[Closed] England declares UDI and dissolves the Act of Union

It's hilarious. They really have no idea what they're doing, do they? So now it's up to the Speaker, on his tod, to decide if something's an English-only affair.

Meanwhile the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is made up of 63% English MPs.

So, which clause of the act of union do you suggest has been repealed or undermined?

Am I missing something here? How can it be UDI when the only possible things which come under this are those which are already devolved?

It does appear to be a bit of a mess, but I still found it amusing the insistence of non English MPs that they had to have a say on issues which are devolved, rather than just complaining about the mess.

This is a good analysis, I hadn't considered that it effectively rules out ever having a Scottish PM:

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/a-rapidily-disuniting-kingdom/

A fundamental problem is determining what counts as an English-only issue. HS2? That's only being built in England, so must be an English-only issue, right? Except Scottish taxpayers are helping pay for it. NHS funding? The Scottish NHS is separate, so English NHS issues must be an English-only thing, right? Except Scottish NHS funding is set by a formula based on the levels of English NHS funding.

EVEL needs a solution but this has been done because it is cheap rather than because it is good.
The other parts have devolved parliaments and this just creates a mess and different kinds of Mps

I still found it amusing the insistence of non English MPs that they had to have a say on issues which are devolved,

[quote=bencooper ]This is a good analysis, I hadn't considered that it effectively rules out ever having a Scottish PM:
> https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/a-rapidily-disuniting-kingdom/

I don't think it does, because I'd not describe that analysis as "good". "seriously flawed", "biased" maybe.

You now live in a country where representatives from another member country of the UK can vote on your laws, but your representatives cannot vote on theirs because some nations are more equal than others.

😕 which laws which apply to Scotland and not England is he referring to there? Or is he just being incredibly disingenuous by pointing out that English MPs can vote on laws which apply to both England and Scotland (in the same way Scottish MPs can), whilst Scottish MPs won't be able to vote on laws which apply only to England in the same way that English MPs can't vote on laws which are devolved?

Yes, the proper way to do it would be to have a fully federal system. Each nation has a parliament which is in charge of basically everything apart from defence and foreign affairs, each pays towards the federal government to deal with that.

which laws which apply to Scotland and not England is he referring to there?

The new Scotland Act is a good example. Lots of amendments proposed by Scottish MPs, all voted down.

This is the same Tory government which has got just one MP from Scotland, which has packed the Scottish affairs committee with English MPs and which voted down every amendment to the Scotland Bill proposed by Scotland’s MPs. Scottish MPs from opposition parties having a minority influence on English laws is unfair, but English Tory MPs having a majority say over Scottish laws is the British way

But that's about devolving power, not about laws. It doesn't change anything in terms of laws in Scotland, simply where such laws are decided.

It doesn't change anything in terms of laws in Scotland, simply where such laws are decided.

I've read that several times and still don't get it. Devolving control of more laws to Scotland means the laws in Scotland can change, and changing those devolved laws doesn't have any effect on England.

So by refusing to allow those laws to be devolved, the majority English MPs are preventing Scotland doing things which don't effect England.

How can that not be double standards?

"aracer - Member

But that's about devolving power, not about laws. It doesn't change anything in terms of laws in Scotland, simply where such laws are decided. "
😆 😆 😆
Gag of the year no question

It means the laws in Scotland can change, it doesn't mean the laws in Scotland have changed. Presumably if they've decided not to devolve things, that's because they consider they're not issues which can be decided in isolation, but are things which do affect the whole country. They may or may not be right about that, but by doing so they're simply retaining the decision making process for those laws at Westminster, where the law for the whole of the UK is voted on by MPs for the whole of the UK.

Presumably if they've decided not to devolve things, that's because they consider they're not issues which can be decided in isolation, but are things which do affect the whole country

That's a beautifully optimistic view of their motives.

Sorry, I'll concede that point to you.

First instance I can think of is that public spending in England affects the Scottish Government because of the Barnett formula.

