[Closed] UK constitutional change

I leave all that kind of stuff to the busy bodies of this world, as long as i can keep a roof over my head, stay warm and get access to 1500 calories of grub a day and a few ales i'm happy as a pig in sh*t.

twinw4ll - Member
I leave all that kind of stuff to the busy bodies of this world, as long as i can keep a roof over my head, stay warm and get access to 1500 calories of grub a day and a few ales i'm happy as a pig in sh*t.

I leave all that kind of stuff to the busy bodies of this world, as long as i can keep a roof over my head, stay warm and get access to 1500 calories of grub a day and a few ales i'm happy as a pig in sh*t.

Your attitude is a gift to fascism.

Significant interest in English votes for English laws, great concern over Scots having a referendum which could have negatively impacted the rUK without having a direct say. As per Commons debate yesterday why should Scots MPs vote on Education and NHS issues outside Scotland when UK MPs have no say on those issues North of the border.

Scots to have full devoultion of personal taxes, offer same to Wales with the corresponding powers for England only.

@twin - the danger of your stance is when you suddenly discover your inaction means you cannot afford or have the same access to those things and it's all too late.

surely thats socialism? bugger the society as long as I get more?
More realistically he probably represents a vast proportion of the country and is thus right 😆

Labour don't want it as Tories are relatively stronger in England than in the UK as a whole. Maybe Tories only want it because of that but does seem the proles want this - maybe just because they hate London? Wondering what northern labour supporters think is best.

There are a number of problems with this.
1. There is no such thing as a UK constitution, the government of the day can do whatever it can get through parliament.

2. Daves rush to sort this is because he knows the electoral arithmetic works in his favour and based on the current MPs would make it near impossible for Labour to ever have a majority government in England. His rush has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the citizens of the UK.

My preferred solution would be the German Lander system so you replace councils with regional governments that have all the power and a smaller national government that does NHS, Defence, Foreign Policy, energy policy and not much more. This would be considerably smaller than the current parliament. Taxes would be set at a national and regional level in line with policies of the parties holding power in each region.

As per Commons debate yesterday why should Scots MPs vote on Education and NHS issues outside Scotland when UK MPs have no say on those issues North of the border.

I'm not too bothered per se
But, Scottish MPs using their vote on English only matters as a bargaining chip to get something else they want shouldn't happen, I don't know if they have done that in the past (although it wouldn't surprise me) but any risk of that happening needs removing at the very least.

What next?

Only female MPs to vote on issues affecting women?

Well if only male ones got to vote on man issues that might be relevant.

As per Commons debate yesterday why should Scots MPs vote on Education and NHS issues outside Scotland when UK MPs have no say on those issues North of the border.

Because it's before them in [b]UK[/b] parliament to which they were elected so have every right to.

And because of the size of England, decisions made there usually end up affecting Scotland, so why shouldn't they have a say?

I'm knocking it on the head in a couple of years, moving to some remote cottage in Wales, i'll be waiting for em at the threshold with my trusty hound and over and under.
Anyway too many bloody members of the thought police on this forum.

Because it's before them in UK parliament to which they were elected so have every right to.

And because of the size of England, decisions made there usually end up affecting Scotland, so why shouldn't they have a say?

As per Commons debate yesterday why should Scots MPs vote on Education and NHS issues outside Scotland when UK MPs have no say on those issues North of the border.

Jambalaya - you sum up the problem well by failing to note that Scots MPs at Westminster are UK MPs. Come on get with the game.

Incidentally as a Scot living in Yorkshire for 20 years I think I support English devolution, probably a federal UK model (United Kingdoms plural if you will) though the devil is in the detail.

However the Westminster MPs being divided into two classes is daft nonsense I think.

Are you actually following the discussion ? Scots MPs can vote on UK wide stuff but should no longer be able to vote on things which are under current or to be newly devolved powers. The rules/mode of operation are going to change post the referendum.

So for example if Scots get full control over personal income tax (as propsoed by Cameron) then Scots MPs at Westminster should not vote on income tax.

surely thats socialism? bugger the society as long as I get more?

I think you really need to read up on socialism.

