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:

‘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.’

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.

Which houses of the English monarchy?
There’s just as good an argument for it to be in Winchester; the first proper unified Kingdom was Wessex, then later Wessex and Mercia joined together…
There are many places with an historic connection to one house or another, it might just as well be London, can you imagine the cost of setting up a whole other regional parliament?
Look at the cost of building Holyrood, and look at the insanity of the EU parliament moving everything from Brussels to Strasbourg once or twice a year, just to assuage one nations overweening vanity!

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.

Kernow bys vyken!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/503/503.pdf

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.

Devolving power is really simply pass a law in westminster and it is done.
Implementing it takes time for obvious reasons.
We need to decide if we want it for one thing, what is proposed , how we elect, vote on it, create a parliament etc

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

just imagine standard of local authority executives, elected or appointed

I can only assume they are awesome as they get more money than MP’s and money gets talent….you told me this.

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

that is a criticism of democratic participation, not of what democracy should be. Something that we should all be questioning, but it doesn’t negate the arguments for decentralisation at all.

Many Local Authorities are shockingly bad 🙁

rkk01 – Member
Many Local Authorities are shockingly bad

I’d say that’s down to apathy, councils are elected on shockingly low turn outs, so essentially aren’t getting held to account by the electorate.

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.

The issue is not how to give the extra powers to Scotland the issue is how to give the unmentioned, at the time, equivalent powers to england.

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.

I doubt anyone disagrees the issue is how to implement a solution
CMD wants one that harms labour and enhances the tories and creates problems mentioned. the solution , as it is in the other countries is a new chamber with new MPs and elected by PR. the solution is not tot use Westminster and the same MP’s.

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.

I suspect the work load is the pother way round tbh
Also you want a Part UK PM,foreign secretary chancellor etc. How would they double up on jobs etc in the other place they sit?
how could say the UK foreign secretary then sit in say Wales and then support other policies etc- they need to be separate chambers and separate members

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.

No you just say whatever you like then get offended when someone else disagrees

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.

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

🙄
http://singletrackworld.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.

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?

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 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://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/uk-constitutional-change#post-6388894

here have this on me

GROUNDHOG DAY[/ url]

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

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.