I'm struggling to see what's so terrible about this.

It would stop a future government that relied on Scottish MPs from imposing random laws on England alone - but they could still get their laws through if they apply them to the whole of the UK.

And I thought there was more devolution coming for Scotland, although I have to admit I do rather tend to nod off when that gets talked about on the radio.

the they who decide being the english then - Maths makes this the case so you have accepted that the english can decide for scotland- you dont think this is as unfair as Scottish folk dictating to english folk?

Furthermore each country in the union should be the same ad we should have devolved parliaments for devolved issues and a UK parliament for UK issues

England is still special and we now have two tier MPS

We could have cabinet ministers not able to vote on legislation - hell we could have the PM making the policy then not able to implement it

Do they get a separate first minister?
Its a messy solution done to be cheap

t would stop a future government that relied on Scottish MPs from imposing random laws on England alone

You think this will preserve the union?

FWIW i dont object to that goal but we cannot use the UK parliament to achieve it. We devolve as we have in every other country and have a separate place with separate elected representatives

[quote=gordimhor ]First instance I can think of is that public spending in England affects the Scottish Government because of the Barnett formula.

Does that mean that there are no English only laws which don't affect Scotland? If so, then I suggest you dissolve the Scottish parliament immediately, because by definition nothing decided there affects England or determines the overall budget for spending in Scotland. If it is not possible to have English laws which don't affect Scotland and don't determine the overall budget for spending in England, then I'm wondering how Scotland manages it.

[quote=Junkyard ]Its a messy solution done to be cheap

I couldn't possibly argue against that <checks> yep, I wrote something similar in my first post.

It is the first step in the break up of the union. UDI is a bit hysterical, but scotland's and england positions are essentially untenable. If england wants a parliament, I've got no problem with that, but build a separate one. If you are in a union, all parties must have a veto. You can't superceed one part because you are more populous.

I'm more than willing to have a square go on this point! 😆

[quote=Junkyard ]But not a the current english govt imposing them on Scotland

I'm assuming that the only things which could possibly come under this are those which are already devolved (I think I already wrote that as well). In which case there is no way for an English government to impose similar laws on Scotland.

I don't think I disagree with the idea that this isn't good for the union - because that is more about perception than reality, and it is clear how this is perceived.

If it is not possible to have English laws which don't affect Scotland and don't determine the overall budget for spending in England, then I'm wondering how Scotland manages it.

Barnett provision means what happens in england often affects Scotland

That confusing statement does not negate that

EDOT: How can england impose things when its devolved to Scotland? Have you been drinking?

Take nukes - lets say all of scotland wants none but english MPs [ maths alone makes this true] decide they are having them [ citing UK issue ]then that is de facto english MPs saying what happens in Scotland - hell they may even then be able to make Scotland pay for it- so clearly english MPs can still impose on scotland- not everything is devolved though scottish MPs would also be voting.
Or use the example, the article gave if you prefer where they use English MPs on the Scottish committees
Would dave be letting the SNP reign on an english one ?
WOuld the english see this as fair?

Yip, Englands health budget rises, Scotlands rises, England helth budget reduces(despite having and independent health service) Scotlands reduces.

But aye poor England, Scotland dictating you all the time.

But like I say, go ahead, I'm more than willing to have a square go on this point. Heed those words. You're sending us into oblivion.

[quote=Junkyard ]Barnett provision means what happens in england often affects Scotland

Yes, but things which result in Barnett being applied shouldn't be declared to be England only things, for that reason.

Which doesn't mean that there aren't England only things which don't have any Barnett effect. Clearly nothing decided in the Scottish parliament has any effect on Barnett, or even on the overall budget for Scotland which is decided elsewhere - if there is any budgetary stuff at all, it is simply how stuff is divvied up within Scotland. Is it really that hard to envisage stuff in England which is just about divvying up the England budget in just the same way, with the total England budget decided separately?