Daves rush to sort this is because he knows the electoral arithmetic works in his favour and based on the current MPs would make it near impossible for Labour to ever have a majority government in England. His rush has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the citizens of the UK.

THIS

he is making mischief to harm labours chances .

Furthermore if they have a devolved chamber it cannot sit in Westminster using the same MP's etc for that is the UK parliament and representatives and not England. None of the other chambers operate like that. Its worth noting all the other devolved chambers use some version of PR and england would need to as well IMHO

the west lothian issue needs to be resolved but not quickly like this.

Another issue would be that Scottish based MP's [ not an issue for the tories obviously] could not be education secretary for example as you would then have a non english MP debating the issue for the govt.
Its not workable to use the same chamber and people for two roles but the English westminster elite [ just for you jamb 😉 ] will want it.

Jambalaya - Scots MPs are UK MPs. To refer to them otherwise is divisive and unhelpful. I understand your line of argument; I just don't agree with it.

Edit: actually I've re-read your post, and given the ambiguity in your wording, you may have the benefit of the doubt. I still think using a bit of the Westminster lower house as an English assembly is daft.

Of course the Conservtives ambushed Labour, the 7am press conference was political genius. JY a yes vote would have pushed through much larger constitutional change very quickly, these proposed changes are much more modest. As per the lady on Newsnight last night under Blair the Labour party had a majority in England, it's wrong to characterise the switch as purely beneficial for the Tories.

@igm, OK understood. I posted on the Scots thread that perhaps there should be no Scots MPs, the Scottish parliament can vote on UK wide issues on behalf of Scotland and we can save a load of unnecessary overhead. Fundamentally a Scottish MP represents an under-utilised rescource as the Scottish parliament has control over Scottish issues so the Scottish MPs only focus on a sub-section of a normal MPs workload.

Let me summarise (given I've only said what I think is wrong with the ideas of others - which is wrong).

Give England some proper devolution, based outside of London. Decentralise power, breakup the Westminster village.

the 7am press conference was political genius

JY a yes vote would have pushed through much larger constitutional change very quickly,

You cannot have Westminster either - it just English and london Hubris

JY I did say political genius, I think it showed Conservatives had actually thought through the various scenarios.

The Scots will have greater devolved power and they think less of Westminster ? All the messages we got during the referendum was they didn't care much for Westminster so they've already shot-their-load on that one. In simple language you have your parliament for your issues and we'll do the same. There are 50m people living in England, if the 5m Scots can have devolved power then so can we.

There are 50m people living in England, if the 5m Scots can have devolved power then so can we.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, only that it shouldn't be tied to Scottish powers and it shouldn't come about by limiting the power of Scottish MPs at Westminster. There should be wholesale reform and a separate English parliament (even if that's held in Westminster, it should be a different institution).

English assembly / parliment / council? Hold it in York or Lancaster, the seat of the houses of the English monarchy.

Let's see some tradition, even if it's one I made up on the spot.

Plus I like the idea that York is half way from Westminster to Holyrood.

England needs decentralisation not a stitch up in Westminster.

only that it shouldn't be tied to Scottish powers

But fact Hague quite specifically put those claims to bed yesterday - its a process that is in tandem timescale with but not dependent on Scottish powers - heads of agreement by Novmeber, a draft law will be published by January as promised, and then the parties get to put their vision for the future in front of the Electorate at the next election, as promised throughout.

Btw if Scots mps don't vote(I agree btw) where does the PM stand? shirley if England votes tory and the rest of the uk votes labour, then the overall PM will have no legitimacy in England?

There will have to be an English first minister?

Sounds like a bit of a shambles waiting to happen if you have a first minister that doesn have a parliament. Westminster can't work if you are asking the Scots, Welsh and Irish MP's and the PM to step outside for a could of hours!

If you have 2 pm's you'll need 2 cabinets and so forth. A partial split is a ridiculous bit of a mess waiting to happen.

Plus it'll lead to even more of a sense of English dominance and ultimately lead to a split.

[quote=chrismac ]based on the current MPs would make it near impossible for Labour to ever have a majority government in England

Why oh why oh why do people keep repeating this as if it is a fact, when the last Labour government which didn't have a majority of English MPs was elected in 1974?

where does the PM stand? shirley if England votes tory and the rest of the uk votes labour, then the overall PM will have no legitimacy in England?

