Well that just sounds like special pleading on behalf of the Labour party. The union is only at risk because the Scottish people wanted an independence vote (as is their right) and now that debate has been opened the English would quite like revisit the terms of the current constitution as well please…oh and by the way…justify to me again English MP’s have no say over Scottish matters but Scottish MP’s have a say over English matters?
And seriously, “effeminate toffs”? Is that what passes for considered political debate? borderline homophobic ad-hominems?
Good luck with convincing floating voters that that is a reasonable and fair line to take. I’m a classic floating voter and when Labour trot that line out I just hear them desperately trying to hang on to the voting power of their Scottish MP’s and that doesn’t impress me at all and I know I’m not alone.
You say this thinking of Scots voting on English matters but going strictly by the formulation above then we should definitely ban London MPs voting on transport, housing or policing bills (these being devolved powers) and arguably:
[ul]
[li]Urban MPs voting on foxhunting or badger culling;[/li][li]Landlocked MPs voting on fisheries bills;[/li][li]MPs from virtually white constituencies voting on race-relations bills;[/li][/ul]
There will always be issues that have a much bigger effect on some constituencies than others. Somehow, the UK parliament has managed to cope with this for a few hundred years. The idea that there is now some urgent crisis the failure to solve which in the next few months will lead to sudden disaster is arrant nonsense. Nonsense put about by a Conservative party which, traditional to its core, is more concerned with maintaining its grasp of power than with using that power to do something sensible or useful.
The fact that you think calling effeminate toffs “effeminate toffs” is more offensive than a grown man with a nanny in a position of power says a lot.
Why would I justify a position that I’ve repeatedly disavowed in this very thread, Novelty Bobble? Are you following the same thread as the rest of us?
And yet it produces a system robust enough to offer devolution where demanded and a free and fair independence referendum that resulted in a close vote and no bloodshed or revolution.
Look, I agree with you on many of the deficiencies of the system but how can you, on one hand complain about such problems and yet fail to support the removal of at least one glaring inequality?
I’m very thankful that we don’t have a written constitution set in stone as we couldn’t have the debate we are having now without the freedom to adapt and take pragmatic measures. Does that leave us open to political shenanigans? Of course, (from both sides), but I think it is a risk worth taking.
The legislative programme for 2014/15, as published by the government:
[ul]
[li]Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill[/li][li]Childcare Payments Bill[/li][li]Infrastructure Bill[/li][li]Modern Slavery Bill[/li][li]National Insurance Contributions Bill[/li][li]Private Pensions Bill[/li][li]Pensions Tax Bill[/li][li]Recall of MPs Bill[/li][li]Serious Crime Bill[/li][li]Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill[/li][li]Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill[/li][/ul]
All but two of these involve reserved powers (defense, welfare, trade, benefits, Constitution). The Serious Crime Bill amends Scottish legislation. So only the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill is for England and Wales only.
I know what you’re thinking. How terrible it would be if this tabloid-driven pap were to be voted on by Scots MPs, now that devo-max is on the table. Well, I have good news and bad news there: it has already passed it’s third reading in the Commons.
So the question is: what critical legislation will come before the Houses of Parliament between now and May that Scots (and possibly Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs must be prevented from voting on? We all get that this issue is important. What we don’t get is why it’s so bloody urgent.
Speaking as someone who knows very little about the UK system, it appears to me you are discussing adding a new layer of governance for (let’s call it regional rather than national) issues. Or if such a level already exists, then somehow restructuring both to more rigidly define what types of legislation are appropriate to each.
That’s all well and good. I think the problems will crop around taxation issues. Every layer needs its own tax base so it can pursue its own issues with its own resources. But any issues that draw funds from the population as a whole should be considered by a body that represents the population as a whole. So perhaps you’ll need to do a restructuring of the tax system in order to make these layers practical.
Forgive me if this is already known and obvious to those of you closer to the situation.
Yes…and? That would be the logical upshot of regional devolution within England. I don’t see the problem with that. Once such powers are devolved to the regions you can ensure that you don’t have unconnected regions voting. We don’t have that distinction with the English regions as yet, we do have it with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So start implementing the concept there first.
Again, for the first two, with devolved regions you get closer to the possibility of only the effected groups voting on their own issues. It’ll never be perfect I’m sure but at least let’s try to move in the right direction.
Your third example is simply absurd and isn’t worthy of further comment.
until such point that the some of the regions decided they didn’t want to cope with it, requested devolution and were given devolved powers.
Who claimed that? certainly not me. All I ask is that an obvious wrong is righted and process to a fairer system is put in place.
And yet the “English votes for English issues” does nothing to help the Tories stay in power and nothing to prevent Labour from gaining power. It may well affect Labour on certain issues once they are* in* power but I don’t see that as a good enough reason for not doing it.
I’m party neutral on this. I’m trying to look at this from a standpoint of fairness.
I very carefully never said you did. But your post most certainly sounded like you were either speaking in defence of Labour, or at least anti-tory. Certainly not impartial.
If you only meant Jacob Rees-Mogg you should have clarified that. Anyone reading your post would assume you meant all Tories. I still don’t know what the purpose the “effeminate” label serves.
That’s badly constructed on my part. That was intended to read as the the reported speech of an English voter talking to those in power. It isn’t directed at you personally.
If there is no legislation affected by this then where is the harm in committing to the principle of English votes for English matters so that when a bill does come before the house (and it most certainly will before any regional devolution could occur) then the matter is already taken care of.
See it as a test of each party’s commitment to free and fair democracy. A test that SNP and Plaid Cymru are already passing.
