yet another layer of representation
You say that as if it's a bad thing.......all these layers of "representation".
.
No you cant. It's the UK parliament and it should stay that way. By all means hold an English parliament there but it needs it's own elections and it's own rules etc.
Yup, otherwise it means that only English MPs would have full voting rights in the House of Commons. Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish, wouldn't.
Obviously any Prime Minister would need to have no lesser voting rights than any other member of the House of Commons, so he or she would therefore need to be an English MP.
The case for an English Parliament is every bit as legitimate as the case for a Scottish Parliament.
I also think the case for regional English parliaments/assemblies is very strong.
I have to say Labour have been totally out-maneuvered here. The SNP are talking about a heavy toll in Scotland for the UK parties (so that means Labour) and English votes for English laws puts Labour on the backfoot too.
The Guardian blog has been particularly interesting today
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/14/mps-debate-further-devolution-after-the-scottish-referendum-politics-live-blog ]linky-do-dah-day[/url]
@ernie - surely you don't want even more MPs what a total waste of money. I mean you vote for one English MP to vote on UK matters and another Englsih MP to vote on English only matters, surely one person can do both jobs perfectly well ? The money is much better spent on services than twice as many politicians ? We have to agree on that !
what a total waste of money
You mean this 'people electing people to represent them' business ?
You would rather not bother ?
No I mean electing two people to do a job that can perfectly well be done by one.
So you want to abolish the Scottish Parliament and get Scottish MPs in Westminster to vote on Scottish only issues ?
Or is it somehow different for Scotland ?
It's their problem, I don't want to replicate that in England. I could see a situation where we abolish Scottish Westminster MPs and just have the SMPs vote on UK issues (population weighted). Would be worth thinking about, no ?
Do yo agree we would be better off spending the money saved by not duplicating English politicians on services ?
You say that as if it's a bad thing
Democratic representation is of course a great thing, but as I am sure your mother told you, you can have too much of a good thing.
I could see a situation where we abolish Scottish Westminster MPs
You have just spent 8 months arguing on this thread that Scotland shouldn't separate itself from the rest of the UK, and you now come out with that little beauty. Remarkable.
Democratic representation is of course a great thing, but as I am sure your mother told you, you can have too much of a good thing.
I think we are a very long way off from reaching the point of too much democracy in our society.
It does not necessarily follow the greater the number of politicians, the greater the quality of the democracy.
And it doesn't necessarily follow that cutting back on the number of politicians to save money the greater the quality of the democracy.
So what's new ?
Who said anything about cutting back?
If you disagree with what I have said why don't you just address the point directly rather than suggesting I have said something else.
If you disagree with what I have said why don't you just address the point directly rather than suggesting I have said something else.
You're a bit touchy aren't you ? You didn't mind suggesting what my mother told me, despite the fact that she never said such a thing.
So anyway, this is precisely what you said.
mefty - MemberUsing Westminster is fine, 533 MPs represent English constituencies. It will be much cheaper to overpay the 117 Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs who will have a much lesser workload if there is further devolution than it would be to pay for yet another layer of representation involving 500+ EMPs.
Posted 1 hour ago
Clearly saving money is your priority. Cutting back on the number of MPs we would otherwise have if we had a separate English Parliament is what you are suggesting.
Obviously you would rather have a silly pedantic argument claiming that I'm misrepresenting you than address the point directly.
If the Tories succeed in a 2 tier Westminster the UK won't last 10 years. Only possible way is a federal system with a separate English parliament or regional parliaments.
BTW anyone know the veracity of Margaret Curran's claim that out of 400+ bills passed by Westminster, only 5 could be determined to only affect England?
I think th the problem is that bills are often used to shoehorn in lots of stuff at once - it'd take discipline to separate off English-only issues and not put those in bills with UK-wide issues.
No voters voted No because of certain assumptions and promises from the main party leaders. If those promises don't come true, then I don't see any problem with having another referendum, and perhaps quite soon. 1.6M Yes voters, and most No voters, want a lot more power for Holyrood - we disagreed on the best way to get that power, not on whether we should have it.
I'd put money on there being another referendum within 10 years.
You're a bit touchy aren't you ? You didn't mind suggesting what my mother told me, despite the fact that she never said such a thing.
