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

[quote=wanmankylung ]The Borders has SNP MPs.

In the same way the vast majority of Scotland has SNP MPs despite voting against independence? I suggest you check the referendum results for that region...

And while he is at it,could he please explain how this undermines the SNP,as he suggested on page one. He should feel free to cite various high up sources/connections he is privvy to. Mind you,since he is the only person in the UK that thinks Alistair Charmichael is innocent/a British patriot,and Alex Salmond is corrupt for donating a large part of his salary to charity;I won't hold my breath for anything logical.

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence

*It either that or we can go all the way to passport to [s]Pimlico.[/s] pittodrie

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding over how these new provisions will operate, they only give English MPs the power of veto over English matters. They can't introduce new law. In addition, the whole house will still vote on the third reading so Scottish MPs can still vote against English only laws at this stage. What it essentially does is stop a government from passing an "english" law which the majority of English MPs are against - i.e a both and test - no more than that i.e. it fixes situations like the tuition fees issue under Labour where they only got a law which would not apply in Scotland passed with the votes of Scottish MPs.

JY Scotland contributes less than it receives so your HS2 point is irrelevant. Heathrow airport expansion is an English issue. Locals in Faslane are for fhe base.

Scotland is a country of 5m people and its deeply divided about independence and many other issues. If you have 2 people you'lll ha e a disagreement about issues. At 60m people the UK is a medium sized country, there are plenty of much larger democracies and that's before we get onto how the EU works

JY Scotland contributes less than it receives

Wrong - Scotlasnd contributes a slightly higher percentage of tax take than it receives in funding.

We can agree to disagree @ben, Scotland is relatively poor in UK terms and contributes less to the UK vs what it receives than does London alone

So, seeing as most of the complaints seem to come out of the risk that a decision taken in England might affect Scotland through the the Barnett formula, I reckon we all know what comes next don't we 😈

@jambaytrolathonman its ironic that yet once more your post, which ignored your factual inaccuracies was indeed factually inaccurate.
😆
[b]SOURCE PLEASE[/b]

The gift that keeps on giving.
re tax:
Or to put it another way, for every person in Scotland last year, the exchequer received £800 more than the UK average.*
9.1% of the tax 8.3 % of Uk population

Indeed you can agree to disagree with Ben and the actual facts as basically its what you do - form an opinion at odds with reality and then continue to spout it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267
* assumes oil in Scotlands international territory is Scotlands

Oh PLEASE NO. NOT AGAIN.

Not just the Barnett formula. We also need to see how things that are built in England but funded by the UK are affected. Things like HS2. Problem is we don't know, the decision on whether something's an English-only matter will be taken on an ad hoc basis by the speaker.

The other issue is it also effectively rules out anyone from Scotland or Wales becoming PM again. Can't have a PM who can't vote on some bills his party puts forward.

Scottish Mps will still get to vote on HS2 even if it is regarded as a English matter.

wanmankylung - Member

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

The NHS is devolved but NHS England funding affects Scotland via the Barnett formula. That's a point made often already in this thread. (and often non-Barnett items are still going to be contentious)

I'm totally in favour of English devolution, it's about bloomin time- years bleating about the West Lothian Question when the real question is "why does England expect the UK parliament to deal with provincial matters". But this is a pretty horrible fix, both practically and politically. It's only a matter of time til a contentious decision on English-onlyness. Which is why the House of Commons Procedures Committee was so critical. The decision to rush things through without full consultation and consideration is pretty much the perfect way to make a bad law- for one of the biggest constitutional changes in the UK.

The idea that this outmaneouvres the SNP is just bizarre, it's pure gold for them. English devolution done well would have outmaneouvred them, this terrible one plays perfectly into their hands.

The idea that it's somehow a result of fox hunting is bizarre too, since it long pre-dates that. Cameron's agenda was clear throughout the election- remember "we cannot allow these people to have a voice in our parliament". And as far as defending democracy goes, the deeper irony was that English MPs weren't representing English voters on fox hunting.

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

So what would be the states roll in THMland? Just curious.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding over how these new provisions will operate, they only give English MPs the power of veto over English matters.

Shhh, that spoils the mischief making. This is the end of the union, don't you know! Stay with the game.

[quote=wrecker opined]Oh PLEASE NO. NOT AGAIN.

Fair point actually

Exits thread

This isn't really even about Scotland in itself, the tories know they will never have more than a couple of Scottish mp's for at least a generation. This is about crippling a Labour government that doesn't command an English majority.

