Yesterday, the UK broke apart, as EVEL was passed in the House of Commons. For none Brits, EVEL stands for English Votes for English Laws. Essentially, this means that only English MPs can vote on English matters, which sounds very reasonable.

BUT

1) It's a UK parliament. Britain is not Greater England...

2) If for example, English MPs vote to cut health spending on England, this has an effect on health spending in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, because funding is centralised , and MPs from non England parts of the UK won't be able to vote on it...feth!

It's taxation without representation, and I'm sure our American friends can tell us how well that ended

For non Brits who want to add to the discussion, here's a quick 101 on the UK political system.

The UK was formed between Scotland and England in 1707. Under that Union, Scotland and England have separate legal and education systems, and Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have assemblies. Essentially, it's similar to the American situation of state rights versus federal rights, with Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland being the states, with power over health, transport, education, and some economic powers...

However, there are problems. England makes up 85% of the UK population, and England isn't a separate 'state.' For simplicities' sake, England is the federal government, and the states are not happy.

Right now in the UK, the Tories command a majority in England, but are almost non-existent in Scotland.

Historically, because England is 85% of the UK, it holds a clear majority and often votes for things which are not popular in the smaller states in the UK. Naturally, this causes resentment.

EVEL makes things worse, because essentially nobody from the non-England parts of the UK can ever be Prime Minister again. And if one political party in the UK can't command a majority in England and needs MPs from other parts of the UK, and those MPs can't vote on certain issues...well...it's a fething constitutional mess!

Federalism could solve this, but England is 85% of the UK, like I said, and they have no appetite to break up into regions for a federal solution, so the crisis continues...

Imagine if some of the smaller parts of America were locked out of the Senate, or nobody from New Hampshire could ever be president...

Trouble ahead...

How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

I expect we'll be seeing some blue face paint and kilts about in the coming months, and none of them related to rugby world cup

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

Justification?

Dunno.

I'm not a Dermatologist, but on the face of it, this looks bad.

Is there some higher power to overturn this? The high courts?

 whembly wrote:
Is there some higher power to overturn this? The high courts?

Probably the Queen.

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Well obviously if you just invoke Prima Noctis a little more, then eventually everyone will be English

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

I expect we'll be seeing some blue face paint and kilts about in the coming months, and none of them related to rugby world cup

This is a gift from the heavens for us.

Good. England deserves it.

 whembly wrote:
Is there some higher power to overturn this? The high courts?

Hell no!

Unlike your good selves, we don't have a written constitution, we have an unelected head of state, and our version of the senate contains 800 members who are unelected, second only to Iran...

The UK constitutional situation is a fething mess and frankly, I'm surprised it's lasted this long.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Point of contention: Congressional critters don't "vote" on foreign affairs stuff except for ratifying treaties and funding apparatus for the executive branch.

But, I guess a more appropriate analogy would be that the US House/Senate members of the coastal states votes on certain things, like Federal income taxes... but, the US House/Senate members of the Flyover™ states could not???

 LordofHats wrote:
Well obviously if you just invoke Prima Noctis a little more, then eventually everyone will be English

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

They'll want another vote within a year, and quite frankly this time I support them. It's bad enough that the other stupid pricks voted in Cameron, but Scotland didn't vote for him; they overwhelmingly rejected the Tory party and yet are expected to kowtow to English lawmakers.

Cameron looked at the independence debate, made promises of devolution of powers, and thus far has devolved powers for England and England only, because hey, London is all that matters right?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Point of contention: Congressional critters don't "vote" on foreign affairs stuff except for ratifying treaties and funding apparatus for the executive branch.

But, I guess a more appropriate analogy would be that the US House/Senate members of the coastal states votes on certain things, like Federal income taxes... but, the US House/Senate members of the Flyover™ states could not???

Whembly, imagine if the 2nd amendment only applied in some American states, but not every state...

Do the maths

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

They'll want another vote within a year, and quite frankly this time I support them. It's bad enough that the other stupid pricks voted in Cameron, but Scotland didn't vote for him; they overwhelmingly rejected the Tory party and yet are expected to kowtow to English lawmakers.

Cameron looked at the independence debate, made promises of devolution of powers, and thus far has devolved powers for England and England only, because hey, London is all that matters right?

Sounds like the same sort of dynamics we have about how the Washington, DC area is consolidated in governmental powahs...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Point of contention: Congressional critters don't "vote" on foreign affairs stuff except for ratifying treaties and funding apparatus for the executive branch.

But, I guess a more appropriate analogy would be that the US House/Senate members of the coastal states votes on certain things, like Federal income taxes... but, the US House/Senate members of the Flyover™ states could not???

Whembly, imagine if the 2nd amendment only applied in some American states, but not every state...

Do the maths

Dude... you'd be looking at the SECOND American Revolution then!!!

Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

That doesn't matter though... London knows what's best for you! What you should be thinking of is how good an opportunity it is for your MP's inferiorly educated mind to take a break and relax, and let our Eton and Oxford educated masters make our decisions for us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

That's...

Well within the definition of "Taxation without Representation"...

Ooooh boy.

Well first thing our friends across the pond need to do, is dump all of their Tea in to the harbor.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

That's because it's devolved to Scotland already. The Scottish MP can decide how Scotland spends its health money, but it can't tell England what to do with its money. EVEL avoids the strange double standard that some MPs can vote on issues that only affect Scotland, and then vote on how the same issue affects England, whilst the reverse is not true.

A better description of the situation is that England is the only part of the UK that doesn't have its own parliament.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

Eh? Scotland controls it's own NHS budget and gets to choose how and where it's spent?

Same for education

And your own tax rate

So why is EVAL bad again, considering Scotland can control what it needs to? Pretty much only military and foreign policy is decided at the UK level now.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

That's...

Well within the definition of "Taxation without Representation"...

Ooooh boy.

I demand that the USA sends some freedom our way! I've eaten at McDonalds, I've bought and read Obama's books. I know the 25th amendment. I would have voted for Bill Clinton. I watched the Senate Committee on the Iran Nuclear deal FFS! I know who the Cleveland Browns are I've earned the right for American help!

O say can you see

It's an important mission, so I want the US Marines, and not the US army, to handle this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

That's because it's devolved to Scotland already. The Scottish MP can decide how Scotland spends its health money, but it can't tell England what to do with its money. EVEL avoids the strange double standard that some MPs can vote on issues that only affect Scotland, and then vote on how the same issue affects England, whilst the reverse is not true.

A better description of the situation is that England is the only part of the UK that doesn't have its own parliament.

Barnett consequentials. If English MPs vote to cut health spending in England, then there's a knock on effect for the rest of the UK, and the rest of the UK can't do anything about this. England only issues aren't England only, not when the money comes from a central pot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:

My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,

but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

Eh? Scotland controls it's own NHS budget and gets to choose how and where it's spent?

Same for education

And your own tax rate

So why is EVAL bad again, considering Scotland can control what it needs to? Pretty much only military and foreign policy is decided at the UK level now.

As I said, Barnett consequentials. There are no such things as English only issues when it comes to spending...

It's no surprise, a labour/snp coalition was the main threat to tories in the last election, making moves to encourage separation, and weaken the opposition isn't without logic, governments have done much worse to secure their position...

