can't lump Merseyside in an area with Cumbria or Cumbria in a region with Greater Manchester or with Cheshire etc.

Allowing Scottish MPs to vote on English laws when those MPs are not accountable to the people of England is simply not democratic. The issue is and my worry is that it will be made in to an election issue by the conservatives or UKIP.

Labour have missed the opportunity to seize the ground on the this one and put forward a plausible proposal. It has been said many times over the years that the Labour Party is anti England. I hope I am wrong but home rule for Scotland without suitable devolution in England will see the beginning of the end for the UK.

We are in for interesting times I think!!

In reply to Alan M:

I largely agree, which is why I think giving more power to the existing tier of county council level government is a sensible move.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Only if there is no overarching uk parliament surely?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


How will that work in Metropolitan borough council areas? Take Merseyside as an example 5 councils etc.

Google, "Merseyside super council" and read about the chaos that caused and that has no power. I just cant imagine that level of elected member having any serious devolved power!!

What happens on in England affects the rest of the UK in a way that doesn't work the other way. Just due to the relative sizes.

An English pariament would mean that Scotland would have no influence over a lot of stuff that affects ud and that the actual UK government was pretty meaningless

We'd be off fairly sharpish. We'll be off at somepoint anyway

In reply to Donnie:




I agree to an extent but the Union cant work in the long term with one set of people having home rule and another set of people being basically told you have to be treated differently because it might upset someone else. The union has to be politically fair and just. Turn this the other way around and now say what the reaction would be if my MP in Merseyside started voting on Scottish matters? Exactly!!

Surely the constitution just needs to be changed to address your concerns?. if an area can be devolved to one set of people it can be devolved to us all. There is simply no reason at all why scottish mps are voting on English only issues such as english NHS/health care, education, environment to name but a few. SNP westminsters ministers dont, so it can be done!

On questiontime the other night John Swinney (spl?) Talked about this and he had the balance right. If it was an england only issue he didnt vote if it impacted the UK as awhole he did.

In reply to Alan M:

which is totally reasonable - and I think that one person on last night made the point that of the 18 bills before parliament at the moment, none of them affected England only.

However there is an appetite for more devolution in some parts of England, how to address that?

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Totally agree, its the political system in England that needs to reformed. The issue I am seeing is the Conservatives have stolen the early ground and Labour are hiding from the issue their response and idea is a delaying tactic.

What would you do in England? Regionalism wont work, I don't even think localism down to county level would work. As I pointed out before a county like Merseyside has 4 Metropolitan Borough Councils and one City Council. They cant even decide on how best to share resources and apply for shared funding with 2 councils threatening to walk away from the Merseyside super council.

To impose regional parliaments in England would you have a referendum in each region i.e 2004 or all of England? What happens if some regions say yes and others say no?

In reply to Alan M:

>

Curious but refreshing to see John Swinney (SNP) and Rory Stewart (Conservative if a bit maverick) basically agreeing on a pragmatic and workable solution based on a convention that would require no legislation or expense

In reply to Donnie:


No its not.
We have Scottish MPs pushing through policies which are the direct opposite of what gets passed in Scotland.
What makes it even worse is the nationalists then carry on about how they dont have those f*cking policies.
It might be that the funding part would need splitting out into a separate bill but to argue that the current approach is acceptable really is nuts.

In reply to dissonance:


Then it's been nuts for quite a while. Give us an example of a major issue that has been screwed up because of the present system?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It has been nuts for years and a search on google will show that it has been spoken about in some circles for years. I found one William Hague speech from 1999 etc. The fact is since devolution was implemented by Labour the english question was never going to be answered by labour.

For me its about a political system being democratic, accountable fair and just to the people it serves. With home rule for Scotland and i would guess eventually greater freedom for Wales and Northern Ireland the current system cant continue in England. Reform is needed and I for one welcome the debate by our political leaders.

What the final answer is I have no idea.