"we cannot allow these people to have a voice in our parliament"

It is therefore completely bizarre that the "solution" involves every Scottish MP still having the right to vote on every bill put forward - or maybe it is not his agenda at all.

Indeed you can agree to disagree with Ben and the actual facts as basically its what you do - form an opinion at odds with reality and then continue to spout it.

The Scottish government seem to agree with Jambalaya.

From GERS;

"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, total public sector revenue is estimated at £54.0 billion (8.6 per cent of UK public sector revenue). This represents £10,100 per person, £400 more than the UK average."

"Total expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the Scottish Government, UK Government, and all other parts of the public sector was £66.4 billion. This is equivalent to 9.2 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure, and £12,500 per head."

Out of date figures there junky

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422

8.6% of tax revenues (geographic)
9.2% expenditure

😳

(Edit: great minds think alike and all that)

The Scottish government seem to agree with Jambalaya.

Apples and oranges - on a gross basis they contribute more than average on a net basis their negative contribution is less (i.e more negative) than average.

[quote=bencooper ]The other issue is it also effectively rules out anyone from Scotland or Wales becoming PM again. Can't have a PM who can't vote on some bills his party puts forward.

Except it doesn't. Because as pointed out several times above and below your post, all MPs still get to vote on everything.

[quote=MSP ]This isn't really even about Scotland in itself, the tories know they will never have more than a couple of Scottish mp's for at least a generation. This is about crippling a Labour government that doesn't command an English majority.

This. This only allows English MPs to stop new legislation, it doesn't allow them to force through new legislation which doesn't have UK wide support (even if it unequivocally applies only to England). Hence SNP MPs can still vote against anything which [b]changes[/b] Barnett funding. Oh and they also still get to vote against any changes to the England only hunting laws!

I agree it is all a mess, and almost totally agree with NW's post - I'm just not going to let you lot use rubbish arguments against it.

@ aracer any links to back up your argument that EVEL will only apply to those matters already devolved. All the reports I can find say it will be for the speaker +2mps to decide what is "England only"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-votes-for-english-laws-what-are-the-veto-proposals-put-forward-by-the-tories-and-how-are-10019986.html
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mps-warn-of-legal-action-if-evel-proposals-go-through-1-3920696#axzz3pNuGrvYj
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13890833.Tories_accused_of_driving_wedge_between_England_and_Scotland_with_new_Evel_rights_for_MPs/
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/english-votes-english-laws-controversial-evel-changes-explained-1525212

I'm just not going to let you lot use rubbish arguments against it.

Who made you the boss? You're not our mums.

🙂

i thought this was an update on the cricket

Indeed this quote from Chris Grayling in Hansard says that spending implications for the devolved administrations will not be taken into account when the speaker is making any such decisionif he considers them to be minor implications "The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling): The proposed changes to Standing Orders would mean that clauses or schedules that Mr Speaker considers to relate exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, disregarding any minor or consequential effects for other parts of the United Kingdom, will be subject to the new legislative process.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Minor and consequential.

Chris Grayling: Minor or consequential, and consequential. This will include any potential spending effects. Any decision on spending that will have a material impact on the allocation of funding to the devolved Administrations will always be taken by a vote of the whole House of Commons through either the estimates process or a money resolution."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151022/debtext/151022-0001.htm#15102229000031
(edit)

Second order effects on spending will not be taken into account in determining - determination by Speaker alone - which Bills are subject to English Grand Committee - Scottish MPs still get to vote on them at later stage.

minor and inconsequential effects, gordimhor

@aracer you posted " as a basic rule is that it only applies to those things which are already fully devolved." There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that. The quote from hansard makes is clear that it will be for the speaker+2mps to decide what is an "England only" matter.
I acknowledged that reference to "minor and consequential " spending implications in my post ,but it is also a matter of concern -who decides what is "minor and consequential"

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that.

Just the Standing Order

(1) The Speaker shall, before second reading-

(a) consider every public bill presented by a Minister of the Crown or brought from the Lords and taken up by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) certify any such bill, or any clause or schedule of any such bill, which, in the Speaker’s opinion-

(i) relates exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and

(ii) [b]is within devolved legislative competence.[/b]

[url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmvote/151022v01.htm ]Text of Standing Order[/url]

Thanks mefty, I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but hadn't worked up sufficient interest to bother looking.

edit: and thanks for the graceful acknowledgement

Thanks Mefty, that at least is cleared up @aracer is correct to say that EVEL would only apply to areas of already devolved legislation 😳

The problem with these debates is that they are long on rhetoric but short on familiarity with the facts - 10 mins research saves a lot of time in the long run.

