Forum menu
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 - MemberAre 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."
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 - MemberThe 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.