In reply to Alan M:

When devolution was implemented by Labour in both Scotland and Wales, the Labour party expected to have an inbuilt majority in both.
What has happened is that they are the majority in the one, and the Opposition in the other.
The Conservatives have become a minor party in both, as anyone could have expected.
The Labour party has also since then only had a majority in Westminster due to its Welsh and Scottish MP's. England has actually not voted them in.
For the Labour party to now make bleating noises that they would be at a disadvantage in any future English Parliament is nothing other than sour grapes.

PS I'm neither affiliated to or would slavishly vote for any party.

In reply to Donnie:

But thats the same.. you say it isn't but decisions in Scotland, in France, in Germany affect the UK.. we live in an inter-connected world..

I'm not sure you will be off.. it depends on the UK/EU relationship.. if we properly enter the EU and fully commit to a fiscal/social union then independence is merely a semantic step tbh...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I recall others have given you examples previously. To which you did your normal routine.
I really cant be arsed wasting time repeating the exercise.

In reply to dissonance:

So you can't think of any then - I didn't expect you to do any research, if you hold this view strongly then I would have thought you'd have things in mind to justify it. Apparently not. Just running with the (small) crowd.

In reply to fred99:

I don't know where your information is coming from because Labour had a clear majority without Scotland in 6 General Elections since 1945, have a look at this site for the complete figures:

http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/01/30/general-elections-without-scotland...

But apart from this don't you think that the rise in Nationalism throughout Europe is something to be worried about? That just because a sizeable minority in some parts of Britain have turned to it that there is no good reason for doing the same in England, the powerhouse of Britain with 85% of the population? Can't we just leave that the to BNP, UKIP and a few rogue right wing Tories without others fanning the flames of hate?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Eh? How is people questioning the constitution and asking for it to be looked at to make it democratic and even, fanning the flames of hate? Unfortunately, like it or not devolution has and will change Britain for ever. The trick is now to open an adult debate between all the main political parties of the UK and the people and decide how we want the UK to work. To me that's progress, to do nothing will only drive a wedge between us in years to come.

Like I say home rule for one, partial devolution for an other and no devolution for some others will eventually destroy the UK. I personally welcome the debate and acknowledgement by the main political parties.

In reply to fred99:


>

>

That is not the case for any of the labour governments since devolution and is only true of Harold Wilson's 1964 and 1974 governments.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Tuition fees

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Your Blimpish stereotyping seems to led you to mistake a popular demand for less State centralism and better democracy with some sort of neo Naziism. Try and ditch the caricatures and think for yourself a bit more.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Foundation hospitals as well. However its not really worth wasting time on Bruce. He never lets evidence get in the way of his views.

In reply to Alan M:



Agreed.

In reply to dissonance:

I'm not saying the current approah is acceptable.

In reply to IainRUK:

It's the amount things affect others... the scale of England's impact on Scotland is much bigger than vice versa or Germany or Frances impact on the UK

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think I could say that to you. Are you really insisting that there is no rise of Nationalism and the extreme right throughout Europe at present? Just one example if concrete examples interest you, today the French Senate was elected, this is an indirect election, half the Senate is replaced at a time. For the first time in the history of the 5th Republic two members of the extreme right "Front National", the party of Marine Le Pen, were elected. For information, the publicly expressed policies of the FN are quite similar to the UKIP in Britain and their advance mirrors them.

In reply to dissonance:

What about facts and figures like election results since the war? With or without Scotland Labour would in most case have been elected (see my link above) and yet people still believe that without Scotland the Tories would always be in power in England. You've finally given a couple of example, or rather you've been given them, you weren't aware yourself, but in the tuition fees one, the Scottish Labour votes were following the national Labour whip, they weren't rebelling against the party, the Scottish party was backing up the national line - what's the problem with that? I wonder if we would find the same thing for hospitals? Whatever it can hardly be seen as flagrant case of Scottish Labour going against national sentiments.