[quote=Junkyard ]Take nukes - lets say all of scotland wants none but english MPs [ maths alone makes this true] decide they are having them [ citing UK issue ]then that is de facto english MPs saying what happens in Scotland

Well no, because Scottish MPs still get a vote. That's democracy, not imposition - we've done this argument enough times before haven't we?

Is it really that hard to envisage stuff in England which is just about divvying up the England budget in just the same way, with the total England budget decided separately?

Was that all you were trying to say some stuff only affects england

I think we can take the EVEL issue as real hence a solution is required ...I think I said that in my first post 😉

OK got you so its democracy when england imposes on Scotland and unfair when scotland has a say on england ..got it doffs tam o shanter

[quote=Junkyard ]Why are you even asking this?Clearly there are some EVEL issues now get a devolved parliament to deal with them like all the other nations.

I hadn't realised everybody had accepted that - certainly some still seem to be suggesting that any England issue affects Scotland because Barnett. Can we drop that argument now?

OK got you so its democracy when england imposes on Scotland and unfair when scotland has a say on england ..got it doffs tam o shanter

Er, no. Do you reckon the UK having nukes is a Scotland only issue?

[quote=Junkyard ]Was that all you were trying to say some stuff only affects england
I think we can take the EVEL issue as real hence a solution is required ...I think I said that in my first post

Sorry, yes. I don't think I was arguing with you (not on that point, not given what you wrote in your first post), simply those querying whether there are any England only issues, because Barnett.

It isn't really that hard to envisage what you describe aracer but that isn't EVEl but requires some properly thought out devolution.

Of course, no doubt tomorrow Cameron will announce that the corollary will apply.

English MPs will not vote on matters relating to Wales, NI, or Scotland, and it will be up to a member of those nations to decide which matters these are.

The day after tomorrow Wales and Scotland pass motions granting themselves independence. 🙂

But on a serious note, the way EVEL has been handled has driven an almighty wedge into the Union. It has played right into the hands of the SNP IMO.

A properly devolved English Parliament would have given the UK a federal style structure, and probably cut the ground out from under the SNP because there's more Scots who would support a Home Rule set up than independence. No reasonable person could be opposed to a devolved English parliament.

[quote=epicyclo ]English MPs will not vote on matters relating to Wales, NI, or Scotland

They already don't. I don't think I'm being particularly over confident in the judgement of MPs to assume that there will be no issues determined as England only under these new powers which aren't already devolved. You do realise that this has only become an issue because of devolution and the WL question?

The day after tomorrow Wales and Scotland pass motions granting themselves independence.

I'm afraid such things affect the whole of the UK, hence aren't devolved powers.

If I need to point it out again, I'm not a fan of this at all, but some of the arguments being made against it are bad arguments.

Excellent news. Out smarted the SNP and Labour the morning if the result and here is the delivery. A big vote winner. Devolution is devolution and cuts both ways.

aracer - Member
...I'm afraid such things affect the whole of the UK, hence aren't devolved powers.

You missed my edit: I was being tongue in cheek (not Cameron style 🙂 )

I added a wee bit to my post on a less facetious note.

[quote=epicyclo ]No reasonable person could be opposed to a devolved English parliament.

Do you want me to give the reasonable arguments against it? 😈

(in answer to the bit you added, and no I didn't miss the tongue in cheek bit - I replied with that in mind 😉 )

aracer - Member
Do you want me to give the reasonable arguments against it?

Och, no need. We can recycle Project Fear's arguments from the referendum. 🙂

The funny thing is that the usual suspects were jumping up and down thinking the SNP had played a blinder with the announcement that they would vote on hunting (after previously pledging never to vote on England only issues) - How joyful they were at making the Conservatives postpone the vote thereby sticking it to the evil Tories.

Instead, just as predicted, they managed to resolve support within the Tory party for EVEL, and have now made it [u]impossible[/u] for themselves to ever do it again. So yes the SNP played a blinder, for the Conservative party 🙂

ninfan - Member
...Instead, just as predicted, they managed to resolve support within the Tory party for EVEL, and have now made it impossible for themselves to ever do it again. So yes the SNP played a blinder, for the Conservative party

The Treaty of Union made it pretty clear that MPs of both countries were to have equal status. That is now not the case.

