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

[quote=epicyclo ]It would be if English MPs did not vote on Scottish matters.

They don't, and neither do Scottish MPs.

The concern more is the precedent set - once you accept the principle that all MPs are equal but some are more equal than others

But therein lies the question that has laid unresolved for forty years, and was delibaretly buried during devolution because it clearly worked in favour of the incumbents.

[i]
For how long will English constituencies and English hon. Members tolerate 123 not just 71 Scots, 36 Welsh and a number of Ulstermen but at least 119 hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Ireland? Such a situation cannot conceivably endure for long.
[/i]

We already have two classes of MP - this is merely a step in the direction of rectifying that disparity.

teamhurtmore - Member

..Still looking forward to being up next weekend!

Try not to run over any of our rabids. 🙂

This whole debate is straight out of Orwell. Some pigs etc...

(except Davie's pig, it got screwed)

We already have two classes of MP

The issue needs resolving this is the cheapest solution and everything else about it is terrible

athgray - Member

The decision of Scottish universities to charge students is not made at Westminster but At Holyrood.

Eh, no. English students are funded by Student Finance England. The decisions to impose and then to increase fees were all made at Westminster.

Of course, Scotland could unilaterally choose to support english students at scotland's cost. But why, if England won't? Should we pay for English students studying in England too? What other English services do you think Scotland be paying for?

If you're unhappy about Westminster imposing tuition fees, take it up with them.

scotroutes - Member

(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.

Not really; The SFC funds places for scottish students on a use-em-or-lose-em basis via the outcome agreeements so even the more in-demand unis like us still want to fill every place that we can with scottish students. We overshoot most years- conversion is an art not a science and we'd rather have to fund a few scottish students ourselves, than fail to fill the places- and the same's true across the industry, I've not seen more recent numbers but in 13-14 every scottish funded place was taken, and more. (it's something like 125000 core places funded, plus an extra 5000 targeted additional funded places, and 140000 filled)

Basically, the 2 groups of students don't directly compete for places. The major difference is that scottish recruitment is essentially capped by funded places whereas rest-of-world recruitment is essentially capped by the number of seats remaining after that, and the number of quality applicants. This leads to some pretty odd situations tbf but it absolutely does not mean that English students take places from Scottish.

They don't, and neither do Scottish MPs.

Is it really not obvious where decisions on Scottish matters are made?

Is it really not obvious where decisions on Scottish matters are made?

Aye, Westminster.

You appear to be wasting a lot of money on something useless then.

Scotland Act - I agree that a lot of our money is being wasted on laws that we don't want and didnt vote for.

aracer - Member
You appear to be wasting a lot of money on something useless then.

Luckily there is a solution to that. 🙂

[quote=wanmankylung ]Scotland Act

Which as discussed up-thread is about devolution, hence a whole UK constitutional matter (in the same way EVEL is).

You see those English only laws which English MPs get a veto on - which epi was declaring as being unfair because English MPs vote on "Scottish matters". Such comments are hugely ironic, because in fact any "Scottish matters" equivalent to those which English MPs get a veto on, English MPs don't get to vote on at all; whilst Scottish MPs still [b]do[/b] still get a vote on those English matters.

I thnk the word you're looking for is dissolution.

You're suggesting that MSPs are dissolute?

You see those English only laws which English MPs get a veto on - which epi was declaring as being unfair because English MPs vote on "Scottish matters". Such comments are hugely ironic, because in fact any "Scottish matters" equivalent to those which English MPs get a veto on, English MPs don't get to vote on at all; whilst Scottish MPs still do get a vote on those English matters.

Give some examples.

Air Weapons and Licensing
Mental Health
Prisoners (Control of Release)
Community Empowerment
Welfare Funds
Legal Writings (Counterparts and Delivery)
Community Charge Debt

Can you expand on the mental health and welfare fund legislation?

No, not really. There's a longer list [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-snps-record-in-government ]here[/url] if it helps

OK let's go for the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 - Would you agree that the only reason this legislation is needed is to provide emergency funds that are required due to welfare legislation that was brought in by Westminster? Or as Mhairi Black puts it, it's only there because the Welfare State is failing?

I've no idea. You were after examples, and I provided examples of devolved legislation. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

Northwind - Member
it absolutely does not mean that English students take places from Scottish.

I was really trying to give an example of how legislation in England [i]could[/i] impact Scotland. Do the other points stand?

I've no idea. You were after examples, and I provided examples of devolved legislation. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point is very relevant to the discussion. Do you think that the Scottish Government would have brought the legislation in if there was no shortfall in welfare from Westminster? Doesn't seem like the Scottish Government has a free choice in the legislation that it is on occassion forced to introduce.

So you're telling me that Scottish MPs didn't get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster, and then English MPs went up to the Scottish parliament and forced them to legislate? Why haven't I heard about this before? Yet more anti-Scottish bias in the press no doubt - what a scandalous abuse of democracy.