It will be one followed by the other. English devolution will naturally be followed by reduced Scottish influence on English matters.
Insisting on doing this in the other order, though, involves limiting the rights of non-English members of the UK parliament, and there is no good reason for doing this.
By the logic of that argument, Novelty Bobble, the fact that some gay people choose not to marry and have no interest in marrying would meant that we do not do an injustice by denying gay people the right to marry.
There is a huge difference between choosing to abstain and being denied the vote. If you cannot see this I am not at all surprised that you fail to grasp that your proposals for the UK parliament are likely to be highly offensive to anyone who is not English.
They English have managed quite well without a stopgap for the last 307 years, due in large measure to their overwhelming numerical domination of the UK parliament. Given that domination, they could have had English devolution any time they wanted it; the fact that they don’t already have it is largely been their own choice. Given that, I struggle to see the urgent case for limiting the rights of Scottish, Welsh and Irish members of Parliament so that the English don’t have to live, even temporarily, with the consequences of choices they now regret.
The Tories have been perfectly happy with that state of affairs up to now. If they perceive that they can generate some electoral advantage by simulating outrage over it, no doubt they will try. The question is, do you think the typical English voter is stupid enough to fall for that?
What a strange choice of analogy. And catastrophically wrong. What it shows is that it is quite possible for gay people to choose to marry and it is morally right for us to let them.
Where did I say they should be forced not to vote? I’ve asked all along for labour to voluntarily agree to it until a formal process is completed.
And for the majority of that time the government has acted for the country as a whole. In the last couple of decades that subject has gained impetus from regional devolution. The English felt no huge need for it until they felt the impact from others.
What you call stupidity and "simulating outrage"I call requesting equality. Certainly I don’t want Scottish Constituency MP’s having any say over purely English matters, just as I don’t want my English MP having any say over purely Scottish decisions.
Were the political demographics reversed it would be labour calling for this and tories dragging their heels. So what? I don’t care. The “West Lothian” question is an unfairness with a long history and it isn’t that people are only questioning this now…far from it…but the further devolution of powers to Scotland has meant this can no longer be ignored.
My mistake, Novelty Bobble. Through my own carelessness I had taken you to be calling for rules which would prevent Scottish MPs from voting on matters of purely English concern, as opposed to asking Labour and Lib Dem Scottish MPs to adopt the policy already followed by SNP MPs. I apologise.
Nevertheless, I still can’t agree with your call. SNP MPs don’t vote on purely English matters because, as Scottish Nationalists, they consider that they have no reason to, and no right to, and they have a mandate from their electors not to do so. But Labour and the Lib Dems are unionist parties; as unionist members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom they presumably consider that they have not only a right but also a responsibility to address matters which, under the constitution of the United Kingdom, are matters for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I myself would not be a unionist if I lived in Britain, but I think it’s unreasonable to demand of people who are British unionists to behave as though they were Scottish nationalists. They were, after all, elected on an explicitly unionist platform, and they have a mandate to adopt unionist stances. Cameron as Tory leader may have some authority to change or modify the unionist position of his own party, but he has none to change the unionist position of other parties.
If, as an English elector, you want equality with Scottish electors, then what you want is devolution of purely English affairs to an English government and Parliament, The interim voluntary self-restraint on the part of Scottish Westminster MPs would not create this equality, and could indeed tend to relieve the political pressure that would bring it about.
2 years ago: Labour and Tories set up devolution commissions to develop proposals for transferring further powers to Scotland.
2 years ago: Nobody sets up any kind of commission about devolving power to England.
3 weeks ago: Polls show Yes might be ahead two weeks from the referendum vote.
2 weeks ago: Party leaders make Vow for speedy devolution of further powers following No vote
1 week ago: UKIP and Tory right start to grumble about EVEL
19th Sept: Following a No vote, Cameron commits to timetable - and, from nowhere, announces that EVEL must follow same timing as Devo-max.
It’s hard to conclude that the sudden introduction of EVEL to the timetable is anything other than political tactics designed to shoot UKIP’s fox and silence potential rebels. It’s one thing to rush in further Scottish devolution on the back of solid preparatory work that’s been 2 years in the making. It’s quite another to start from scratch with EVEL and honestly expect to produce anything that might work.
It’s true that some sort of English devolution needs to happen. But whether that’s an English parliament, or regional devolution, or a Grand Committee is a big, complex question that needs the same kind of careful policy development that devo-max has had. For Cameron to pretend otherwise, and Gove to claim that it’s “impossible” not to rush EVEL, is just bullshit tactical maneuvering.
No one in Scotland believes that- Parliament was insistent yesterday across all parties that devolution extra must follow according to the time table.
The only people suggesting keeping the two ideas in lock-step are English back bench Tories. Given that the whipped Tory party, LibDems and Labour all have an interest in keeping the Vow, it will get passed on schedule unless something very unexpected happens. There is no mechanism to introduce EVEL before May 2014.
Not a problem at all. It has been a more civilised debate that those to come in the next few months I bet.
But I guess my challenge to that would be that what constitutes a United Kingdom matter is now reducing yet again and the democratic inequality is becoming more apparent. There has to be a tipping point somewhere and the Independence vote appears to be it.
I understand your fears on this and I can’t say it won’t happen…who can? I don’t think it will though. That horse has bolted…ship has sailed…goose has been cooked. Regardless of either of our thoughts this will be a big issues come May and beyond.
Anyhow, it has been fun talking this through but I think we’ve all come round full circle to where we were, so I shall bow out.