This is the same party that felt that children in an increasingly obese country being allowed to swim for free was a bad idea, and has systematically attacked most of it's civil services, especially education and health. Nothing they do surprises me anymore, and it looks like we are in for another 10 years of them.

I am watching all this with avid interest. It seems like every day the Tory government comes up with something even more hare-brained and ridiculous than the last, and I just find myself thinking "No, really, no?" and then they top it the next day. And the British media continues to give them an incredibly soft ride over it all compared to the vitriol that gets thrown at Labour.

EVEL looks good on the surface, but the population imbalances mean that it massively disadvantages the smaller regions, which is a big problem. A federal UK where England was broken up into regions might help, but the massive distorting effect of London compared to other areas would still cause weirdness. It's a tricky problem without any easy answers I can see.

I do wonder how all this is going to play in Norn Iron, where the power sharing executive looks like it might collapse any day and reignite the Troubles.

Well it was either do this with the current system, or create a new government for England only. The latter would be expensive, and you'd all be be complaining that it was a gigantic waste on money.


Besides, this only applies to bills passing through parliament for the first time. When the final bill gets done, everyone gets to vote. So stop blowing it up out of proportion.

If England chooses it's existing MP's to conduct devolved powers rather than getting a a second lot at the tax peters expense then that's England's prerogative. Scots might want to have an extract set of chinless power-hungry otherwise unskilled professional politicians but we'll stick with set of fethwits we have already.

I like the hilarious simile the OP makes with the Federal Govt/States in an apparent to desire to look put upon. A final call to the gallery for sympathy.

Scotland led the call for devolution and now it has finally come to it's last act. And now you've got something new to moan about, it's just that it's the same old fething thing.

To quote the Big Yin, Get tae Hell and buggery!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

You'd have to teach the Oklahoma congressional caucus how to read first...or maybe not since they just repeat whatever's buzzing around Fox news.

BEAAANGAHZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Point of contention: Congressional critters don't "vote" on foreign affairs stuff except for ratifying treaties and funding apparatus for the executive branch.

Pretty sure that Congress is the only body authorized to declare war - the ultimate form of foreign affairs.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it was either do this with the current system, or create a new government for England only. The latter would be expensive, and you'd all be be complaining that it was a gigantic waste on money.


Besides, this only applies to bills passing through parliament for the first time. When the final bill gets done, everyone gets to vote. So stop blowing it up out of proportion.

As above.

To be honest it would be even better if we could get rid of a couple of hundred politicians at the same time, but I guess you can't have everything...

Actually the local assemblies in NI, Scotland and Wales make health spending decisions. For example, a prescription currently costs £8.20 in England, but the local assemblies have decided it should be free in the other regions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

It's Christmas come early for those like myself who want Scottish independence. It essentially makes Scottish MPs second class members of parliament.

Frazz, imagine if Texas Congressmen/Senators could only vote on health and education, but not foreign affairs, and imagine if Oklahoma Congressmen/Senators could vote on every issue...

Do the maths...

Point of contention: Congressional critters don't "vote" on foreign affairs stuff except for ratifying treaties and funding apparatus for the executive branch.

Pretty sure that Congress is the only body authorized to declare war - the ultimate form of foreign affairs.

"Declare" war... yes.

To engage in war... no, the President has plenty of leeway.

And when everything explodes into cessation and warfare, Argentina will be primed to retake the Falklands.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yesterday, the UK broke apart, as EVEL was passed in the House of Commons. For none Brits, EVEL stands for English Votes for English Laws. Essentially, this means that only English MPs can vote on English matters, which sounds very reasonable.

It is reasonable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BUT

1) It's a UK parliament. Britain is not Greater England...

2) If for example, English MPs vote to cut health spending on England, this has an effect on health spending in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, because funding is centralised , and MPs from non England parts of the UK won't be able to vote on it...feth!

Bollocks. The Bill only ensures that a majority of English MPs agree to a proposal for it to be passed, and that the issues are restruicted to those only effecting England.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's taxation without representation, and I'm sure our American friends can tell us how well that ended

Its how the SNP might sell it to their dupes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For non Brits who want to add to the discussion, here's a quick 101 on the UK political system.
The UK was formed between Scotland and England in 1707. Under that Union, Scotland and England have separate legal and education systems, and Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have assemblies. Essentially, it's similar to the American situation of state rights versus federal rights, with Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland being the states, with power over health, transport, education, and some economic powers...
However, there are problems. England makes up 85% of the UK population, and England isn't a separate 'state.' For simplicities' sake, England is the federal government, and the states are not happy.

To translate into something m,ore accurate. The UK votes for local MP's on a constituency basis, those MPs vote in a single parliament. Any oe of them could become Prime Minister. We have had Welsh and Scottish Prime Ministers and others who were major party leaders and dont discriminate against them. Also while the 'English' make up 85% of the population, they dont make up 85% of seats. Scotland was in fact overrepresened uuntil the formation of the Scottish parliament.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Right now in the UK, the Tories command a majority in England, but are almost non-existent in Scotland.

There is one Scottish Tory voter per three SNP voter. That is hardly non existant, but dont let facts get in the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Historically, because England is 85% of the UK, it holds a clear majority and often votes for things which are not popular in the smaller states in the UK. Naturally, this causes resentment.

What resentment? It hasnt caused resentment in the past. Now the SNP are trying to stir up matters and say it causes resentment, and their dupes are bleating the same tune.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

EVEL makes things worse, because essentially nobody from the non-England parts of the UK can ever be Prime Minister again.

How do you coke up with that nonsense?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And if one political party in the UK can't command a majority in England and needs MPs from other parts of the UK, and those MPs can't vote on certain issues...well...it's a fething constitutional mess!

No it isnt, its devolution.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Federalism could solve this, but England is 85% of the UK, like I said, and they have no appetite to break up into regions for a federal solution, so the crisis continues...
Imagine if some of the smaller parts of America were locked out of the Senate, or nobody from New Hampshire could ever be president...
Trouble ahead...

Actually it is more similar to the US system now, with sovereignty of states within the Union. It works over there.




Ok. Let us cut through the hysteria and explain what is actually happening.

The SNP since it lost the referendum is pushing for a second one because democratic mandate is no use to them unless it agrees with party lines. The SNP have been making up referendum triggers on just about every arguement, from Trident, to EVEL to not getting every bit of devolution they want when they want. It all boils down to one policy. Demand from Westminster whatever we want, and if we dont get one sided concessions then holler about it and threaten to secede.

All EVEL is is giving the English some of the same rights the Scots demand.

Labourt on the other hand want to derail this Bill because of they ever recover in Scotland they want an easier majority. EVEL is good for England but bad for Labour, and to Labour that means its bad for Egnland because they only give a feth about themselves.

EVEL is a good thing. It will prevent insults like SNP politicians voting to retain a benefit in Scotland then voting against the same benefit in the rest of the UK to save money. For the Union to survive the prevailing attitude of the SNP of: 'only Scotland matters, nothing else' by limiting the partisan damage they can do. If Scotland can settle its own internal policies without intererence by Englash parliamentarians, the England should have the same. This in a saner world is what is called equality.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

I expect we'll be seeing some blue face paint and kilts about in the coming months, and none of them related to rugby world cup

This is a gift from the heavens for us.