Then to rub salt into the wounds, if they decide to bring in a similar Welfare Funds bill in England, which wouldn't apply to Scotland at all, this new EVEL system means that English MPs might veto it before Scottish MPs get to vote on it.

Don't worry aracer. None of those complicated situations will exist to bother you once we're independent. 🙂

EVEL can only apply if a bill is within Holyrood's legislative competence. So it is strictly for things that Westminster cannot pass for Scotland and which Holyrood could.

So you're telling me that Scottish MPs didn't get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster,

56 out of 59 MPs voted against it, but it was still forced through.

[i]The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 places the Scottish Welfare Fund into law. The Act provides certainty to stakeholders that local welfare provision will continue in Scotland following the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Act places a duty on local authorities to deliver the welfare funds, in line with regulations and guidance that will be issued by Scottish Ministers. Local authorities have been delivering the fund on an interim basis, under a voluntary agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA, since April 2013....

... [b]The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent on Wednesday 08 April 2015,[/b] becoming the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015. [/i]

So - Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation - in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

Democracy, TZF

Democracy, TZF

Aye right.

So - Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation - in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

You missed my point completely.

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

You keep referring to the people of the Borders voting against whatever. Can you tell me where the Border's borders are and what specifically they voted against?

aracer - Member
As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

A lot happier than the sort of democracy which puts nuclear weapons in our backyard despite an almost total wipeout of the parties that support it in Scotland. 56 out 59 constituencies.

I'd be quite happy to take the nukes out of scotland - Plymouth could do with the employment

Gosh this is hard work.

Scottish Borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Borders
They voted against "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/S12000026

Given that the Scottish Borders does not match up to any constituency boundaries it is impossible to tell if the majority of peope who live there voted no, or not.

What are you on about? I just gave the link to how they voted in the referendum.

The information is also here if you have a problem with the BBC being an anti-Scotland organisation

Aye, but what you're not getting is that what your link calls the Scottish Borders probably isn't what actually is the Scottish Borders.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results[/url]

I might be wrong, but I thing the split by area for the referendum was by region and not constituency boundary. This link shows 66.56% support for the UK in the Borders.

It was split across council boundaries. They dont match the actual boundaries all that closely.

OK, so some region in which votes were collected, which the BBC and the Scottish parliament describe as "Scottish Borders" (all available info suggests they were collected for the council area) voted no to Scottish independence by a significant margin, and most likely will vote no to Scottish independence by a significant margin if (when?) the majority of people in Scotland vote yes - at which point it will have independence imposed on it. You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

Exactly what point are you trying to make here by quibbling about council boundaries?

Exactly what point are you trying to make here by quibbling about council boundaries?

None whatsoever.

and most likely will vote no to Scottish independence by a significant margin if (when?) the majority of people in Scotland vote yes - at which point it will have independence imposed on it. You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

I dont think they'll vote that way. But if they do and they want to leave I'd have no problem with that. You'd need to stop riding the off piste trails all round the Borders though.

[quote=wanmankylung ]None whatsoever.

<sigh> So you're not actually capable of making a rational argument? I won't bother asking you to explain your latest then.

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

It is, and it's the same sort of democracy which some people seem to be complaining about.

So you're not actually capable of making a rational argumen

I am, but you seem so set on accepting that council boundaries are identical to acutal regional boundaries that there's no point arguing with you. They are often different - that's the point I was making. So saying that the Scottish Borders voted against independence is not something that you can claim with 100% conviction as there was no poll of the acutal Scottish Borders region....

You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

I think what we are discussing is if its democratic for the elected representatives of one country to impose its will on another country
You thing this is fair and some think its unfair
I dont think anyone thinks that some people wont get what they voted for.

I am, but you seem so set on accepting that council boundaries are identical to acutal regional boundaries that there's no point arguing with you. They are often different - that's the point I was making. So saying that the Scottish Borders voted against independence is not something that you can claim with 100% conviction as there was no poll of the acutal Scottish Borders region....

Does this also mean Glasgow and Dundee cannot lay the claim of being FREEDOM!!! cities as people say?

I think the argument really comes down to whether Scotland (or England) is a country or not. It's an odd inbetween state, so it's not a question that can be answered definitively. If Scotland isn't a country, then it's absolutely reasonable that a smaller part of the UK has to do what the UK majority wants. But Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

Some people are even conflicted in their own heads - thinking that Scotland is politically a region of the UK, but happy to support the Scottish rugby team, for instance.

Some people are even conflicted in their own heads - thinking that Scotland is politically a region of the UK, but happy to support the Scottish rugby team, for instance.

What BS. Conflict? It is nothing of the sort. Typical one dimensional nationalist view.