You are all playing with "facts" to defend what is essentially an English Nationalist line. Playing with fire, but for what gain? Have you all gone mad?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What about them? How are they relevant to the West Lothian question?
Exactly why should we use the war as a relevant date as opposed to 1998.
Its always entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself but I rarely have the energy to bother leading you along now.
Its only really worth it if someone looks like they will fall for your rubbish.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
but in the tuition fees one, the Scottish Labour votes were following the national Labour whip, they weren't rebelling against the party, the Scottish party was backing up the national line - what's the problem with that?

What is the relevance of that?? You've been asked that twice already and not responded.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So your argument is that because you can give an example of a rather unpleasant form of nationalism that meets your stereotype in France that stereotype is valid for all parties in favour of more regional devolution across Europe?

In reply to dissonance:



Since WW2 is a commonly used time span for various reasons which I'm sure you could work out if you put your mind to it.



Yo sound more and more like Goebbels with age... maybe a change of diet would help?

In reply to Postmanpat:



Have I? Maybe it's because I can't type in my sleep? By what right do you tell people when they must refuse or not?... you seem to be adopting a rather churlish UKIPish tone, have you made the move?

The reason is evident, it would be slightly more critizeable, possibly, if the Scottish Labour MPs, en masse, took a position in opposition to the democratically formed British government. Here they are supporting the British Labour government so, whatever one thinks of the actual measure, I can't see what's wrong. Maybe you should try and find examples where Scottish Labour MPs have voted against the national party and blocked an important measure?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Your apparent ignorance of European politics is distressing for someone who posts frequently on politics. It's not juts in France that the estreme right is progressing. I gave the example because it was a fairly major one and it just happened yesterday.


So Nationalism in parts of existing countries leading to their break up is "regional devolution", is it?

What effect, if any, do you think the breaking up of existing countries all over Europe into a myriad of tiny states governed by people like the UKIP and the Front National would have? Do you think it is a desirable move?

(clearly you do but I'd like you to say it clearly instead of beating round the bush, if possible.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Whether they voted for or against the government of the UK is utterly irrelevant. If the balance were tipped by Scottish Labour MPS , SNP MPs or even one Scottish MP on an English issue the same thing is true.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And then assumed that what is true of France and no doubt other parts of Europe, is the same for England and Scotland……



If the regions of the Nation are in fact countries in their own right, then yes.


No, but it seems a large number of people in Europe have become alienated from the existing centres of power, be they Brussels, Paris, or Westminster. To dismiss this as neo Nazi nationalism
is superficial and unhelpful stereotyping.


Ah, Brucie back in form. "If you're not with me you're against me" eh, Bruce? Would that the world were as siple as you portray.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's your opinion, not a fact. Or rather it's not your opinion as you've just jumped on the latest right wing tory band wagon.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well except that I've been muttering about it for 15 years. We weren't all brought up with your slavish allegiance to "The party".

Why does it make any difference whether the Scottish interaction in English issues is party policy or not?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What would you suggest instead... surely not the fudge suggested by some Tories?

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Which fudge is that?

I don't really have an answer except that I'd stop Scottish MPs voting on English policy and abolish the Barnett formula which has no rational basis and, because it means that Scottish spending is directly linked to English spending, is the rationale for the Scottish intrusion into English issues.

That, off course, would set up a whole new set of issues. It should , however, to be possible to set a new baseline for the basic division of national income, and allow constituent parts much greater fiscal independence within that framework.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's not this at all, I'd just like to know your opinion clearly, sorry if this is difficult for you. If you have no decided opinion then saying that is fine by me.


Unless it is true, or we are on the way to that sort of thing which is what I said. UKIP is not a nazi party but it is an intermediary stage. On the other hand the FN in France and others elsewhere are either ex-nazi parties or are pretending to be such. We know this from their history. Even our dear "Centre Left" SNP has origins of this nature, during WW2 it's leader ran a campaign against the British war effort, and even went to prison for refusing conscription so while I wouldn't say the SNP are neo-nazis the party is in a line that goes back to it.