Do you know anyone who voted against independence and what their view on this turn of events is. I think I would feel like that horse in Animal Farm that got shipped off to the slaughterhouse after a life of selfless service.

 Breotan wrote:
And when everything explodes into cessation and warfare, Argentina will be primed to retake the Falklands.

I was under the assumption that the crown controlling the Falklands was the only thing keeping Zombie Thatcher from rising again.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example for the Americans:
My tax money goes towards paying for the national health service,
but under this system, my elected representative, because he's Scottish, will have no say on how this money will be spent...

This will not end well.

That's...
Well within the definition of "Taxation without Representation"...
Ooooh boy.

It would if it were true. However it is not.
This is only scary if you fall for basic propaganda that does't fit the facts at all.
For a start Scotland sets its own health service spending, its devolved.

Scare stories are scary, but not necessarily accurate. Do_I_Not_Like_That is drinking the cool aid provided by those politicians which will lose out, Labour and SNP, and they have a vested interest in not telling the truth.

If someone told Americans that South Dakota could no longer elect representatives and their Senators would be rweplaced by others not from flyover states it might anger or upset people from South Dakota. It might even be a sign that the US is falling apart. However if the rumour is a complete load of bollocks it's nothing to worry about.

Scotland has a parliament, got a ton of powers in the referendum, a huge contract to build warships for royal navy etc. ...

So what, we want the laws English people voted mps into parliaments for.

Welsh get parliament to.

Alls fair.

Even Northern Ireland has a parliament. It barely works, but it exists.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As I said, Barnett consequentials. There are no such things as English only issues when it comes to spending...

Aye? What's your point? That the English should be taxed to the hilt to fund Scottish government excess?

Now, for our non UK fellows, here's a very simple breakdown of the Barnett Formula and why this whole tantrum is a case of "Have your cake and eat it too". This is about English taxes funding Scottish spending.

Now, I freely admit my understanding of the Barnett Formula may be simple at best and feel free to correct me (with links) if I'm wrong. Anyway:

England has 85% of the population of the UK. Scotland a fraction of that. As does Wales and Northern Ireland. On its own, Scotland wouldn't have the population base to sustain a level of spending that matches England. So, in order for the whole population of the UK to have the roughly same treatment and government services available to subjects, UK wide, the Barnett Formula was set up so that a percentage of the tax money raised from the English will be given out as grant to the devolved governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). In simple terms, the percentage of money given out in Grants is calculated based on percentage of population compared to the UK and works out how much to grant with a view to ensuring that everyone has the same amount spent on them per head. Scotland (And Northern Ireland) even have a favourable weighting in the Formula which means they get slight more money per head of population that the rest of the UK.

Now, what this entire noise is about is that some Scottish MP's are a little upset that the tax money, raised from the English and given over in Grants, could be reduced by English only laws. As per the Barnett Formula, they would then receive a reduced amount of spending per head. This bill is to disallow Scottish MP's to vote on law's that affect England, including raising and lowering of taxes that affect only the English. As a consequence, they don't like the fact that this could reduce their grants and would mean they'd have to alter their government spending.

Complex? Aye, we don't do things by half.

Oh yes, I wait for the day England decides that Scotland is better off self funding, because the country would collapse within months. Maybe even less.

just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

Anyway, would these units be allowed to break away from the British military and form a part of their home countries military?

I say, if the Scots don't like it, they should secede!



Oh, wait...

 Ghazkuul wrote:
just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

Anyway, would these units be allowed to break away from the British military and form a part of their home countries military?

It depends on the unit, they might be retired from the army. Because Scotland would have to form its own military.

There would be nothing stopping them from reforming the same unit with the same name though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I say, if the Scots don't like it, they should secede!

Oh, wait...

Aye, but the thing is, barring a lot of noise from some MSP's, in my view and the majority of scottish as per the referendum, Scotland is better off joined with the UK and the UK is better with Scotland as an Equal member. There's nothing stopping an MSP becoming Prime Minister (as can Welsh and Northern Irish). It's just the SNP choose to be a Scottish exclusive party - I saw plenty of comments from English voters in the last election saying "Can I vote SNP? I like their policies...". See, these self appointed SNP victims currently saying they are second class MP's, can very easily campaign across the rest of the UK - they just have to attract non-scottish voters and there's nothing to stop an SNP party member becoming PM of the whole UK. They just have to create the opportunities to do that. But no, lets fester and rattle claymores about independence all the time.

A breakaway may still happen in the future and I'd be sad should it happen in my lifetime. But, because of the formula ensuring that "No-one is left behind" Scotland currently gets enormous benefits for being in the Union. And, despite the wishes of some to rush over the boarder and sack York, it's refreshing to see the majority of Scots as still unionist. The upheaval caused by a break with the union would negatively impact Scotland a whole lot more than envisioned I reckon.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

Anyway, would these units be allowed to break away from the British military and form a part of their home countries military?

It depends on the unit, they might be retired from the army. Because Scotland would have to form its own military.

There would be nothing stopping them from reforming the same unit with the same name though.

I love military history and a lot of my all time favorite military units are Irish/Scottish. I would hate to see these units completely destroyed or forced to serve in the British military without any Scots/Irish in them.

this is utter bollocks, I know im not supposed to swear on here but I cant believe all the utter utter idiots that voted for the tories (conservatives), they are scum of the highest order and im not supprised they are doing this to cement their efforts to put through unpopular policies, labour and the SNP (Scotland) would join up to block certain policies (like the tax credits farce), so the tories put this through and now SNP cannot vote IN THIER OWN COUNTRY, madness.... utter madness.

Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

Anyway, would these units be allowed to break away from the British military and form a part of their home countries military?

The Royal Irish Rangers and the Irish Guards recruit from both sides of the border in Ireland.

While the SNP was talking about Scotland taking over all Scottish units there will be exceptions. The Scots Guards are still Guards of Buckingham Palace, like all the Guards regiments they draw from the constituent countries and the London area. It is very likely that if independence occurs the Scots Guards will remain an rUK as part of the Brigade of Guards just as the Irish Guards do. The rest of the regiments will revert to Scottish government control.

However Blair amalgamated almost all the Scottish regiments into plain Royal Regiment of Scotland etc, their identity was taken away as part of his New Britain rebranding. The Black Watch is revivable, but currently dormant.

I think rational heads will keep Scotland in the UK, just like how Canada will be stuck with Quebec for the foreseeable future.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it was either do this with the current system, or create a new government for England only. The latter would be expensive, and you'd all be be complaining that it was a gigantic waste on money.

The variation in per capita expenditure across England is actually one of the elephants in the room that needs addressing. Because the hoover that sucks up regional money is London, not Scotland. IIRC, each Londoner has benefitted from 100x the travel infrastructure expenditure that someone in the northeast has.

Meanwhile Norway built bridges between the Lofoten Islands.


Edit: Snipped for snark

 Ghazkuul wrote:
just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

The Black Watch have already been reorganised into the "3rd Battallian Regiment Of Scotland". Needless to say, they still identify as being the Black Watch although they don't officially exist anymore.