The PM is an MP, therefore he'd vote in line with where his constituents are located

The PM is an MP, therefore he'd vote in line with where his constituents are located

Would be a bit weird having a PM who was leading his party and the country but could only vote on a small % of things before the parliament (if he/she was Scottish/Welsh etc). Better to have a who federal system where everyone has their own parliament. Genuinely who UK matters would need to be discussed somewhere, by someone, but I don't care if thats a whole new bunch of elected people or the same ones as know coming together some how.

PMQs might be interesting if an English education question came up when the PM had a Scots constituency.

Probably be OK. They'd regard it as the PM speaking not as an MP but as PM.

In simple language you have your parliament for your issues and we'll do the same.

I live in England

There are 50m people living in England, if the 5m Scots can have devolved power then so can we

In the setup I favour. The English PM could vote on all the Westminster business as the Westminster business would be all of the UK plus England.

I do chuckle at the notion above that the Scots get more devolved power but somehow keep their right to vote on all sorts of things which affect England and Wales. No, they lose that in return for the devolved powers.

What @aracer says, it's high likely that a Labour majority government would have a majority in England too.

@igm in my ideal scenario that would never happen, there would be no Scots MPs in Westminster, the Scottish parliament would vote on UK issues. Likewise the Welsh.

Whatever happens with devolution we need no more MPs/costs. We have enough already. No further bureaucracy.

JY - so just as you do now you can vote for your MP and have a voice in Westminster/English parliament as those issues are the ones which affect you.

All I am hearing from the SNP is they want the devolution stuff quick quick quick. Why not the same for England ? I think the legal framework is very simple, English constituencies vote on English legislation, it's not complex. It can be quick.

@igm in my ideal scenario that would never happen, there would be no Scots MPs in Westminster, the Scottish parliament would vote on UK issues. Likewise the Welsh.

So is that a federal UK, confederate UK or. Straight forward breakup you're proposing Jambalaya?

Serious question

IGM I think you could see it as a sort of federation, a sort of united states. We have central UK policy for defense, economics, corporate tax etc. Local policy for personal and property taxes, local control of education and perhaps elements of health. We already have seperate Scottish law on property for example. I see this as an evolution.

I can see a federation.

Just state / kingdom governments or do you need a small elected federal UK body?

The U.S.A. obviously has both state and federal governments (and some lower level stuff too) and state and federal laws.

The English PM could vote on all the Westminster business as the Westminster business would be all of the UK plus England.

???All of the UK+ England what does that mean? England is in the UK?

All I am hearing from the SNP is they want the devolution stuff quick quick quick.

Why not the same for England ?

I think the legal framework is very simple, English constituencies vote on English legislation, it's not complex. It can be quick.

Yes we could pass the legislation by the end of the day. However the implementing it bit is temporally constrained. You also need to discuss with englanders what they want, where they want it , what electoral system etc. It cannot be done overnight based on what CMD wants nor as quickly as the Scootish can have more powers. It is considerably more complex for England for the reasons stated.

* i do not help the confusion over where I live when i say you for a country I live in, sorry.

To be honest I was totally bored of how long the Scots referendum went on for, perhaps this is all a bit fast but it keeps things nice and focused.

What I meant is that Westminster deals with all the UK business plus special sittings for England only

Agreed JY on timing, it was a Westminster pledge so why not the same for England. All for all this dialogue we all know politics isn't actually like that, the MPs might claim they engage with their constituencies but frankly they have a quick chat and vote based on their judgement. I think there is massive support for English votes for English laws, its one of the side effects of the Scots referendum.

Have fun I am off soon and not back till Tuesday

[quote="simonhbacon"]What next?

Only female MPs to vote on issues affecting women?
Only MPs of coastal constituencies to vote on fishing ?

MPs only allowed to vote on issues that they're familiar with ? That way madness lies !