The exact reasons for each break away state are varied so the replies will obviously need to be too, assuming one wants to reply. You have said yourself that you are ambivalent in the Scottish case so I assume you meant this. I don't see how ambivalence is a reasonable attitude on such a major issue myself, the short term political gains you hope to gain for your party don't justify it in my opinion. I think the electorate will think like this too.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I would say there is a difference between Scottish MPs supporting their government and helping to get a measure through Parliament and the same MPs rebelling against their own party government. It seems obvious to me. One is doing their duty as members of a party and the other is taking a stand against the party without which they wouldn't be MPs at all. It may sometimes be justified but on very serious disagreements which should logically lead to them stepping down as MPs, even if this rarely happens. I don't know what whip it was at the time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


There are many reasons for not wanting to get involved in a war which do not involve being a neo-nazi. I don't think you would argue that Quakers were neo-nazis.

We are starting to get a Godwins law overload on this thread: wouldn't "I disagree with you" be a little more diplomatic than "You are starting to sound like Goebbels".

In reply to Postmanpat:

This one


Isolating issues as English only doesn't work when one country is so dominant in terms of population. As others have said Scotland would probably leave, and we've seen Dave is desperate to avoid that. Then you'd end up with a UK government that doesn't control England.... who proposes policy for England?

There is no neat little solution.... the naturally conservative English seem to want the UK to remain but are shy of real change of our governing institutions, so you're probs stuck with things as they are.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Enough of the fibbing Bruce. You said " Do you think it is a desirable move?
(clearly you do but I'd like you to say it clearly instead of beating round the bush, if possible.)"
So, as ever, you are claiming to know the other person's views. No, I think they should have more effective democracy without breaking into independent States.


You must take those 1970s prism glasses off Bruce.


LOL. Sometimes ambivalence reflects the complexities. Sorry if that doesn't compute. Maybe it's the engineer in you coming out.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


All this "party duty" guff. Must be the Maoist in you I guess. Either MPs represent the people who vote them in or they don't. You are proposing they represent people who didn't vote them in.

In reply to Mike Stretford:



Why?


Well personally I think we need the abolition of the H of Lords followed by some sort of replacement body, a halving of the number of MPs, greater regional powers, a resettement of our relationship with Brussels, a reduction in the powers of the PM, and a written constitution et etc

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd have thought that's obvious, English policies will indirectly but significantly effect the rest of the UK. And what of the government issue, do we swap cabinets over midweek? We'd be a global laughing stock.


I'm with you on most if not all of that but it won't happen... people just don't seem bothered. People seem to despise the MPs they elected but think the party cronies stuffed House of Lords is a bastion of independent thought and wisdom.... work that one out.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


No G had a definite style.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


People say this but if England decides "We are going to spend X on the provision of health services and manage and run them in way Y", how will this actually affect the provision of health services in Scotland?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course I can judge a person's opinion, by simply reading what he says


With which I agree, but I disagree with the "solutions" you propose. I think they are just to favour the Tories, although I suppose you could be doing it unwittingly.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Cost increases due to the policy (equipment and services), people 'moving' to Scotland to get health treatment, spread of disease if England's policy is ineffective ect. You could spend a day thinking of unintended consequences, and one things for sure, careers will be based on exploiting them.

I'm answering you so cmon, play the game, what of our UK/English cabinets?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I know you have trouble reading other peoples' posts but now you don't even seem to understand your own! One moment you telling me my opinion is clear to you and the next denying you said that and you're asking what it is and then saying you know hat it is again. Are you really sure you aren't partial to a morning tipple?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Then most parties in Britain have been Maoists without knowing it for centuries. People vote as much or more for the party presenting them as for the person, they benefit from the party machine to be elected and have a duty to the party consequently - that's why parties have a system of whips to let their MPs know if the matter being voted on are considered vital to the party or not. If they don't they can declare that it is a "free vote" allowing the MPs to vote according to their own views of that of their constituents, but this is not the basis of the British Parliamentary system, MPs are not simply elected to speak for their electors of constituents by some kind of method of polling their opinions before each vote. Or has this changed, is that what the "1970s" remark meant?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Thanks for the lecture but you seem to have missed the bit about MPs representing people in Scotland and the issue being decided upon being about England. It's really not hard.