Ditto for the Royal Scots Borders, the Highlanders, Royal Highland Fusiliers and The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

 Formosa wrote:
this is utter bollocks, I know im not supposed to swear on here but I cant believe all the utter utter idiots that voted for the tories (conservatives), they are scum of the highest order and im not supprised they are doing this to cement their efforts to put through unpopular policies, labour and the SNP (Scotland) would join up to block certain policies (like the tax credits farce), so the tories put this through and now SNP cannot vote IN THIER OWN COUNTRY, madness.... utter madness.

Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

Nah, this is generally a good thing and will solve a lot of problems - see my above posts. One major thing is now you won't see any more Blair or Thatcher era landslide majorities ramrodding through any legislation to all countries on a whim. Now, for wider issues, there needs to be a consensus. It also creates equality - English MP's can't vote on scottish issues and this ensures the reverse. Same for Welsh and Northern Irish.

The big grumbling point is the Barnett Formula. Though, ironically, it has an unintended consequence of forcing the devolved parliaments to talk to Westminster and each other more to ensure they can plan for any grant changes. For the union to survive after the devolutions of the last 20 years, this is a necessity.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
this is utter bollocks, I know im not supposed to swear on here but I cant believe all the utter utter idiots that voted for the tories (conservatives), they are scum of the highest order and im not supprised they are doing this to cement their efforts to put through unpopular policies, labour and the SNP (Scotland) would join up to block certain policies (like the tax credits farce), so the tories put this through and now SNP cannot vote IN THIER OWN COUNTRY, madness.... utter madness.

Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

Nah, this is generally a good thing and will solve a lot of problems - see my above posts. One major thing is now you won't see any more Blair or Thatcher era landslide majorities ramrodding through any legislation to all countries on a whim. Now, for wider issues, there needs to be a consensus. It also creates equality - English MP's can't vote on scottish issues and this ensures the reverse. Same for Welsh and Northern Irish.

The big grumbling point is the Barnett Formula. Though, ironically, it has an unintended consequence of forcing the devolved parliaments to talk to Westminster and each other more to ensure they can plan for any grant changes. For the union to survive after the devolutions of the last 20 years, this is a necessity.

No really it's a mess that will lead to nothing but argument and bitterness. It would be far better solved through federalism and a specifically English layer of government, leaving a British parliament intact. Britain has shockingly FEW politicians and levels of localised power than many of our European neighbours. None of our major political parties is particularly big on libertarianism, and while claiming independence at the very local level in healthcare and education, the overall result has been an increase in central control at the expense of regional management.

Having worked in both education and healthcare, I can tell you that the result has certainly NOT been more choice and efficiency.

Momotaro wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it was either do this with the current system, or create a new government for England only. The latter would be expensive, and you'd all be be complaining that it was a gigantic waste on money.

The variation in per capita expenditure across England is actually one of the elephants in the room that needs addressing. Because the hoover that sucks up regional money is London, not Scotland. IIRC, each Londoner has benefitted from 100x the travel infrastructure expenditure that someone in the northeast has.

Meanwhile Norway built bridges between the Lofoten Islands.


Edit: Snipped for snark

That's because London is flipping huge and provides quite a big of our revenue.

Its quite irritating, but London does need the support. While it is possible to build industry in other parts of the country. It tends to be easier to do it near the capital.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Momotaro wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
this is utter bollocks, I know im not supposed to swear on here but I cant believe all the utter utter idiots that voted for the tories (conservatives), they are scum of the highest order and im not supprised they are doing this to cement their efforts to put through unpopular policies, labour and the SNP (Scotland) would join up to block certain policies (like the tax credits farce), so the tories put this through and now SNP cannot vote IN THIER OWN COUNTRY, madness.... utter madness.

Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

Nah, this is generally a good thing and will solve a lot of problems - see my above posts. One major thing is now you won't see any more Blair or Thatcher era landslide majorities ramrodding through any legislation to all countries on a whim. Now, for wider issues, there needs to be a consensus. It also creates equality - English MP's can't vote on scottish issues and this ensures the reverse. Same for Welsh and Northern Irish.

The big grumbling point is the Barnett Formula. Though, ironically, it has an unintended consequence of forcing the devolved parliaments to talk to Westminster and each other more to ensure they can plan for any grant changes. For the union to survive after the devolutions of the last 20 years, this is a necessity.

No really it's a mess that will lead to nothing but argument and bitterness. It would be far better solved through federalism and a specifically English layer of government, leaving a British parliament intact. Britain has shockingly FEW politicians and levels of localised power than many of our European neighbours. None of our major political parties is particularly big on libertarianism, and while claiming independence at the very local level in healthcare and education, the overall result has been an increase in central control at the expense of regional management.

Having worked in both education and healthcare, I can tell you that the result has certainly NOT been more choice and efficiency.

But that would add a lot of red tape and cost a lot of money. Holyrood cost nearly half a billion, and Cardiff bay cost 2.4 billion. (Granted, they redeveloped the whole area, looks pretty nice. But it's no Gower) so I'd assume at least a billion to make a new English Parliament. That's a lot of money, especially seeing as the Tories are very much into austerity (which they do really well, credit where credit is due, it might not be good credit, but they stick to it)

And there is one Country worse that Britain when it comes to localised power. It's Scotland, it is one of the most centralised governements in the world.

I'll make an analogy for the benefit of Americans, somebody from the UK may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

At the moment, Washington, D.C. is not a state. It is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Congress rather than having a state government of its own. The English Votes for English Laws proposal is basically like saying that Washington D.C. should have representatives in Congress (which England already has), and those representatives alone would act as a de facto state congress when voting on laws that would be handled at the state level elsewhere in the country.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but give Ireland back to the Irish. EVEL is evil, i know people who are organizing protests, and the odds of people just acquiescing to this are slim.

Isn't Scotland where the UK stores its nuclear weapons?
I think I see a solution...

Also, EVEL must definitely be evil, it becomes obvious when you say it out loud. The Big Bad has cunningly disguised his plans by changing a vowel, making people less suspicious.

Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

 Formosa wrote:
Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

Do they still have the signs on the garbage cans asking people not to put bombs in them?

 Formosa wrote:
Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

The British gave America back to the Americans, India back to the Indians, Palestine back to the Jews, and Rhodesia back to the Zimbabweans. I think all of those transitions went rather smoothly, with all everyone getting along just swimmingly.

The Irish are a level-headed bunch and will easily work out whatever minor differences they might have, rather than resorting to any sort of violence.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

The British gave America back to the Americans, India back to the Indians, Palestine back to the Jews, and Rhodesia back to the Zimbabweans. I think all of those transitions went rather smoothly, with all everyone getting along just swimmingly.

The Irish are a level-headed bunch and will easily work out whatever minor differences they might have, rather than resorting to any sort of violence.

I believe they have, by retaining Northern Ireland as part of the UK...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

The British gave America back to the Americans, India back to the Indians, Palestine back to the Jews, and Rhodesia back to the Zimbabweans. I think all of those transitions went rather smoothly, with all everyone getting along just swimmingly.

The Irish are a level-headed bunch and will easily work out whatever minor differences they might have, rather than resorting to any sort of violence.

I think the difference is, a lot of the people (Plus Canada!) thought of themselves as group [X]. Northern Ireland less so.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
this is utter bollocks, I know im not supposed to swear on here but I cant believe all the utter utter idiots that voted for the tories (conservatives), they are scum of the highest order and im not supprised they are doing this to cement their efforts to put through unpopular policies, labour and the SNP (Scotland) would join up to block certain policies (like the tax credits farce), so the tories put this through and now SNP cannot vote IN THIER OWN COUNTRY, madness.... utter madness.

Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

Nah, this is generally a good thing and will solve a lot of problems - see my above posts. One major thing is now you won't see any more Blair or Thatcher era landslide majorities ramrodding through any legislation to all countries on a whim. Now, for wider issues, there needs to be a consensus. It also creates equality - English MP's can't vote on scottish issues and this ensures the reverse. Same for Welsh and Northern Irish.

The big grumbling point is the Barnett Formula. Though, ironically, it has an unintended consequence of forcing the devolved parliaments to talk to Westminster and each other more to ensure they can plan for any grant changes. For the union to survive after the devolutions of the last 20 years, this is a necessity.

We'll see what the unintended consequences are soon I guess. The whole thing is clearly reactionary to the SNP rise so I can't see it being done with good intentions, and can see it being used to try and cut off any power they have because they are anti-tory. For instance, the SNP are all for tightening the regulation around private parking that's currently rampaging round England, whilst the Tories don't seem to want to touch it (because one of the biggest culprits is owned by Capita, which has major ties to government),

Essentially, cutting out the SNP votes means that the Tory party are completely unopposable; they cut out 55 of the opposition votes immediately, leaving them a total majority of 330/595 - every other MP voting against a motion will have exactly 0 effect.

I'm actually surprised we've remained a union for as long as we have considering the vastly different political outlook across the border - as shown by the near landslide results from each side.

But lets not pretend that EVEL is for the benefit of the English - it's a Tory anti-competition law.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it was either do this with the current system, or create a new government for England only. The latter would be expensive, and you'd all be be complaining that it was a gigantic waste on money.


Besides, this only applies to bills passing through parliament for the first time. When the final bill gets done, everyone gets to vote. So stop blowing it up out of proportion.

EVEL is nothing more than a Tory attempt to Gerry-Mander the political system to lock in their majority in England for ever more. Add the boundary changes into that, and it becomes near impossible to dislodge a Conservative majority in England.

The Tories have effectively created a federal system, but without an English parliament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
If England chooses it's existing MP's to conduct devolved powers rather than getting a a second lot at the tax peters expense then that's England's prerogative. Scots might want to have an extract set of chinless power-hungry otherwise unskilled professional politicians but we'll stick with set of fethwits we have already.

I like the hilarious simile the OP makes with the Federal Govt/States in an apparent to desire to look put upon. A final call to the gallery for sympathy.

Scotland led the call for devolution and now it has finally come to it's last act. And now you've got something new to moan about, it's just that it's the same old fething thing.

To quote the Big Yin, Get tae Hell and buggery!

Transport is devolved to London, but London MPs can vote on transport issues in the rest of England...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually the local assemblies in NI, Scotland and Wales make health spending decisions. For example, a prescription currently costs £8.20 in England, but the local assemblies have decided it should be free in the other regions.

It's not our fault if Scottish politicians have different priorities. Scotland should not be made to feel guilty if England would rather spend its money on other stuff.

Your argument is that the union has fallen because issues that affect only the English are to be voted on only by their locally elected representatives.

My point makes it clear that if this is true, the union fell when the various regional assemblies were set up.

Your horror and outrage therefore seem rather theatrical.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yesterday, the UK broke apart, as EVEL was passed in the House of Commons. For none Brits, EVEL stands for English Votes for English Laws. Essentially, this means that only English MPs can vote on English matters, which sounds very reasonable.

It is reasonable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BUT

1) It's a UK parliament. Britain is not Greater England...

2) If for example, English MPs vote to cut health spending on England, this has an effect on health spending in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, because funding is centralised , and MPs from non England parts of the UK won't be able to vote on it...feth!

Bollocks. The Bill only ensures that a majority of English MPs agree to a proposal for it to be passed, and that the issues are restruicted to those only effecting England.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's taxation without representation, and I'm sure our American friends can tell us how well that ended

Its how the SNP might sell it to their dupes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For non Brits who want to add to the discussion, here's a quick 101 on the UK political system.
The UK was formed between Scotland and England in 1707. Under that Union, Scotland and England have separate legal and education systems, and Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have assemblies. Essentially, it's similar to the American situation of state rights versus federal rights, with Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland being the states, with power over health, transport, education, and some economic powers...
However, there are problems. England makes up 85% of the UK population, and England isn't a separate 'state.' For simplicities' sake, England is the federal government, and the states are not happy.

To translate into something m,ore accurate. The UK votes for local MP's on a constituency basis, those MPs vote in a single parliament. Any oe of them could become Prime Minister. We have had Welsh and Scottish Prime Ministers and others who were major party leaders and dont discriminate against them. Also while the 'English' make up 85% of the population, they dont make up 85% of seats. Scotland was in fact overrepresened uuntil the formation of the Scottish parliament.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Right now in the UK, the Tories command a majority in England, but are almost non-existent in Scotland.

There is one Scottish Tory voter per three SNP voter. That is hardly non existant, but dont let facts get in the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Historically, because England is 85% of the UK, it holds a clear majority and often votes for things which are not popular in the smaller states in the UK. Naturally, this causes resentment.

What resentment? It hasnt caused resentment in the past. Now the SNP are trying to stir up matters and say it causes resentment, and their dupes are bleating the same tune.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

EVEL makes things worse, because essentially nobody from the non-England parts of the UK can ever be Prime Minister again.

How do you coke up with that nonsense?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And if one political party in the UK can't command a majority in England and needs MPs from other parts of the UK, and those MPs can't vote on certain issues...well...it's a fething constitutional mess!

No it isnt, its devolution.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Federalism could solve this, but England is 85% of the UK, like I said, and they have no appetite to break up into regions for a federal solution, so the crisis continues...
Imagine if some of the smaller parts of America were locked out of the Senate, or nobody from New Hampshire could ever be president...
Trouble ahead...

Actually it is more similar to the US system now, with sovereignty of states within the Union. It works over there.




Ok. Let us cut through the hysteria and explain what is actually happening.

The SNP since it lost the referendum is pushing for a second one because democratic mandate is no use to them unless it agrees with party lines. The SNP have been making up referendum triggers on just about every arguement, from Trident, to EVEL to not getting every bit of devolution they want when they want. It all boils down to one policy. Demand from Westminster whatever we want, and if we dont get one sided concessions then holler about it and threaten to secede.

All EVEL is is giving the English some of the same rights the Scots demand.

Labourt on the other hand want to derail this Bill because of they ever recover in Scotland they want an easier majority. EVEL is good for England but bad for Labour, and to Labour that means its bad for Egnland because they only give a feth about themselves.

EVEL is a good thing. It will prevent insults like SNP politicians voting to retain a benefit in Scotland then voting against the same benefit in the rest of the UK to save money. For the Union to survive the prevailing attitude of the SNP of: 'only Scotland matters, nothing else' by limiting the partisan damage they can do. If Scotland can settle its own internal policies without intererence by Englash parliamentarians, the England should have the same. This in a saner world is what is called equality.

God almighty, where do I begin with this hogwash

Orlanth, have you ever heard of the Barnett formula? I don't think you have!