What the actual legal position is I do not know, but the perception of many Scots is that EVEL the way it has been handled is a breach of the treaty (social media is abuzz and the bampots are fulminating), and all we have to do is recall our MPs and declare the treaty dissolved.

I can imagine there will be enormous pressure on the SNP to do something. I'm not a member, so not in the "know", but I imagine they'll have a contingency plan.

Anyway, a week is a long time etc etc...

ninfan - Member
The funny thing is that the usual suspects were jumping up and down thinking the SNP had played a blinder with the announcement that they would vote on hunting (after previously pledging never to vote on England only issues) - How joyful they were at making the Conservatives postpone the vote thereby sticking it to the evil Tories.

Instead, just as predicted, they managed to resolve support within the Tory party for EVEL, and have now made it impossible for themselves to ever do it again. So yes the SNP played a blinder, for the Conservative party

Personally I'd charge Cameron with inciting a riot.

I am with my Scottish friends on this one, for verily 'tis an outrage. After "the dark, dark day for Scottish MPs at Westminster" the news doesn't even make the front pages of the papers or even the front of the BBC website. Does the biased Establishment media view this as second class news!

It's an outage and an insult - aux armes, dear Scots, aux armes

And then those traitors in Plaid Cymru had the bare faced cheek to claim that it wasn't a bad idea just a bit complicated to work out. Scabs......

teamhurtmore - Member
...It's an outage and an insult - aux armes, dear Scots, aux armes...

The SNP are probably going to have their work cut out to keep a lid on it. It just needs one bampot to think he's William Wallace.

The funny thing is that the usual suspects were jumping up and down thinking the SNP had played a blinder with the announcement that they would vote on hunting ... So yes the SNP played a blinder, for the Conservative party

Another way to look at it would be that the SNP played a blinder by bating Tories with the idea that Scots could stop them killing small furry animals, making them vote for EVEL which helps the SNP in the long run.

Do you reckon the UK having nukes is a Scotland only issue?

]ARacer what if the Scottish committees being dominated by english MPs and a party they did not vote for ? Democratic again eh 😉

What the actual legal position is I do not know, but the perception of many Scots is that EVEL the way it has been handled is a breach of the treaty

The perception is that england is special and bullies and controls and dominates the smaller parts of the union and this , with the two status MP's has only fueled this perception and made the inequity real rather than a political point the SNP can bleat on about, they will actually be able to show it with concrete examples
IMHO the tories have sacrificed their long term aim - a strong union- for a short term gain. I dont think history will judge this well so the usual right wing suspects should not get as excited as they are doing currently.
EVEL needs a separate parliament just like all the other

Wishart's moment of passion - where is it this morning? Simply evaporated or extinguished into the depths of Hansard??

The fact that an obvious problem gest embroiled in hyperbole, political stunts and subterfuge should tell us that its not more devolved government that we need, but less government interference altogether. These people are incorrigible....

teamhurtmore - Member
...its not more devolved government that we need, but less government interference altogether. These people are incorrigible....

Good to see we agree on that.

We will achieve it by getting rid of Westminster, and the House of Lords, thereby reducing the number of layers of government in Scotland. 🙂

Yes and then NHS Scotland will be truly saved - everyone's a winner!

But look on the bright side - the audit Scotland report on NHS gets demoted even further from view and you can stir up some angst at the same time. Phew....silver lining and all that.

I think we can safely say that you are pretty much an anarchist, thm, I'd be correct there? No state and let the corporations run riot is your vision?

But look on the bright side - the audit Scotland report on NHS gets demoted even further from view and you can stir up some angst at the same time.

The report says that the NHS in Scotland needs more money - well, yes, of course. Health services around the World face the same problems because of the ageing population, and the Scottish Government has less money to play with. Is any of that a surprise?