Junky, you might want to consider the extensive work done by the cross party select committees on these very issues, for example:

for example: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news/devolution-report-released/

When you have the Labour chair of the committee delivering the report earlier this year and stating:

[i] 'The Government should work with groups of local authorities, focused initially on England’s large cities, to break the log-jam stopping local areas from shaping their economic destiny. The public might well ask, when Scotland and Wales are being promised ever greater fiscal devolution, why not England? Devolving these powers is the next step on the path to genuine localism.'[/i]

then it challenges the notion that the Tories have drawn this up on the back of a fag packet - years of cross party work has already gone into this, they should quit stalling and get it done!

English assembly / parliment / council? Hold it in York or Lancaster, the seat of the houses of the English monarchy.

Not convinced by EVFEL, TBH...

It's a simple soundbite for the politicos and media to peddle, and for populist support to latch onto - but belies a complexity that nobody seems to want to deal with.

EVFEL has to be implemented through some form of federalism - but then, at 50M people we aren't talking about an "English Parliament". We'd need to skip that level and underpin the UK administration with a series of regional bodies.

"England" doesn't work / fit, whichever way you look at it.

[i]Kernow bys vyken![/i]

The transfer of enhanced tax and borrowing powers from central to local Government may take time and require complex negotiations and, although our report addresses the technical issues, it is fundamentally about the transfer of power to local authorities and local communities

Basically it is about devolving more fiscal - ie spending power- to local govt. it says nothing about devolution of political power from the UK to england

In this sense they mean the redressing of the centralisation of power rather then the devolution in the sense meant here.

JY yes a paper produced in June before the referendum discussing local government. Things have moved on from from there and in responce to the significant additional powers promised to Scotland. The proposed powers with respect to Engkand are in my view simpler than greater devolution from central government to councils.

Local government, ie councils have material spending and tax raising powers already. They can decide how to find various initiatives, police, education etc. Having spoken at some lengths to friends who had to deal with local authorities I would be very concerned if they had greater powers, if you think MPs are somewhat indifferent just imagine standard of local authority executives, elected or appointed.

Having spoken at some lengths to friends who had to deal with local authorities I would be very concerned if they had greater powers

Well that's a convincing argument. You spoke "at some lengths" to your friends did you ?

The proposed powers with respect to Engkand are in my view simpler than greater devolution from central government to councils.

I assume england does it the same way as everyone else did.

just imagine standard of local authority executives, elected or appointed

jambalaya - Member
if you think MPs are somewhat indifferent just imagine standard of local authority executives, elected or appointed.

Many Local Authorities are shockingly bad 🙁

rkk01 - Member
Many Local Authorities are shockingly bad

We can all think of a variety of recent legislation which proves the point that laws made in haste are usually poor laws. Westminsters rush to appease Scottish voters for the referendum left no time for proper thought or planning before the May election.

It is fundamentally unfair that Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs can vote on England only issues when the reverse does not happen due to devolved powers. This may penalise Labour at Westminster but to moan so loudly about does make it look like Ed is spitting his dummy out as his favourite toy has been taken away.

I guess longer term we need some sort of devolved English chamber for England only matters. No idea how you make that transition. Certainly makes PR a more sensible voting system.

My concern is it will create an extra level of bureaucracy/gravy train. I don't see why, for example, Scottish voters should pay twice for MSPs and MPs.

Maybe MPs from each of the home countries sit in their own home Parliaments on Mondays and Tuesdays, and sit as the UK parliament Wed-Fri.

Westminsters rush to appease Scottish voters for the referendum left no time for proper thought or planning before the May election.

It is fundamentally unfair that Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs can vote on England only issues when the reverse does not happen due to devolved powers.

Maybe MPs from each of the home countries sit in their own home Parliaments on Mondays and Tuesdays, and sit as the UK parliament Wed-Fri.

Imagine if we said this about EU MEP's - would that be fine?

jambalaya - Member

As per Commons debate yesterday why should Scots MPs vote on Education and NHS issues outside Scotland when UK MPs have no say on those issues North of the border.

Very specifically- just because the NHS is devolved in Scotland doesn't mean that decisions made in England on the NHS can't affect the NHS in Scotland. At teh simplest level, there is a great deal of crossborder care, an ill person in Scotland may well be treated in England and vice versa. Just 1 consideration, I'm sure there's more. So it's not an RUK or "English only" issue, and the same's true of most things that are portrayed that way.

