Forum menu
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
Indeed very, AS said once in a lifetime. I can't see how any PM/Parliament is going to agree another binding referendum, Labour need the seats and Conservatives won't allow another for policy reasons
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 - MemberIssues 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 - MemberWhat 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 - MemberNorthwind, 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!
[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
Half truth - so an improvement on what you normally say 😉
All MPs there could vote on all issues there no MP was unable to vote on any issue.
No scottish or welsh or Irish MP could vote on an only their issueas they were voted in a different chamber
The MPs were equal but the West lothian issue was real
This action alone has created two classes of Mp's
The issue needs resolving this is the cheapest solution and everything else about it is terrible
athgray - MemberThe 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.
care to clarify that point aracer?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://singletrackworld.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.