Not really, I was just about to leave to get a train, and was bored with your projecting a different meaning on what I had said. However, if my assumption that your mother used a pretty common phrase caused you offence, I , of course, apologise - it was intended to be light hearted it clearly wasn't taken as such so I am sorry. I am sufficiently arrogant to assume that my words are sufficient to convey my meaning without smileys, I should perhaps change this.
Clearly saving money is your priority. Cutting back on the number of MPs we would otherwise have if we had a separate English Parliament is what you are suggesting.
I have difficulty with the concept of cutting back non existent expenditure. However, to avoid a further accusation of pedantry, I will amplify my thoughts:
(i) There is good evidence that the English people do not want more layers of government where they are suggested from the top, i.e. North East Regional Assembly Referendum and the referenda for Mayors.
(ii) On this basis a limited cost solution is needed and the one I suggested would meet that criteria.
(iii) This is where I agree with you, I think there is a strong argument for regional assemblies but I don't think the pathway to achieving that is from above.
(iv) The pathway which may find favour with the electorate is to encourage initiatives like the Northern City Councils working together and give them real funding.
(v) On the assumption, they, and others, are successful, they can then argue that if they are given more democratic legitimacy they will be able to achieve more, this should be supported from the centre (whether it will is another matter).
(vi) The public, having seen success, are more likely to back the formation of regional assemblies to which powers are devolved, and therefore they could be supported, partially funded by a reduction in the number of MPs of all nations in the union. (MPs jobs would be smaller)
(vi) You then have a House of Commons where devolution has taken place in all countries but from the local level upwards. It will take 10 to 20 years, but then the West Lothian question has been unanswered for 17.
This is a back of fag packet suggestion so there will be holes in it
" it'd take discipline to separate off English-only issues and not put those in bills with UK-wide issues."
it's not such a big exercise for parliamentary draftspeople.
the veracity of Margaret Curran's claim that out of 400+ bills passed by Westminster, only 5 could be determined to only affect England?
It wouldn't surprise me, but then most legislation passed by the UK parliament (eg. civil and criminal laws) is England and Wales - the argument still stands on whether Scottish or NI politicians should have a vote on it.
No voters voted No because of certain assumptions and promises from the main party leaders. . If those promises don't come true, then I don't see any problem with having another referendum,
No they didn't. These promises were put on the table in the final couple of weeks. Every opinion poll for 2 years showed a No lead until one opinion poll at the end. The promises may or may not have swung a few percent of people. A swing back to No in the end could have been caused by a variety of factors.
It would be rich for the SNP to demand a new referendum if politians break their vows, after initially vowing that this was a 'once in a lifetime, opportunity.
not really. They could only call for another referendum by gaining a mandate in an election for it. Which is entirely democratic. Nothing rich about it.athgray - MemberIt would be rich for the SNP to demand a new referendum if politians break their vows, after initially vowing that this was a 'once in a lifetime, opportunity.
Given that the SNPs case was based on lies nearly all the way through, it certainly is rich.
More spoilt kids syndrome....even dear Nicola demanding nothing less than devo max now.
She could have asked for devo super max.
The opinion polls show massive support for devo Max. Claiming them as gospel during a campaign(which I concede were more accurate than my assessments) then to ignore what they say after it, is a bit rich.
The polls show absolutely massive support for maximum devolved powers. If they aren't delivered, its all up for grabs again.
The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.
just to be clear I meant we have have the UK votes at Westminster and the English ones at Westminster too.
That will be why the bit I quoted mentioned Westminster and the first line of my reply mentioned westminster
Not helping convince me you are not the King of satire 😉
I have to say Labour have been totally out-maneuvered here
I think it depends on who you support
CMD is the one who tried to move the goal posts and deliver something never mentioned before hand. Who will be damaged politically ? Well The tories cannot be damaged in Scotland can they and I am not sure how much English voters GAS. Its not a huge issue with anyone I knwo tbh.
No, the ball has been taken away, we are playing with it now, bad luck 😉
There is good evidence that the English people do not want more layers of government where they are suggested from the top, i.e. North East Regional Assembly Referendum and the referenda for Mayors.
As the benefits have become apparent public opinion in support of devolution has increased substantially in the 15 years since its introduction in Scotland and Wales.
Support for devolution in Wales before it was introduced was only lukewarm, now there is strong support. Similarly in Scotland support for devolution has increased in the last 15 years, despite there being already initially strong support.