More generally- the West Lothian question is basically a logical fallacy. The issue is "If an English only issue is debated at Westminster, why should Scots MPs vote on it" but the crux is "Why are we debating a non-national issue in the national parliament." It's like an MP raising an issue that only affects their own constituency then insisting only they get to vote on it.

So there's basically 2 solutions- 1, devolution for England (or, far better, English regions- treating England as a single lump seems absurd to me). Or 2, which is what's happened previously- decide against devolution for England, and deal with it the consequences of that decision.

It always seems to me that some people are surprised to discover that Westminster isn't the English parliament.

Jambalya - "...great concern over Scots having a referendum which could have negatively impacted the rUK without having a direct say."

That's not entirely true though is it? Firstly the referendum was created by Westminster approved legislation so rUK had a say but just didn't wake up to the implications. Then it was UK politicians who after 2 yrs of debate and discussion suddenly made "the Vow".

I mean its not like this is a new issue Tam Dayell raised it 37 years ago!

Blaming "the Scots having a referendum" is naive.

The big issue from where I am sat is if we have a Labour government then they will simply not be able to get anything passed. At the moment Scottish constituencies make up around 1/5th of their seats. Lose that and the Conservative voice will be heard more vocally throughout England defeating the point of having a labour government which the nation has voted for.

Remind me never to think out loud on a forum. 😳

I must remember to have a dogmatic viewpoint on everything and then argue for it even in the face of common sense and reason.

It does seem interesting that when the idea of devolving more powers to regional assemblies was last floated there really wasn't much apatite for it iirc. Now, I'm not sure if that's changed, or if it's a bit of a toys out of the pram moment about the perceived unfairness of the West Lothian questions or just a chance for Dave to try and swing another election his way.

I think Northwind hits the nail on the head above about how I feel about the whole thing. By all means, and I'd actively encourage it, set up an English parliament, but the proposed EVFEL solution involving using Westminster can't work.

I must remember to have a dogmatic viewpoint on everything and then argue for it even in the face of common sense and reason.

Dont whatever you defend your common sense and reason view as that is not at all how debates work.

Good points from NW as well and westminster as the home of the English parliament is absurd and unworkable.

[quote=Northwind ]Very specifically- just because the NHS is devolved in Scotland doesn't mean that decisions made in England on the NHS can't affect the NHS in Scotland. At teh simplest level, there is a great deal of crossborder care, an ill person in Scotland may well be treated in England and vice versa.

So given your example, decisions made in Scotland affect the NHS in England - how come English MPs don't get to vote on them?

[quote=munrobiker ]The big issue from where I am sat is if we have a Labour government then they will simply not be able to get anything passed. At the moment Scottish constituencies make up around 1/5th of their seats. Lose that and the Conservative voice will be heard more vocally throughout England defeating the point of having a labour government which the nation has voted for.

🙄
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/uk-constitutional-change#post-6388894

aracer - Member

So given your example, decisions made in Scotland affect the NHS in England - how come English MPs don't get to vote on them?

Well, they do, often- as I say, westminster still has influence over the Scottish NHS. The nature of the influence is mostly one way though, Scotland can't do anything that cuts RUK NHS funding for example.

I do see your point- if you're a benificiary of crossborder care and travelling from England to Scotland for treatment, you're passing out of the region where your department of health has direct influence. And tbh I'd just have to say that since Scotland is using its devolved powers to try to protect the NHS, that's probably good news for the English patient.

I'm not sure how the debate is going on this in Westminster, but ISTM another quite big issue is whether we're suggesting exactly the same level of devolution for Wales as we are for Scotland? Because if not, then there remains the issue that there is quite a lot of stuff which is England and Wales only (most legal stuff for example), so who gets to vote on that?

It is interesting that some of the most nationalist* on here seem to be defining everything as Scotland or England and ignoring Wales.

* not meant in a negative sense.

aracer - Member

It is interesting that some of the most nationalist* on here seem to be defining everything as Scotland or England and ignoring Wales.

The agenda has been set mostly in those terms tbh- it's promises made to Scotland, and subsequent changes desired in Westminster, which have kicked it off so it's the natural way people fall to discussing it.
Personally I'll focus on Scotland/England because I know nowt about how it works in NI and Wales, what's devolved etc.