Oh, I think we're all conflicted to one extent or another - there's so much shared culture it's impossible not to be. I was more replying to Junkyard, re one country imposing its will on another. Even as someone who thinks Scottish independence is a good idea, I don't agree with that viewpoint.

You have to admit, it's strange for one country to have several different national sports teams.

Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

The bailiwicks of the Channel islands and Isle of Man have the same, but we wouldn't suggest they amounted to [i]countries [/i] rather than politically and legally quasi-autonomous crown dependencies.

Exactly my point - we're all in an odd situation, and it's only because we live here that it doesn't seem that odd, but take a step back. We're not in a normal country, we're in a weird hybrid.

The argument about Scottish independence is an argument about where you think Scotland is (or should be) on the sliding scale of nationhood.

You have to admit, it's strange for one country to have several different national sports teams.

It's even stranger for one country to supply 25% of the teams in a 16 team competition.

So what exactly is the Scottish Borders region if it's not the council area? Not that I really care, and not that it makes the slightest difference.

[quote=bencooper ]I think the argument really comes down to whether Scotland (or England) is a country or not. It's an odd inbetween state, so it's not a question that can be answered definitively. If Scotland isn't a country, then it's absolutely reasonable that a smaller part of the UK has to do what the UK majority wants. But Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

Thanks for helping to explain my point - the thing is that those "country" things are irrelevant in the context of decisions being made for the UK as a whole. Because in that context Scotland has surrendered any sovereignty it might have to be part of that whole - in that context it is not an independent country. In that context it is simply another region which is no more having things imposed on it than Rutland is. Anything else would be totally impractical and unworkable.

I can understand why some people think that is unsatisfactory, but a majority of people in Scotland appeared to be happy with that arrangement when they were last asked. Given that Scotland is not independent, then it is an argument which is totally irrelevant to EVEL, which is related to devolution as it currently stands (which returns some of that sovereignty).

edit: all written whilst the last few posts were made - I get the feeling we're largely in agreement on the technicalities, Ben, if not on what the correct direction for Scotland to go is.

I agree, its a weird and complex hybrid - but you could say the same about Texas as part of the US as well (or indeed Hawaii or Alaska)

Arguably, its that hybrid that has been our biggest strength as a nation, allowing us to cope with huge change, from the loss of Normandy through to the rise and fall of Empire.

Because in that context Scotland has surrendered any sovereignty it might have to be part of that whole - in that context it is not an independent country.

This is where I agree with you, and where I disagree with Junkyard's suggestion that the problem is one country imposing itself on another.

But, in that spirit of looking at Scotland as a region of the UK, it would make sense to make Scotland one of a number of equally autonomous regions. All 50 US states have equal status, it'd make sense to have a similar system in the UK.

I'm not sure how that can be accomplished when England outnumbers the next largest "nation" 10-1 - but the US manages to have states as large as California and as small as Rhode Island, so it must be possible.

EVEL isn't the answer, though - it's a bodge for short-term political gain.

(cross post with ninfan - similar points, that other countries manage to have states under a federal system)

@Athgray I know several folk who voted no and do wonder about the logic of supporting a Scotland team,and also quite a few on the Yes side who have doubts about ever singing flower of Scotland again particularly at Rugby games.

[quote=bencooper ]EVEL isn't the answer, though - it's a bodge for short-term political gain.

I also agree with you (and a lot of other people on this thread) about that - I'm struggling to think of a worse solution to the WL question. It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I know several folk who voted no and do wonder about the logic of supporting a Scotland team

The answer to that I suppose is who else would they support? It's lot like there was also a UK team in the rugby alongside Scotland.

It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I think the only long term solution is a federal system of government with PR voting. Unfortunately I can't see how that can be achieved.

The trouble is, there aren't any easy solutions to the WL question, which is why I presume it got ignored for so long (that and because in practical terms it rarely makes any real difference - the SNP did have to go and engineer a situation where it became a real issue 🙄 )

I also agree with you (and a lot of other people on this thread) about that - I'm struggling to think of a worse solution to the WL question.

It's a bloody terrible solution.

It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I just disagree with bloody terrible solutions. A good solution would be regional parliaments within England and a federal system in the UK.

A good solution would be regional parliaments within England and a federal system in the UK.

That's the one solution that would kill Scottish independence. Pity it's never going to happen.

[quote=wanmankylung ]It's a bloody terrible solution.

But not largely for the reasons you appear to object to it.