EDIT: The newspapers and politicians are equally at fault hence generally best to look for a primary source.

EDIT 2: I wrote my post before I saw yours gordimhor, which makes it look like a personal dig, it wasn't just a generalisation about how we are badly informed by our politicians and media - hence my initial EDIT but I still thought there could be room for doubt, which I have hopefully removed now.

The problem with these debates is that they are long on rhetoric but short on familiarity with the facts - 10 mins research saves a lot of time in the long run.

This is the SNPs trump card - people cant be ar$ed to check the facts and will swallow the hysteria demonstrated in the House yesterday.

jambalaya - Member
Faslane....
...Boom.

I found the basis of our objection in your screed... 🙂

No worries Mefty .

[img] ?oh=70565cb83dd5d37a37ccce6fee407a42&oe=568D4A31[/img]

Anyway, how's it coming along in Catalonia?

I mean, everyone agreed that they had the right to a UDI and would [i]definitley[/i] retain EU membership didn't they?

Zulu,is Catalonia independent then? When did that happen?

I may be simplifying it but UK is governed from Westmister, Scotland from Holyrood, Wales Cardiff and NI was Stormont.

England as yet isn't a devolved power, yet, which does seem unfair. So become devolved from the UK parliament then non-english MPs can't vote on England only stuff.

All i ask is you don't use the building or the civil service of the UK government. Because that's for UK governance.

You're not asking a lot, but, well I'll leave it to you to decide if you are getting what you asked for.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the Tories have seen fit to turn the UK Parliament into at least in part an English Parlament?

I wonder what legal challenges the SNP will come up with.

To introduce a measure of redress to partially resolve the democratic imbalances that arose as a result of devolutionary measures without incurring the significant cost of an additional parliament.

God your good mefty!

Brilliantly put.

The SNP is more likely to rely on the tried and tested strategy of bluff and bluster....after all, yesterday "was" a dark, dark day!

To introduce a measure of redress to partially resolve the democratic imbalances that arose as a result of devolutionary measures without incurring the significant cost of an additional parliament.

But Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland had to pay for their own parliaments. What right do the Tories have to create an English Parliament at the cost of the rest of the UK?

When did all that happen?

Most of it serveral years ago, some of it yesterday.

To introduce a measure of redress to partially resolve the democratic imbalances that arose as a result of devolutionary measures without incurring the significant cost of an additional parliament.

So English politicians want their own parliament, but don't want to pay for it. Devolution for the rest of the UK wouldn't of gotten off the ground with that sort of thinking.

We have an English Parliament? How did I miss that?

Yey, a thread dedicated to the arts of Westminster or Holyrood bashing with varying degrees of nationalism thrown in with neither side able to admit anything other than the pre existing prejudices.

Woo ****ing hoo

You should think yourselves lucky. If they set up a separate English parliament you'd be paying a lot more for it than you are for this 😈

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 

playing a blinder for the Conservatives is exactly what the SNP want. I agree with Northwind. The whole solution has been hurriedly cobbled together. The SNP and their supporters are far from angry and are embracing EVEL. Epicyclo will have been itching at the bit to post the cartoon above.

If you want a measure of SNP anger on an issue, listen out for Scots language used in the commons by SNP politicians. If they are truly angry they will use English, if they find the situation amusing listen out for Scots being used. Heard EVEL described as a guddle by one MP, so you can telk they are loving it

Fox hunting is a red herring. If the SNP actually cared about the treatment of foxes then they would better spend resources preventing the legal practice in Scotland of flushing foxes to guns with packs of hounds. This is open to abuse and currently illegal in England.

@ Athgray "Fox hunting is a red herring " Surely that's Fox Fishing.

If you want a measure of SNP anger on an issue, listen out for Scots language used in the commons by SNP politicians. If they are truly angry they will use English, if they find the situation amusing listen out for Scots being used.

Ach, a cannae tell if ye're havin a wee kid-oan or no wi this.

For what it is worth I don't think this creates 2 classes of mp.The English grand committee can't bring forward new legislation though it does have the power to veto bills which may have budget implications for the devolved administrations.This is defined as "minor consequential" budget implications in Hansard and the speaker +2mps will decide minor and consequential means. This is a hasty and poorly thought out move.No proper oversight of the speakers decisions for example.

mefty - Member
To introduce a measure of redress to partially resolve the democratic imbalances that arose as a result of devolutionary measures without incurring the significant cost of an additional parliament.