[quote=Northwind ]They do, that's kind of the point- the NHS is devolved in Scotland but isn't 100% separate so there are matters that are voted on in the UK parliament that affect both sides of the border.

So that would stay the same as it is now, unless you're proposing getting rid of the UK parliament. You weren't actually arguing that Scottish MPs should get to vote on all English NHS stuff then, you're quite happy that just the English vote on matters which are currently devolved?

[quote=Northwind ]since Scotland is using its devolved powers to try to protect the NHS, that's probably good news for the English patient.

I suspect he was actually more bothered about Italian health care.

I did some editing there to clarify but no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the RUK/english NHS isn't fully separate. So it's not so much a matter of principle as a matter of fact- I'm not arguing for Scots MPs to be able to vote on things that don't affect Scotland, I'm countering the argument that national NHS issues don't affect Scotland.

If there was true 100% separation of the NHS, or it was a particular issue with no crossdependance or impact then yes I'd totally approve of English-only NHS matters being dealt with in the English parliament, and national matters being dealt with at Wesminster.

The point though is that you can't have it both ways. If England/Wales is going to have no control of some things which affect it, Scotland can't expect to also retain some control over the equivalent stuff in England/Wales just because they have some effect on Scotland.

It doesn't really work out that way- sticking with the same example, Westminster can impact Scottish NHS funding. The Scottish parliament can't impact RUK NHS funding. So there's not much equivalence of impact. The Scottish government can impact an individual patient but the UK government can impact the entire Scottish NHS.

What [i]I[/i] think the ideal would be, is for England or English regions to have the same level of devolution as Scotland does. There would remain national issues, which would continue to be dealt with at Westminster.

The concept of EVFEL is totally sound and fair- it's just finding situations where it truly applies, and building a structure where it can sensibly be executed.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/uk-constitutional-change#post-6388894
/p>

here have this on me

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/uk-constitutional-change#post-6388894 ]GROUNDHOG DAY[/ url]

Remove the gap @ 2nd url and save yourself some time

[quote=Northwind ]Westminster can impact Scottish NHS funding.

How?

@aracer- cuts to the NHS impact the block grant via the barnett formula. Now that doesn't have to be directly applied to the NHS in Scotland- the Scottish government could apply the cut to another department- but it obviously puts financial pressure on all areas.

But regardless of where the Scottish government put the spending cut, it was brought about by a change in the RUK NHS

they can cut the entire Scottish budget?

EDIT: erm what he said ...damn that slow internet connection

Yes I know about Barnett - so you're not actually claiming any decisions on the English NHS have a direct effect on the Scottish NHS (any more than decisions on the Scottish NHS have a direct effect on the English NHS). Or do you also want Scottish MPs to get a vote on any English spending because of the effect on the Scottish NHS?

NW/Junky, it seems clear that anything to do with the block grant/Barnett formula would be an issue for the full UK parliament, so Scottish MP's would have a vote on it.

It would have nothing whatsoever to do with decisions on English NHS policy, which at the moment Scottish MP's still vote on, although nothing to do with them.

aracer - Member

Yes I know about Barnett - so you're not actually claiming any decisions on the English NHS have a direct effect on the Scottish NHS

No, but they have a direct impact on Scottish government funding, so clearly not just an RUK matter. Whether or not the Scottish government passes that cut on to the NHS, or another department, isn't important- it's a scottish cut from what people see as an EVEL decision, and shows that NHS matters south of the border impact Scotland in a way that Scottish NHS matters can't impact the rest of the country.

I have to admit, I was trying to keep this simpler up the page and it ended up being basically wrong 😳 The principle's correct and the point stands but the detail was wrong.

ninfan - Member

NW/Junky, it seems clear that anything to do with the block grant/Barnett formula would be an issue for the full UK parliament, so Scottish MP's would have a vote on it.

Which by extension includes anything that impacts NHS funding.

If you ever find anything that genuinely has no impact outwith England (or Wales, Scotland etc) it just doesn't belong at Westminster, it should be devolved as a matter of course to the relevant parliament.