Google ‘West Lothian Question’
So the answer is that we need more levels of government and more politicians?
While Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a distinct cultural identity, dividing England up into regions is arbitrary. There could be a very real issue that the English electorate simply will not take this seriously. We have seen, with crime commissioners and mayors, that there is often widespread voter apathy for these grand schemes imposed from on high.
No. The Lords are disposed of as a legislative body. Peerage become honorific.
Here is a conundrum that will need to be sorted over the next Parliament.
Give has been appointed Justice Secretary to remove the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights Now this is a half way house because it will merely return us to the position before the HRA where appeal was available to the ECHR directly. I doubt that Cameron has the desire or ability to withdraw from the Convention itself.
Now Scotland takes a very different approach to Human Rights. What is to stop Holyrood from passing a Scottish Human Rights Act allowing appeal to the ECHR. This is possible as Justice is a devolved function. This would allow England to force prisoners and other English (and Welsh and Northern Irish) residents, but any supposed illegal immigrant fleeing over the border would still have direct access to the ECHR. Once in Scotland they would be subject to Scottish law and the UK government would have limited ability to enforce arrest and removal because policing is also fully devolved.
Interesting times.
A bit like the Gretna Green of old!
I am looking forward to seeing what happens if the SNP decides to user some of its tax variance powers in order to deliver on some of its promises. It has not used these powers so far.
I suspect they are nervous businesses and entrepreneurs will head South. If you want Nordic style benefits, you have to pay Nordic style taxes.
That is the case. The current problem with the UK middle class is that they want excellent government services without paying the money necessary.
There is little wrong with the economy that 3 to 5 per cent on income tax would not solve. The problem is that the English vote for neo-liberal parties like the Conservatives and New Labour.
I suspect that Scotland is different.
Labour has a major problem now, needing to become more neo-liberal in England and more socialist in Scotland and Wales. I cannot see it surviving as a national party. Similarly with the Conservatives who need to be old fashioned, One Nation, socially concerned, libertarian, Christian Democrat in Scotland and Neo-liberal and repressive in England.
What would bar Holyrood is the fact that Foreign Affairs, Immigration and Constitutional matters (which is what this is about, not Justice) are reserved mattersand therefore outside its competance. No one would entertain such a law at Strasbourg*, a sub national entity cannot deal with a foreign body or a supra national organization without the consent of its parent State.
This would incidentally also apply to deveolved matters, Holyrood is empowered to rule on Agriculture and Fisheries, but it has to rely on the UK Government when International COnventions and Euro law/rules etc are made.
- Incidentally, there always was a right to “Appeal” to Straousberg, the problem that the HRA was designed to correct was the fact that Convention rights could not be directky enforced in UK Courts; and the repeal of the HRA will not make any difference to the right od Appeal, which is from the treaty not Statute law.
I know there was always a right to appeal before the Act was entrenched.
As justice and the administration of justice are devolved there would be no problem creating a Scottish Human Rights Act, accessible through Scottish Courts which are separate to the courts of England and Wales. Appeals would be through Scottish Courts and then on to the SC. It does not involve treaty matters or constitutional matters, but merely judicial matters. How would the UK Parliament arrest a person in active appeal through the Scottish Courts about their rights under Scottish Law. The Scottish police accept instruction only under Scottish Law.
It is certainly arguable either way.
Supposing for instance that Scotland created a right to be treated as human to higher mammals. Could Westminster overrule that? Or right to own firearms, or changing the law on marriage or any other human rights issue.
The Scottish Act does not have to specify appeal to the ECHR because it is likely to remain. It merely ensures that human rights law is dealt with within the Scottish Courts and tat English courts cannot interfere.
Conservatives, obviously. 
Except that with our system of by elections, running a government with a majority of twelve is parlous.
How so?
Not now with fixed terms.
Rebellious backbenchers, loss of MPs in by elections, having to whip all MPs all the time. The last four elections have resulted in Parliaments with sound majorities unlikely to be lost during a full term. The last government to have a small majority was Major in 1992 when his “bastards” made government virtually impossible. The Conservative Party is a broad church with wide wings. Either wing may rebel at any time; sometimes even the centre cannot be trusted.
The Tories have a choice - repeal the FTP Act or not. If they do they lose face, if they do not they face the possibility of being kept in office with no ability to legislate. This is the case because suppose they lose six MPs to bye elections or desertion to UKIP, they will need to ally with the DUP. Lose six more and there would be majorities neither fort legislation nor proroguing.
What if they win by elections or peoe cross to their side? Plenty of parliaments have survived small majorities. Think you are overstating the peril.
If they lose the support of the Commons and no new government is handed confidence within fifteen days Parliament would be dissolved. If it got to the point of the government being unable to legislate, they could engineer a confidence vote.
Every government in living memory that has resulted in small majorities has led to a hamstrung government. They might survive but will not flourish.
That assumes a united opposition, which is far from certain at the moment. Apart from the 15 or so votes that could come from the DUP, UKIP and Lib Dems, if the SNP want concessions from the government they’re going to have to work with them. It’s not necessarily in anyone’s interest apart from Labour and maybe the Greens to hamstring the government. Certainly, there will have to be a lot of negotiation needed to govern effectively, but Cameron has already shown he can govern with a coalition, so I’d say it’s premature to say he can’t do it again.
It has just been pointed out to me on another board that the Convention on Human Rights is effectively written into Scottish competence by the Scotland Act.
I would like to see Gove try to undo that against SNP opposition.