In reply to Postmanpat:



What is really not hard is that there is no solution available using the current methods. Fewer Scottish MPs because there is a smaller proportion of Scottish legislation debated at Westminster is a very stupid approach. Nothing short of equality in devolution around the UK, such as the federal solution, provides a logical approach without further injustices.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And you seem to have missed the point that until further notice it as all about the UK... however much that may irk you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ah, up to your failed mind reading tricks again….

Obviously you were away and missed the point when the UK voted devolved government for Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Must do more reading Bruce. Rule Britannia…..

In reply to Jim Fraser:


There is, leave things as they are.


I agree


Or, as most in England aren't worried about it and we can probably rely on most Scottish MPs to take this all into account when they decide how they vote leave it as it is, common sense is cheaper than setting up a complex and expensive all federal system, which most don't want and to set up an "English Parliament" to look after the particular affair of 85% of the country along side a National (UK) Parliament to cover the overall matters concerning 100% seems ridiculous, both in terms of cost and manpower - where would you put the most competent people, in the English of National Parliament? It seem clear that finding competent people for Parliament is already hard enough, why nearly double the problem?

Some will say the National (UK) Parliament could be reduced in size and yet it's here that life or death matters would be debated! Leave well enough alone is applicable on this, especially as those who are getting all excited about what is really a non problem in practical terms are mostly driven by sordid party political motives.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not particularly.


No again, there was even a referendum about Scotland too, but because parts of the country with 15% of the population have requested, and now have, particular conditions that the remaining 85% don't want why are your oft twisted knickers getting all in a twist again (are they elastic)?

History is history and geography counts too, it remains to see if in the long term the present partially devolved system is the most efficient, you are just creating problems for your own motives. One rather stressful referendum is enough for now, the sensible approach is to let things settle down - "things" including the changes promised during the campaign, and then, if the 85% really demand it (which is not the case at present) see what other changes are desirable.


All this reminds me of the old joke:

Q: When is a Conservative not Conservative?

A: When he can see quick fix which will enable his party to stay in power!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And you think Miiliband wants to main Scottish votes on English questions in the name of fairness and justice?! Even the SNP and many of his own MPS recognise it's unjust.

But anyway, on on. Are you playing "British Grenadiers" on your 1970s gramophone?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That doesn't work. The Labour Government relied on Scottish MPs voting for university tuition fees for English and Welsh universities - without the votes of Scottish MPs, the Government would have been defeated, and as we all know, governments will do anything and everything not to be defeated in the Commons, and they'll take votes from wherever they can find them. The same has happened with matters relating to the NHS in England and Wales. Note that it's only likely to happen with Labour Governments, since the Tories have so few MPs in Scotland.

However, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that SNP MPs do not vote on matters which don't concern Scotland.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I agree only because the English are politically apathetic. Politics and the economy are too centralised, while the poorest in England get less spent on them than their Scottish counterparts. The Tories have a point on the voting disparity but Dave will have to lump it as he doesn't want to be the last PM of the UK.

There's no credible alternative to the status quo but don't pretend we've 'built a new Jerusalem', things are actually a bit crap.

In reply to tony:

I can see nothing wrong with that, they are British MPs elected in Britain by British voters. It is only a problem for people who think the Union no longer really exists. The recent vote in Scotland has shown that this isn't the case there and all the polls show that English voters and N I voters don't think this way either. I think I read somewhere that Welsh voters were in majority in favour of remaining part of the UK too, correct me if this is wrong? So as all the country, in majority, wishes to retain a United Kingdom, or Queendom at present, why adopt measures that go against this majority opinion?

Can it be your own party political allegiances coming through like the postman's?