EVEL is a blatant act of political Gerry-mandering from the Tories.

If health spending is cut in England, that automatically cuts health spending in the rest of the UK, not just Scotland.

By your numbers there are 3 SNP voters to every Tory voter, so that's 75% to 25% and yet, despite having the majority of Scottish MPs, SNP amendments on the Scotland bill were voted down by English Tories. Plus, the majority of MPs on the Scotland committee are English. So English MPs get to vote on Scottish matters, but Scottish MPs can't vote on English matters.

Democracy? My A***!

As for my example of a non-English man/woman being unable to become PM, well if a party led by a Scottish MP becomes the government, then we have the ludicrious situation of the Prime Minister not being able to vote on English only matters. Effectively, they would be a lame-duck. Politically, it's a nonsense.

What if a future labour government needs Scottish and Welsh MPs to form a government? A Tory majority in England can block them. Deadlock. Constitutional crisis.

Exactly what the Tories want.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Your argument is that the union has fallen because issues that affect only the English are to be voted on only by their locally elected representatives.

My point makes it clear that if this is true, the union fell when the various regional assemblies were set up.

Your horror and outrage therefore seem rather theatrical.

You know as well as I do that the elephant in the room is always that England is 85% of the UK. What England wants, England gets, which is why Scottish votes have only effected the out come of 2 general elections in the last 80 years.

For all the talk of new labour being a Scottish project, Blair would have had a majority in his 3 election wins even without Scottish MPs.

A federal solution is the only thing to save the UK, but England would have to divide into historic regions for this to work.

But England has no appetite for this, so we get this half-baked Tory mess, and the problem rumbles on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As I said, Barnett consequentials. There are no such things as English only issues when it comes to spending...

Aye? What's your point? That the English should be taxed to the hilt to fund Scottish government excess?

Now, for our non UK fellows, here's a very simple breakdown of the Barnett Formula and why this whole tantrum is a case of "Have your cake and eat it too". This is about English taxes funding Scottish spending.

Now, I freely admit my understanding of the Barnett Formula may be simple at best and feel free to correct me (with links) if I'm wrong. Anyway:

England has 85% of the population of the UK. Scotland a fraction of that. As does Wales and Northern Ireland. On its own, Scotland wouldn't have the population base to sustain a level of spending that matches England. So, in order for the whole population of the UK to have the roughly same treatment and government services available to subjects, UK wide, the Barnett Formula was set up so that a percentage of the tax money raised from the English will be given out as grant to the devolved governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). In simple terms, the percentage of money given out in Grants is calculated based on percentage of population compared to the UK and works out how much to grant with a view to ensuring that everyone has the same amount spent on them per head. Scotland (And Northern Ireland) even have a favourable weighting in the Formula which means they get slight more money per head of population that the rest of the UK.

Now, what this entire noise is about is that some Scottish MP's are a little upset that the tax money, raised from the English and given over in Grants, could be reduced by English only laws. As per the Barnett Formula, they would then receive a reduced amount of spending per head. This bill is to disallow Scottish MP's to vote on law's that affect England, including raising and lowering of taxes that affect only the English. As a consequence, they don't like the fact that this could reduce their grants and would mean they'd have to alter their government spending.

Complex? Aye, we don't do things by half.

Scotland has been a net contributor to the treasury for years, thanks largely to oil and gas money, but even without this, Scotland pays in more than it gets back.

London hoover up most of the UK money, but people seem to point the finger at Scotland for some strange reason.

For every £100 spent on London, the North of England gets a fiver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
just out of curiosity what would happen to those famous British military units if Scotland/Ireland broke off from the UK?

The Black Watch and whats the Irish one? the Connaught Rangers?

Anyway, would these units be allowed to break away from the British military and form a part of their home countries military?

Most of the famous Scottish regiments have been scrapped over the years.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A federal solution is the only thing to save the UK, but England would have to divide into historic regions for this to work.

But England has no appetite for this, so we get this half-baked Tory mess, and the problem rumbles on.

Indeed, EVEL is deeply flawed as it stands and I would be utterly amazed that a democratic parliament passed such a law, as its Westminster and 'Dave' though I can't say that I am surprised.

As for the Scottish regiments I would imagine that they would revert to Scottish sovereignty (including the Scots Guards who were formed by the Kingdom of Scotland) and become a defense force on the Irish model. During the Indyref the plan was to have an Infantry Brigade with support assets, that's basically the Scottish regiments as they stand.

Quite a lot of hyperbole in this thread but the case for Scottish independence has just been made significantly stronger.

 Formosa wrote:
Can't give Ireland back to the irish, as a lot of them consider themselves British, while others don't, hand Ireland back and they would just start killing each other again.

The partition of Ireland was one of those badly thought out relics of Empire. It was rushed, with no real thought to the long term consequences and it has caused nothing but trouble (including a civil war). The Irish are perfectly able to handle their own affairs.

Money from Scottish tax payers will fund projects in England such as Heathrow expansion, HS2, and whatever crackpot schemes Boris Johnson dreams up, but because these are 'English' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

No taxation without representation!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Money from Scottish tax payers will fund projects in England such as Heathrow expansion, HS2, and whatever crackpot schemes Boris Johnson dreams up, but because these are 'English' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

No taxation without representation!

Money from English tax payers will fund projects in Scotland such as free universities, centralised police forces, and whatever crackpot schemes Nicola Sturgeon dreams up, but because these are 'Scottish' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

Do you realise how silly you sound sometimes? I'd love to get a say in why Scottish universities are free unless you're from England, but you know, it's a "Scottish" issue so my MP can't do anything about it.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Money from Scottish tax payers will fund projects in England such as Heathrow expansion, HS2, and whatever crackpot schemes Boris Johnson dreams up, but because these are 'English' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

No taxation without representation!

Money from English tax payers will fund projects in Scotland such as free universities, centralised police forces, and whatever crackpot schemes Nicola Sturgeon dreams up, but because these are 'Scottish' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

Do you realise how silly you sound sometimes? I'd love to get a say in why Scottish universities are free unless you're from England, but you know, it's a "Scottish" issue so my MP can't do anything about it.

Education is separate in Scotland thanks to the act of Union. If you want to tear it up, be my guest

It's one way traffic. I have to pay for transport projects in Scotland, which is fair enough, but my tax money also goes to the national pot that pays for stuff in England, and London, which I don't benefit from, and on which my MP has no say.

We don't want trident up here, a clear majority are against it, but we're lumbered with it. If England wants it so badly, moor the subs in the River Thames.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Money from Scottish tax payers will fund projects in England such as Heathrow expansion, HS2, and whatever crackpot schemes Boris Johnson dreams up, but because these are 'English' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

No taxation without representation!

Except you do get a say, at the second reading.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Money from Scottish tax payers will fund projects in England such as Heathrow expansion, HS2, and whatever crackpot schemes Boris Johnson dreams up, but because these are 'English' only issues, my MP wont get a say on them!

No taxation without representation!

Except you do get a say, at the second reading.

English MPs still have the veto and if a majority of English MPs don't agree, it falls down.

Who gets to decide what an English issue is, when there's financial consequences for the rest of the UK?

They say the speaker decides, but this politicises the speaker's role, which is bad, and leaves it open to all sorts of legal challenges.