@bencooper I suggested to them that supporting Scotland had nothing to do with logic 😀 if it did we'd all have stopped long ago 😀

Ben - Yes, US is a federal system, but that doesn't necessarily create equality - house of reps is on a population basis, so you could easily lay many of the same arguments that are put at the door of UK parliament, alongside which history has shown us what happens when a majority of states in that federal system decide to ignore and press the clear constitutional sovereignty of the other states 🙂

I object to it because it's a waste of time given that it doesnt remove the input of Scottish MPs from legislation that only effects England. It's a half baked poorly thought out pile of jobbie.

aracer - Member

The trouble is, there aren't any easy solutions to the WL question

Yes there is- it's just that the English have never seemed to want to implement it. Perhaps because a lot of people, like David Cameron, view Westminster as the English parliament? Whatever the reason, it's always been a choice the English have made, to debate provincial matters in the national parliament.

[quote=wanmankylung ]I object to it because it's a waste of time given that it doesnt remove the input of Scottish MPs from legislation that only effects England. It's a half baked poorly thought out pile of jobbie.

Fair enough - that wasn't what your objections appeared to be - I'm surprised to find you agree with me. It's not poorly thought out at all though - there's quite a clear reason behind it when you think through the implications.

@NW - a separate English parliament isn't an easy solution at all. It might be the correct/best solution, but it's far from easy, I chose my words carefully.

Hmm, there was always an alternative - that rather than create an additional layer of representatives in the form of MSP's/ Welsh Executive etc. the Scottish westminster MP's sat alone on Scottish issues (either at Westminster or Edinburgh) English MP's sat alone on English ones, etc. - with the whole house coming together to discuss national issues. That would certainly have maintained the importance of a single local representative for the constituent.

aracer - Member

@NW - a separate English parliament isn't an easy solution at all

Somehow we managed it.

- a separate English parliament isn't an easy solution at all. It might be the correct/best solution, but it's far from easy

IMHO the Tories have masterminded a constitutional fudge/mess , that does not serve the long term interest of the union, to save some money.

* it would depend on what we mean by easy - a heart transplant is not easy but we can clearly do them and we dont decline to perform one because its not easy - I assume this was the way you were using it. It a near sophist point

Or they might have done the minimum practically needed at this point, recognising that there's life in the old EVEL dog yet, that would be far better wrung out in the run up to the next election, when it would be far better to beal Labour and the SNP around the head with.

We come back to the reasonable arguments against then. Where do you locate it? How keen are English people on spending lots of money on another lot of corrupt politicians? Where do you make decisions on things which affect England and Wales but not Scotland? (I know EVEL doesn't fix that one*, but if you're going to do it properly it's an issue which needs fixing so long as Wales is less devolved than Scotland - at the moment it still shares the whole legal system)

Those aren't insurmountable issues, but they're part of what doesn't make it easy. As pointed out numerous times, the population of England is an order of magnitude different to Scotland or Wales, so the English Parliament would be on a vastly different scale to their Parliament and Assembly. I'm certainly not suggesting any of those are reasons not to do it, but it's disingenuous to suggest it would be anywhere near as straightforward to set up as the Scottish Parliament.

Yes, to some extent I am just arguing for the sake of arguing - but nothing we write here will make any difference to the UK constitution. Does anybody really expect to see an English Parliament and/or a Federal UK in their lifetime? The funny thing is, what a large majority of us here (of all shades of political persuasion) would like are things which UK politicians of all flavours aren't keen on.

* well it doesn't really fix anything

Tories have masterminded a constitutional fudge/mess , that does not serve the long term interest of the union, to save

I'm not actually 100% convinced the Tories want to save the Union, there's a part of me that suspects they want to disengage from it in their terms.

aracer - Member
...Does anybody really expect to see an English Parliament and/or a Federal UK in their lifetime?

I do.

Knowing how the UK has always reacted after the event, I expect to see this happen just after Scottish independence.

It will be a belated attempt to prevent the Cornish, Yorkshire and Welsh independence movements achieving the same result as Scotland. 🙂

I would be perfectly happy to see a genuine federal system that included Scotland BTW, so long as there were no unelected representatives.

You lot who voted Yes, but are keen on a proper Federal system - you do realise that it would still be the Federal Government deciding whether or not to have nukes? 😈

I'm genuinely curious what real practical difference it would make for Scotland having a proper Federal system rather than what we have now? Is it just a case of more stuff being devolved? Or is your objection to the current system just the HoL - [url= http://www.donotlink.com/h4r9 ]you're in good company![/url]

It's not poorly thought out at all though - there's quite a clear reason behind it when you think through the implications.

It's the cheapest way of winning lots of Tory votes back from UKIP. "They" would look like even bigger idiots if they tried to introduce an English parliament (with all its related costs). It is probably also partly aimed at increasing support for independence in Scotland - ready for when Osborne takes over and turns into the guy who destroyed the Union.

You lot who voted Yes, but are keen on a proper Federal system - you do realise that it would still be the Federal Government deciding whether or not to have nukes?

One of the main objections to remaining in the UK is that everything is dictate by SE England. Move to a proper federal system, and that steam rollering effect that the SE currently has would be greatly diminished.