PS. Concerning the SNP MPs there aren't many of them, and soon there will be fewer so their voting or not on "English matters" is not too important, but in principal I think they have every right, in fact their original ideas could be very helpful.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You might not think it's wrong, but lots of other people do think that when Scotland has no responsibility for an issue, their MPs shouldn't hold the balance of power on that issue.


Hmm, you haven't really worked this one out have you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I wouldn't be so sure about that. There was a very significant swing from Labour to the SNP in the referendum, and it's entirely possible that many traditional Labour supporters will move to the SNP in the next election.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


It depends on what you compare them with, with France running >10% unemployment and Spain at over 20% "crap" is really in the eye of the beholder!

This may explain your "apathetic" Brits, but I think the reason is elsewhere, on the lack of viable distinct economic and social models - most of the parties propose quite similar programs and none challenge the actual social system. But having said that the turnout in Britain is hardly worse than elsewhere:

http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_datac.htm

At 76% it's better than Spain, France, Canada, USA (39%!), Finland, Ireland and many others. There are better but it's hardly "crap" there either.

In reply to tony:


I thought you were a tory? Only judging by your posts, sorry if you aren't, not that it's a crime.

In reply to tony:


How do work that out, the "SNP" wasn't on the ballot, just Yes or No for independence? It's true that many Labour voters in a few areas appear to have voted Yes, but then many SNP areas voted in majority No. Now that independence is off the cards, due to the clear vote of Scottish people, the SNP may well be judged on other grounds... Salmond's leaving, they could do quite badly in the General Election, and the Tories could do better than in the rest of the country as people with right wing views but who had been attracted by independence return to the fold.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You really don't have a clue do you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think their stats could be out of date, it took a real dive after 1997

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

65% last time but I think it will be lower next year.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


For a lot of traditional Labour voters, Scottish Labour were seen to be siding with the Tories, since they were acting together with the Tories in the Better Together campaign. That's going to come back and bite them. Labour is in quite serious trouble in Scotland - without the traditional heavy industry and trade union links, there are fewer reasons for the traditional Labour voters to stick with them. The referendum campaign has given Scottish politics a pretty big shake-up,and anyone who thinks it's going to be back to business as usual is probably in for a bit of a shock. I suspect the only constant will be that the Tories continue to do badly.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>PS. Concerning the SNP MPs there aren't many of them, and soon there will be fewer

.... Whooooshhhh!

In reply to tony:


Why so coy? What party do you support? Your posts are often fairly right wing in tone, or is their a second Tony on ukc?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What have I got to be coy about? Nothing. I've never voted Tory, and I usually vote Labour, although the Blair years made this a struggle. My posts are usually fairly right-wing? What, asking if Caroline Ciavaldini's ascent of Requiem was the first female ascent of the route, discussing James Pearson's and Steve McClure's ascents of Rhapsody, commenting on my weekend running, Donald Trump being a bully, levels of knowledge required to follow a radio programme about maths - where does all that lie on your left-right spectrum?

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Yes, I think it was around 2008, curiously they don't always put the date of their information on these sorts of sites, another one here is of 2011:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/soc_glance-2011-en/08/04/g8_co4-01.html?...

And Britain is down to 61% but it's still far from the bottom. It is a general trend though as politics seem to heading to a fairly dull time, the days when any of us thought our vote would change the world have gone. The fall of the Soviet block and the nigh on total victory of capitalism as a social system in developed countries have lead to this everywhere. Relative prosperity is rather boring... so people are looking for fights, hence the rise of extremism, nationalisms and religious politics in some countries, but that's much the same everywhere, not just Britain. It was that you present Britain as being somehow different and worse than other countries that prompted my reply.

On the other hand is instability and flagrant class politics like in the first half of the last century, which would certainly bring the voters out, anything to yearn for?