I say again, EVEL is a constitutional cluster feth!

[quote=Silent Puffin? 668039 8211520 c483059a0cb039b3b25bd5734886a213.jpeg
Indeed, EVEL is deeply flawed as it stands and I would be utterly amazed that a democratic parliament passed such a law, as its Westminster and 'Dave' though I can't say that I am surprised.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Do you realise how silly you sound sometimes? I'd love to get a say in why Scottish universities are free unless you're from England, but you know, it's a "Scottish" issue so my MP can't do anything about it.

I hate to say it, but I'm inclined to agree with the above. DINLT, you're not half going into hyperbole.

The truth is, it's a somewhat screwed up solution that will cause problems one way or the other. The logical thing to have done if this route was unavoidable was to

a) set up an English Parliament that functions in the same way as the Scottish one with equivalent devolved powers, or
b) set up English MP's to vote on English only issues (as has just been done), eliminate the Scottish Parliament, and have Scottish MP's deal with Scottish only issues in the same way.

The current approach is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It's problematic in several regards, and will most likely lead to some bloody awkward situations for future Governments who have majorities in one regard but not the others. But blowing it up into some huge constitutional 'Tory pigs screw over the brave Scottish people for cash without representation' headline is misleading at best.

 Ketara wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Do you realise how silly you sound sometimes? I'd love to get a say in why Scottish universities are free unless you're from England, but you know, it's a "Scottish" issue so my MP can't do anything about it.

I hate to say it, but I'm inclined to agree with the above. DINLT, you're not half going into hyperbole.

The truth is, it's a somewhat screwed up solution that will cause problems one way or the other. The logical thing to have done if this route was unavoidable was to

a) set up an English Parliament that functions in the same way as the Scottish one with equivalent devolved powers, or
b) set up English MP's to vote on English only issues (as has just been done), eliminate the Scottish Parliament, and have Scottish MP's deal with Scottish only issues in the same way.

The current approach is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It's problematic in several regards, and will most likely lead to some bloody awkward situations for future Governments who have majorities in one regard but not the others. But blowing it up into some huge constitutional 'Tory pigs screw over the brave Scottish people for cash without representation' headline is misleading at best.

I think I've said this to you before, Ketara, but it's double standards. Transport is devolved to London, but London MPs can still vote on transport issues affecting the NE of England, but NE England MPs have no say on London transport. Nobody moans about that. It's always Scotland having its cake and eating it, but London has been robbing the UK blind for years!

Also, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, and yet, the Tories are trying to spin the line that 59 Scottish MPs can hold 500+ English MPs to ransom!

I know British education is going downhill, but I was always taught that 500 is a greater number than 59.

The idea that Scottish MPs can outvote English MPs is an insult to anybody with 2 brain cells.

England will always have the majority. They could have fixed this mess years ago, but instead, we now have a complete and utter shambles on our hands!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually the local assemblies in NI, Scotland and Wales make health spending decisions. For example, a prescription currently costs £8.20 in England, but the local assemblies have decided it should be free in the other regions.

Voted in by Scottish and Welsh MP's as they knew the Welsh and Scottish governments didn't have to ratify it along with university top-up fees. Frankly I'd have preferred a solution where if a majority is passed by the MP's for those regions the parliaments can't vote it out. They've had a bad habit of voting in unpopular measures for England for the last decade or so.

 welshhoppo wrote:


That's because London is flipping huge and provides quite a big of our revenue.

Its quite irritating, but London does need the support. While it is possible to build industry in other parts of the country. It tends to be easier to do it near the capital.

The trans-Pennine Mega-City that stretches from North Cheshire/Wirral to York has a similar population and the West Midlands isn't far behind: neither gets anywhere near as much as London (London gets 93% of UK infrastructure capital investment).

Either area has a population as big as or bigger than Scotland , and would make an excellent federal state, looking after its own interests locally. Maybe shouldn't put Liverpool in with Manchester though...

The status of banking and financial markets within the UK economy, and the positioning of London as an international tax haven and the rest of us as a service industry for them, is a debate that is long overdue. We can't all move there, we need (again, that word) local jobs and a vibrant local economy in every part of the UK. Amongst its other attributes, money needs VELOCITY - £1 that gets through 20 pairs of hands a year is worth far more than the same £1 that sits in a savings account.

But that would add a lot of red tape and cost a lot of money. Holyrood cost nearly half a billion, and Cardiff bay cost 2.4 billion. (Granted, they redeveloped the whole area, looks pretty nice. But it's no Gower) so I'd assume at least a billion to make a new English Parliament. That's a lot of money, especially seeing as the Tories are very much into austerity (which they do really well, credit where credit is due, it might not be good credit, but they stick to it)

And there is one Country worse that Britain when it comes to localised power. It's Scotland, it is one of the most centralised governements in the world.

Relative centralisation will increase the more distributed power becomes. I'm sure the "Gaelic Mafia" in Scotland will make sure they have their say, and in a smaller country they will have a louder voice. And rightly so - thinly dispersed communities in low-population areas need higher per-capita expenditure. My parents' town has just received a brand spanking new railway (actually a very old one rebuilt) to Edinburgh - prior to that, I believe there was a 2-mile bus journey in the Borders that was one of the most expensive transport fares (per mile) in the world. I live now in an English county with similar problems.

I do agree that the Assembly buildings were white elephants, but again that was money pouring into the local economies - velocity remember. It's out duty, as engaged voters, to hold the politicians and bureaucrats to account.

I also think Austerity is a political agenda dressed up as a necessity, and it becomes a self-sustaining prophecy - the more you squeeze, the less money there is in the economy. We need, however temporarily, to get consumer confidence up and money flowing, not strangle the country. And has it solved anything? No - we're facing another global economic slowdown with nothing but overpriced housing to keep our economy looking good.

Less red tape has us eating Dobbin the horse and probably Cecil the lion from our supermarkets, and allowed car companies and banks to actively lie and dodge regulatory bodies. We don't live in a pure free market, we have and need regulation. Otherwise companies could lie about their financial affairs until they collapsed without warning, your shop could sell you arsenic-laced milk, and the bank/landlord could call in loans and throw you out your home with no notice. Red tape is GOOD when is allows us to trust others.

 Formosa wrote:
Im Welsh btw, so im used to England screwing over the rest of the country.

As well as propping you up financially in pretty much every sector? Think about where you would be if you didn't have English money supporting you, and you only had the funding from your own taxes and exports.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think I've said this to you before, Ketara, but it's double standards. Transport is devolved to London, but London MPs can still vote on transport issues affecting the NE of England, but NE England MPs have no say on London transport. Nobody moans about that. It's always Scotland having its cake and eating it, but London has been robbing the UK blind for years!

Well, that's another debate altogether, really. I think the key point over this one is that complaining that Scottish budgets are affected because of the Barnett formula is to miss the point somewhat.

The Barnett formula means that the amount of money given to public expenditure in Scotland is fixed in relation to the amount given to be spent in England, right? But the amount spent in England would not be decided by this new 'english only' congregation. There won't be any moves to 'spend less money' by an 'English Parliament Treasurer'. The amount of money to be spent in England is determined by the Treasury and Chancellor as allocate din the budget. The new English congregation would be the ones who decided how it was spent, but not how much. Those decisions rest in the hands of the Government of the day.