Really? It seemed to me that the Tories were making use of a reasonable concern to score some political points and stack some decks in their favour, rather than actually produce a solution that's fair to all the citizens and countries that make up the UK.

After 2 years to pursuede the Scottish electorate and failing I see the Yes supporters here are desperate to find a straw to clutch.

Meanwhile on planet wage slave (where I and a number of others currently reside); this new thingy will make precisely **** all difference to our lives at all. The Tories will claim a victory to the applause of the english nationalists (we're levelling the field!), the SNP will claim to be mortally wounded to the scottish nationalists (OMG we're 2nd class, they hate us!). The reality for most of us is it will be; carry on normal jogging.
Some political capital for the movers and shakers is all it is. Complete bollocks, if it were a newspaper article, we'd call it clickbate.

After 2 years to pursuede the Scottish electorate and failing I see the Yes supporters here are desperate to find a straw to clutch.

In those two years, we went from 20% supporting independence to 45% voting for it. No need to clutch at straws, just need to be patient.

Ach, a cannae tell if ye're havin a wee kid-oan or no wi this.

I am having a little joke with this yes.
I will take your Scots and raise you though.

SAOR ALBA!!!!!!

I bet you see it lots on RWOS by people that know two words of Gaelic.

I can't agree with those that support the idea of a federal UK. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable enough - 4 devolved parliaments and a federal government for things like defence, foreign policy etc but it would fall apart at the first hint of illegal participation in foreign wars and on the nuclear deterrent.

but it would fall apart at the first hint of illegal participation in foreign wars and on the nuclear deterrent.

Maybe that'd be a good thing.

Really? It seemed to me that the Tories were making use of a reasonable concern to score some political points and stack some decks in their favour, rather than actually produce a solution that's fair to all the citizens and countries that make up the UK.

Well one could equally argue that Labour didn't do anything about it because they appreciated the security of having 40 Scottish MPs to get their English business done - that's politics. The deck is only stacked if the electorate agrees to so stack it, nothing can be taken for granted.

However, this would appear to be a good time to do something about the issue, if not now, when? They have been discussing it ever since devolution was first mooted so it can hardly be described as rushed. The solution retains every MP's ultimate voting rights whilst giving a veto to English (and Welsh) MPs on English (and Welsh) only laws. It seems to be an equitable compromise.

just need to be patient

mefty - Member
...The solution retains every MP's ultimate voting rights whilst giving a veto to English (and Welsh) MPs on English (and Welsh) only laws. It seems to be an equitable compromise.

It would be if English MPs did not vote on Scottish matters.

Jamb surely a politician has a lifespan of 5 years so....

And this evel is federalism by the back door. Vote for an English parliament under a uk legislative power and be done with it.

What are you on about nobeer? Scotland kept voting for a government that wanted to take us to war in Iraq.

Issues cross borders all the time. Although epicyclo may not think so. What about a student from England that wants to study in Scotland? They have no vote available to any party that can help them. What about a doctor living in England but working in a hospital in Scotland that has no say over NHS in Scotland. I sire there are plenty of issies the affect people in England but I don't know them all.

athgray - Member

Issues cross borders all the time. Although epicyclo may not think so. What about a student from England that wants to study in Scotland? They have no vote available to any party that can help them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this but I'm sure you're wrong, whatever it is. See, a student can normally register to vote either at their home or termtime address, it's their choice. So they can study in Scotland, and vote there, or in England.

Assuming for the moment you were talking about tuition fees; on average, an English student studying in Scotland will pay less fees than an English student studying in England, because of generous [s]bursaries[/s] bribes. So they don't exactly need help there. But, if they want to change the tuition fee situation, they can vote for whoever will change that in England. Liberal Democrat I suppose 😉

(in reality, there's nobody electable in England that's going to work to reduce tuition fees for students; but that's nothing to do with devolution, it's about electoral choice.)

Course, regardless of where they are, they're now less likely to be registered to vote because changes in voter registration brought in by the last government reduced student voter registration by a third...

What are you on about nobeer? Scotland kept voting for a government that wanted to take us to war in Iraq.

Who's to say that'll keep happening? As it is at the moment no matter who is in charge of Scotland, or how the country voted in the GE we'd end up going to war.