Well no, because Scottish MPs still get a vote. That's democracy, not imposition - we've done this argument enough times before haven't we?

Right - a minimum of 56 Scottish MPs will vote against them. We would still have them emposed on us despite this.

No Joe - I don't go that far!! But on that old 4x4 matrix that someone posted put me as a LW libertarian - so the ultimate extension of that is an anarchist 😉

Ben, no, but they should be clear I how they are responding. But the x% increase (pls remind me) is private provision is not privatisation (?) as in RUK is it 😉

Nah THM just wants to be part of greater China. Meantime here's the reuters take on EVEL [url= http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0SG25720151022?irpc=932 ]Strident Headline not matched by content of article [/url]

Second class status is about as accurate as a currency is an asset - sounds plausible, but simply not true

The reality (a veto) seems quite watered down in the end - frankly, there will be a fairly small number of issues that qualify anyway - still enjoy the hyperbole while it lasts

But the x% increase (pls remind me) is private provision is not privatisation (?) as in RUK is it

I'm guessing the first "is" is mean to be an "in"?

Yes, there's an increase in temporary staff. The NHS in both England and Scotland is having more and more problems retaining staff (you only have to read this [url= http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/oct/22/nhs-doctor-surgeon-junior-contract-quit-job-stress-family-children ]really sad article[/url] from England to see why), so spending on temporary staff has gone up by 15%.

But that leaves Scotland still with a much smaller spend on private provision than England - and there's still that fundamental difference that it's individual locums being hired on a piecemeal basis when needed, not handing entire sectors of the NHS over to private companies.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think the placing of them in Scotland is a Scottish only issue

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

Can you give me an example - you cannot due to the numbers - where the Scottish can impose similarly in england?

Well that's democracy for you. In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

What makes you think that Faslane is strategically the best place for them?

What makes you think I have any idea?

NO, that bit's right - Faslane is geographically the only practical location for them. Milford Haven might work if it wasn't already a big oil terminal.

@Ben: Windscale, perhaps, no-one wants to go there anyway.

Windscale isn't a deep water port.

but I still found it amusing the insistence of non English MPs that they had to have a say on issues which are devolved, rather than just complaining about the mess.

Scottish MPs are perfectly within their rights to have a say - Westminster is the UK parliament.

Well that's democracy for you. In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Thanks for the argument in favour of EVEL 😉

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

TBH I have no idea if you are trolling[ EDIT:post above removes doubt] here but you are argument amounts to it ok to impose stuff on people against the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people and the wishes of the people as that is democracy. Ar eyou china in disguise?

Its not that convincing as any democracy will represent the wishes of the people rather than let another devolved country decide for them what happens there

In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Can you give me an example - you cannot due to the numbers - where the Scottish can impose similarly in england?

All MPs/countries are equal except some countries/MP's who are more equal than others

Not a great day for the union or democracy IMHO.
It still needs a solution but this is it.

Thanks for the argument in favour of EVEL

It's more an argument in favour of an English parliament, and a federal government.

[quote=Junkyard ]TBH I have no idea if you are trolling[ EDIT:post above removes doubt] here but you are argument amounts to it ok to impose stuff on people against the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people and the wishes of the people as that is democracy.

No I'm not, not on that point. The democratically elected representatives of the people of the UK in the UK parliament, representing the wishes of the UK people have agreed that we will have nuclear weapons and that they will be located in the best location for them in the UK. That is democracy. Democracy is not a charter for NIMBYs.

Its not that convincing as any democracy will represent the wishes of the people rather than let another devolved country decide for them what happens there

It isn't another devolved country making the decision, it's the UK, which Scotland is a part of. I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand.

In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Fascinating sidestep to my actual question

Not a sidestep at all - I'd already answered the question, no, because democracy. You might not like the way democracy works, but that is the way democracy works.

I doubt a different analogy will help, but here goes anyway: In a similar way the Scottish Highlands don't get to "impose" things on the central belt.

