[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.