Assuming for the moment you were talking about tuition fees; on average, an English student studying in Scotland will pay less fees than an English student studying in England, because of generous bursariesbribes. So they don't exactly need help there. But, if they want to change the tuition fee situation, they can vote for whoever will change that in England. Liberal Democrat I suppose

Northwind, I am not arguing the pro's or cons of the fee process that the Scottish Parliament has taken, rather that a student from England has no say over voting for a party that can say what it proposes to charge that person for wishing to attend university in Scotland.

whatnobeer - Member

What are you on about nobeer? Scotland kept voting for a government that wanted to take us to war in Iraq.Who's to say that'll keep happening? As it is at the moment no matter who is in charge of Scotland, or how the country voted in the GE we'd end up going to war.

So you agree in the past Scotland was instrumental in dragging the UK into an illegal war but that may not be the case in the future???? Interesting take on it I suppose.

athgray - Member

Northwind, I am not arguing the pro's or cons of the fee process that the Scottish Parliament has taken, rather that a student from England has no say over voting for a party that can say what it proposes to charge that person for wishing to attend university in Scotland.

But that's just wrong- as I say, an English student studying in Scotland can normally register to vote in England, which is where that decision's made. So they can vote Tory, which will mean increases sooner or later, Green, for abolition, Labour, for reduction, Lib Dem, for... actually, they don't seem to have a policy any more, it's not like it matters, they'd do the exact opposite. And UKIP for something complicated to do with STEM and paying tax.

I really don't know what you think this has to do with devolution or Scotland. An English student in Scotland has the same choice as an English student studying in England.

I am really puzzled about this whole debate. As always it seems that to many politicians and newspapers have been stirring the for their own reasons. EVEL only came up because the rest of the UK started to understand Scottish devolution asa result of the vote in Scotland. It is a crap idea, but given that the whole West Lothian question had been ignored for far too long, something had to be done.

In reality there are only a few bills which have no Scottish impact. Of those bills only some have devolved responsibility and it is only those bills to which the MPS representing English (& Welsh & NI) constituencies can veto. Remember that they only have the power to veto a bill. Otherwise all MPs (including the ones representing Scottish constituencies) can debate and vote on the Bills.

With devolution Scottish MPs are already second class MPs since they have no say on what ever has been devolved to the Scottish parliament. This change means they don't lose any rights, just that some bills will be dead before they get a chance to debate/vote on them.

In reality I suspect that it will be used very rarely and on stuff that most MPs don't turn up and vote on.

The decision of Scottish universities to charge students is not made at Westminster but At Holyrood. People are saying here that decisions made in Scotland do not affect England. This is not the case.
Are you saying universities in Scotland charging English, Welsh an NI students is a Scotland only issue?

Are you saying universities in Scotland charging English, Welsh an NI students is a Scotland only issue?

Why wouldn't it be? People from other foreign countries dont get a say in how much they pay in tuition fees before they come over.

Indeed sadmadalan

The BS during the independence debate was bad enough but the desperation to create a false narrative here is palpable.

Very poor politics from very poor politicians

Here's another interesting analysis you might like, THM:

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/what-does-evel-actually-do.html

My feeling is that the number of times it's actually used will be naff all - pretty much everything has cross-border implications, and as it's only an English veto it's not like it's much use unless the government is supported by Scottish votes.

The concern more is the precedent set - once you accept the principle that all MPs are equal but some are more equal than others, it's easy to start going further. Portugal just prevented a majority political party from taking power because their views are anti-EU - the UK might not go that far, but this is a step in that direction.

The Tuition Fees discussion is an interesting one for showing unintended cross-border consequences.

(a) Since the English Unis starting charging, their Scottish counterparts have been complaining that they are now finding it hard to "compete".

(b) The close geographic and cultural ties make it easy for English students to study in Scotland so the policy difference can make it harder for Scots students to find places.

(c) Is it even possible that by retaining free Uni in Scotland, fewer Scottish students study in England and the laws of supply and demand may be helping keep some English Uni fees in check?

Would the speaker have taken these into consideration if the introduction of Uni fees in England was being discussed after EVEL?

Ben - thanks yes interesting and I love the reference to Aristotle and virtue ethics!

The staggering amount of time wasted on these issues is breathtaking, Scotland has an incredible deal at the moment that combines great aspects of union and independence. Instead if making the most of this (almost unique) opportunity, the rabids continue their nonsensical diatribes.

Still looking forward to being up next weekend!