And contrary to your claim there is in fact good evidence that the English people now also want their own parliament. Although less so in favour of regional parliaments/assemblies, that argument perhaps still needs to be won.
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm ]'Most' support English parliament[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/21/guardian-view-devolution-parliament-for-england ]The Guardian view on a parliament for England[/url]
Quote : [i]The BBC reported this week that a large new survey by Cardiff and Edinburgh universities shows 54% support in England for its own parliament, four times as many as those who disagreed.[/i]
The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.
The ball remains in Westminster's court for as long as it wants
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...
Just watch you don't burst it, we can always buy another baw. 😉teamhurtmore - Member
No, the ball has been taken away, we are playing with it now, bad luck
[quote=ninfan ]The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.
The ball remains in Westminster's court for as long as it wants
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day [b]Alex[/b] shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...
See - that's one mans opinion. It wasn't a vow, or a promise, or a manifesto commitment. Alex Salmond doesn't have the right to permanently speak on behalf of the Scottish people - a fact many on the No side were happy to point out over the past 3 years or so 😆
I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.infan - Member
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...
I think the nats regret every day the DO shot his mouth off.
Wishful thinking Joe, it's not November yet
[quote=seosamh77 ]
I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.infan - Member
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...
You're not suggesting the two things are connected 😆
😆
I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.
So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation
[quote=ninfan ]I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.
So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation
That wasn't the question, so how can that be the answer?
I wouldn't disagree that reality of devolution is more popular than the concept, hence why I suggested working from the ground up.
And contrary to your claim there is in fact good evidence that the English people now also want their own parliament. Although less so in favour of regional parliaments/assemblies, that argument perhaps still needs to be won.
I don't find those articles/polls particularly persuasive as there appears to be no/little discussion about cost - once that enters the equation I think the answer would differ - I think respondents would have said yes just because it was unfair rather than because they wanted another layer of representation - I am more guided by how voters have actually voted when faced with the choice of additional representation - but I am happy to admit there is no definitive answer.
There are a number of ways to define a generation. This current parliamentary generation comes to an end in may. 😉 In specific relation to constitutional issues and referenda, the good friday/Belfast agreement seems to suggest the British government thinks that is around 7 years. In light of all this talk of constitutional fairness how could it possibly be argued that that shouldn't apply to Scotland? 😆ninfan - Member
I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.
So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation
[quote=whatnobeer ]You're not taking the party line that it was "decisive" and that's that for ever and ever are you? A 55-45 result is not by any measure decisive enough to be put to bed for ever.
So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?
* in favour of yes
"rene59 - Member
She could have asked for devo super max.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST"
she should have waited for them to release Devo Max Plus, it's got a longer life and better localization...
[quote=aracer said]
So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?
* in favour of yes
a 5% swing changes it It snot overwhelming IMHO - its a decisive vote for no IMHO but it has not put the issue ot bed that would have required 2/3 + no vote
Anyway once the older voters die off that will be reveresed*
We wont have a vote within 10 years IMHO UNLESS the UK leave the EU but the issue is not dead and buried either
* I remember your maths only joking 😉
** In favour of almost anything that means the Tories are never in power over me.
You know there's a simple answer to this problem of too many layers of administration if we get an English parliament.
Send Guy Fawkes into the House of Lords. 🙂
Or as we are saying up here, "If at first you don't succeed, secede"
So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?
That's the joy of it - the No side need to win every time, we only need to win once 😉
Okay, I'm slightly joking - but when you poll people on what Holyrood should control, 66% want everything apart from defence and foreign affairs to be controlled by Holyrood, 75% want Holyrood to control all welfare and benefits, and 71% want Holyrood to control all taxation.
People in Scotland want independence, just not if you call it independence. This is important for two reasons - firstly it shows that business as usual from Westminster simply won't cut it, we need at least what Gordon Brown promised, federalism or home rule. Secondly if there is another referendum and the vote is Yes, even people who voted No can be brought around because they really want most of the same things as Yes voters.
Another referendum is for the future, though - first project is to make the Labour Party as irrelevant in Scotland as the Tories and Lib Dems. We need to separate Scottish politics from UK politics, with separate political parties.
Good to see the ripples from our referendum are leading to more demands for self-determination in England
[url= http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/share-Stansted-Airport-passenger-duty-Calls/story-23172796-detail/story.html#ixzz3GCdhdc7w ]Essex wants some too[/url]