In reply to tony:

Nowhere. Maybe I mistook you for someone else if you generally post on climbing subjects. My apologies. I shouldn't get so personal anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm going to cut this post out and frame it for posterity

In reply to Postmanpat:


I should as I'm unlikely to say it to you, we all know where you stand... and it shows!

In reply to tony:

The referendum campaign has given Scottish politics a pretty big shake-up,and anyone who thinks it's going to be back to business as usual is probably in for a bit of a shock.

I suspect the only constant will be that the Tories continue to do badly.

I just heard Ruth Davidson say that they were going to be a Tory bounce from the NO voters who would now vote Tory and she predicted that there will be more Tory MP's in Scotland, but she would not say how many, just that there would soon be more Tory MPs than than Pandas.

( At which point Andrew Neil mentioned there were only 3 Pandas in Scotland, so not much of a bounce)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It is sometimes subjective who is a 'Tory' and who is not.

I have a good friend he is a pro union, Rangers supporter, who regularly goes on orange walks, wants the Scottish Parliament abolished, therefore hates the idea of more powers, wants Britain OUT of Europe (no matter what powers are re-negotiated), scoffs at votes for 16 year olds, thinks welfare cuts have not gone anywhere near far enough,loathes the minimum wage(far less a living wage) thinks the Bedroom/Poll tax were good policies well implemented, is salavating over the prospect of chasing (Yes voters as he sees it) who have gone back on the electoral register now being pursued for 20 year old Poll tax debts, wants closed borders, to everyone, including Europeans (not even a points based system is tight enough) he views Nelson Mandela as a terrorist with no redeaming qualities, and that Israel has not put a foot wrong on anything.
(as was the case with the beloved Margaret, but that goes without saying )

Does He sound like a Tory ?
He tells me that he was/is a Tory, but he will now be voting Ukip

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well it would be odd if people didn't. I can be accused of many things but hiding my views under a bushel is probably not one of them.

But in your case, you probably don't. Your penchant for labelling and stereotyping reflects your assumption that voting for a party or supporting some of its views necessarily implies supporting all of them. Probably true of Maoists but not of sane people.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So I'm a Maoist now am I? You're 40 years out of date!

You may accuse me of labelling but in our elective democracies at the end of the day we have to vote for what exists, a limited number of choices, no room for finesse. And yet it works.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm not sure that's what I said is it? But I suspect you keep your old Mao suit at the back of a cupboard somewhere and don it over you union jack underpants for special occasions


Yes , exactly, which doesn't mean we slavishly follow every party view like your erstwhile comrades.

In reply to Jim C:

Your friend is a right wing Tory all right but very right and one who would probably be disowned publicly by others who call themselves Tories too so it's hardly surprising he votes UKIP. Until recently, ever since WW2 AFAIK, parties to the right of the Tories didn't exist so people who now might go elsewhere were Tories, our voting system forced the differences inside the parties themselves, same on the left. In other countries with different voting system there are loads of parties, some quite small, which would have enabled your friend to go elsewhere

Whatever, as far as Labour is concerned the UKIP will split the Tory vote and this will help them in England. In Scotland things will be different as UKIP is tiny so most Tories will stay with them, Labour won't get any benefit like in England.

All IMO of course, and things could change. I think Labour's problems are their lack of appealing leaders, and also there have been some studies showing that there is also a trend for some Labour voters to move towards UKIP too so they might not be just good news for Milliband.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This personal discussion is of little interest to others but you don't know much about how political parties work, do you? Left or right apparently. And BTW I never had any Maoist comrades, I was never a member of any party of this sort. I was of the standard French Communist Party though, which had 1 million members at the time and reached nearly 25% of the vote and came to power, with my modest help, in coalition with the Socialists in 1981 but I bet you haven't the slightest idea of how such an organisation worked... stuck in your childish stereotypes. I no longer am a member but I'm glad of the experience, it avoided me going through life believing in fairies.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>
This is a discussion? No it's not. It's childish nonsense. Can't you tell the difference?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Et ca continue! Don't you ever stop?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes. Toodle pip x