Quite clearly a nuclear deterrent is an issue for the whole of the UK, so it is correct that decisions are made on it on a whole UK basis and not devolved. There really are far better arguments to be made about devolved powers - any chance we can move on from this?

What has happened with EVEL is that some people in the UK have been prevented from having any say in legislation that might affect them. Meantime other people will continue to have legislation made in the same parliament as before. Decisions about which legislation is to be decided by which representatives will be made by the speaker and 2 mps from the same parliament that's hardly bringing decision making closer to the communities affected (edit)

I reluctantly find myself agreeing with aracer here. The UK parliament wants to keep nuclear weapons, there's only really one practical location for them in the UK, so they have to go on the Clyde. Scotland had a chance to remove the UK parliament's influence in this matter, and we decided for the moment not to.

The arguments against nuclear weapons are many, but this isn't one of them.

Again your "democracy " has only one country able to impose its will on another country against that people and that countries wishes.

There is no way that this can be called democracy.

I am not sure you can accuse an entire country of MIMBYism tbh and being anti Nukes is not really NIMBYISM - they are saying no nukes not no nukes here Big difference.

Anyway done this to death its still a shit solution to a difficult issue

[quote=gordimhor ]What has happened with EVEL is that some people in the UK have been prevented from having any say in legislation that might affect them.

This is a straw man. If it affects the whole of the UK - even if that is just due to Barnett - it won't come under EVEL, as it will only be for issues which are already devolved. The overall NHS budget for example isn't a devolved thing, so won't come under EVEL. Or do you think there are no England only issues?

So you think there wont ever be an issue where scottish MPs and English Mps disagree over whether they have a say then aracer 😯

what about heathrow - is where we have the national airport a London thing an england thing or a UK thing?

HS2 - scotland still contributing etc

Poor [english MP speaker*] - hence why it was better to have a devolved parliament

* could they have a Scottish one seeing as the speaker has the casting vote - genuine question that one - I assume aracer will tell me only an english speaker is democracy in action again 😛

The overall NHS budget for example isn't a devolved thing, so won't come under EVEL.

Are you 100% sure on that given that NHS Scotland is a different body.

No I am clear that there are England only issues and that those should be decided by England's mps. My concern is that the speaker and 2 other mps decide what are England only issues.

Have we done the time when Chris Grayling accidentally said that Scotland would be an England-and-Wales-only issue?

[img] [/img]

😀

Faslane is an excellent place for our submarines, deep,water access direct to the North Atlantic.

It's as funny as hell how the SNP seem to think devolution is only for them (and the Welsh) and not for the English. I never trusted the SNPs statement they would not vote on English matters and the fox hunting issue saw them renege on that within a very short time. So let's put it into law Scottish MPs cannot vote on English only matters. I absolutely support that and just like the referendum was Scots business this is England's business.

Second class status is about as accurate as a currency is an asset - sounds plausible, but simply not true

Scotland has the worlds most devolved parliament but like a spilt child it's never enough for the SNP, a one issue party

[quote=Junkyard ]* could they have a Scottish one seeing as the speaker has the casting vote - genuine question that one - I assume aracer will tell me only an english speaker is democracy in action again

I can't see any reason why not, given that the decision on which things come under EVEL is quite clearly a whole UK thing, in the same way decisions on devolving powers are. It really shouldn't be that hard to select which issues it applies to, as a basic rule is that it only applies to those things which are already fully devolved.

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence, the borders regions will have it imposed on them despite them voting against independence?

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence, the borders regions will have it imposed on them despite them voting against independence?

The Borders has SNP MPs.

No I am clear that there are England only issues and that those should be decided by England's mps.

There's no particular reason why that should be so, given there's no English parliament. You may as well argue that MPs should only be able to vote on issues that affect their constituency.

dissolves the Act of Union

it's as funny as hell how the SNP seem to think devolution is only for them (and the Welsh) and not for the English

Scotland has the worlds most devolved parliament

Source please mr 100%