Also, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, and yet, the Tories are trying to spin the line that 59 Scottish MPs can hold 500+ English MPs to ransom!

The phrase 'balance of power' comes to mind. When a majority is as slim as the current Conservative one, it means that if a small handful of tiny backbenchers opposes something, they can jump in with the SNP and Labour to have it rejected. This means that the government has to work to get SNP or Labour approval of any policies opposed by any substantial minority of it's own MP's. Whereas if the SNP didn't have that many seats, a few rebellious backbenchers wouldn't mean anything.

In other words, it's more to do with the Conservative weakness of position, as opposed to the SNP's strength of position.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think I've said this to you before, Ketara, but it's double standards. Transport is devolved to London, but London MPs can still vote on transport issues affecting the NE of England, but NE England MPs have no say on London transport. Nobody moans about that. It's always Scotland having its cake and eating it, but London has been robbing the UK blind for years!

Well, that's another debate altogether, really. I think the key point over this one is that complaining that Scottish budgets are affected because of the Barnett formula is to miss the point somewhat.

The Barnett formula means that the amount of money given to public expenditure in Scotland is fixed in relation to the amount given to be spent in England, right? But the amount spent in England would not be decided by this new 'english only' congregation. There won't be any moves to 'spend less money' by an 'English Parliament Treasurer'. The amount of money to be spent in England is determined by the Treasury and Chancellor as allocate din the budget. The new English congregation would be the ones who decided how it was spent, but not how much. Those decisions rest in the hands of the Government of the day.

Also, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, and yet, the Tories are trying to spin the line that 59 Scottish MPs can hold 500+ English MPs to ransom!

The phrase 'balance of power' comes to mind. When a majority is as slim as the current Conservative one, it means that if a small handful of tiny backbenchers opposes something, they can jump in with the SNP and Labour to have it rejected. This means that the government has to work to get SNP or Labour approval of any policies opposed by any substantial minority of it's own MP's. Whereas if the SNP didn't have that many seats, a few rebellious backbenchers wouldn't mean anything.

In other words, it's more to do with the Conservative weakness of position, as opposed to the SNP's strength of position.

I was making the point that English MPs will always have a majority compared to the Celtic nations, and a proper devolved settlement for England, with an English parliament, could have been sorted years ago. That they didn't is largely down to the Tories who think that EVEL + boundary changes, will lock Labour out of England and give the Tories an English majority for years.

It is short term, Gerry Mandering from the Tories.

For the record, I love EVEL

People may think I'm complaining, I'm not. This is a gift from the heavens for Scottish independence supporters.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I was making the point that English MPs will always have a majority compared to the Celtic nations, and a proper devolved settlement for England, with an English parliament, could have been sorted years ago. That they didn't is largely down to the Tories who think that EVEL + boundary changes, will lock Labour out of England and give the Tories an English majority for years.

It is short term, Gerry Mandering from the Tories.

For the record, I love EVEL

People may think I'm complaining, I'm not. This is a gift from the heavens for Scottish independence supporters.

But...why? It really has absolutely nothing to do with Scotland, as I just demonstrated. It affects you not one whit.

All this carping about Scottish MP's being a 'second rate member of Parliament' is ludicrous, as our MP's are not second rate MP's because they're not allowed to vote in Scottish affairs. The fact you gents have two chaps to do the job (i.e. exercising power on national affairs and exercising power on local affairs) that we have one chap for doesn't mean the two chaps are somehow 'inferior' to the first one. It just means the power/function has been delegated into two job roles instead of one.

I mean really, if it was an issue, the logical thing to do here would be to pressure for the Scottish members of Parliament to take over the jobs of the Scottish Parliament. Not 'INDEPENDENCE!!!'

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I was making the point that English MPs will always have a majority compared to the Celtic nations, and a proper devolved settlement for England, with an English parliament, could have been sorted years ago. That they didn't is largely down to the Tories who think that EVEL + boundary changes, will lock Labour out of England and give the Tories an English majority for years.

It is short term, Gerry Mandering from the Tories.

For the record, I love EVEL

People may think I'm complaining, I'm not. This is a gift from the heavens for Scottish independence supporters.

But...why? It really has absolutely nothing to do with Scotland, as I just demonstrated. It affects you not one whit.

All this carping about Scottish MP's being a 'second rate member of Parliament' is ludicrous, as our MP's are not second rate MP's because they're not allowed to vote in Scottish affairs. The fact you gents have two chaps to do the job (i.e. exercising power on national affairs and exercising power on local affairs) that we have one chap for doesn't mean the two chaps are somehow 'inferior' to the first one. It just means the power/function has been delegated into two job roles instead of one.

I mean really, if it was an issue, the logical thing to do here would be to pressure for the Scottish members of Parliament to take over the jobs of the Scottish Parliament. Not 'INDEPENDENCE!!!'

Why is EVEL a problem?

For example, if there is a new bridge needing built in Scotland, that comes out of Scotland's money, which is fair enough, and my tax money helps pays for that.

If that new bridge is needing built in London, London takes the cash out of the central pot, which my tax money contributes too, but my MP has no say on that, because it's an English only issue,...

Heathrow expansion will take money from Scotland, and again Scottish MPs are locked out of this...

If English MPs vote to cut funding to the English NHS, that has a knock on effect to the rest of the UK's health budget, but again, my MP has no say on this...

Fiscally, we're a unitary state for funding purposes, but the Tories want to lock us (Scotland/Wales/NI) out of the decision making process.

People will say Scotland has its own health service, which is true. We can decide what we spend the money on, but we don't get to decide how much money we get.

For fiscal purposes, we're either one united kingdom or we're not. EVEL has taken a sledgehammer to this.

Frankly, I think we should all vote for all votes, no separate votes for Scotland or wales, we are all close enough to affect each other - we are united

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

God almighty, where do I begin with this hogwash

Well you began by not addressing it because its not hogwash and you cant.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Orlanth, have you ever heard of the Barnett formula? I don't think you have!

I have heard the same as you, only I know how to interpret it properly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

EVEL is a blatant act of political Gerry-mandering from the Tories.

No it isn't. Its a balancing act ensuring that Scotland doesnt have privileged status above other constituent parts of the UK.
Those issues devolved to Scotland should not have Scottish MPs dictating similar issues in England. So if the Scottish parliament has devolved welfare policy to which English MPs have no input. Scottish MPs should not be able to interfere in welfare policy issues in England.

If health spending is cut in England, that automatically cuts health spending in the rest of the UK, not just Scotland.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By your numbers there are 3 SNP voters to every Tory voter, so that's 75% to 25% and yet,

Its not by my numbers, its by the General Election statistics 2015. Also its also not 75% 25% because of something called the Labour party, and the Liberal Demiocrats, and the Greens.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

despite having the majority of Scottish MPs, SNP amendments on the Scotland bill were voted down by English Tories.

Good.

Can you see why this is good.

Because the amount of devolution from the UK is a matter for the whole of the UK, and not to be decided entirely by the SNP. This is what they want, to be the first and last word on anything regarding to Scotland and the rest of the UK.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Plus, the majority of MPs on the Scotland committee are English. So English MPs get to vote on Scottish matters, but Scottish MPs can't vote on English matters.

Which Scotland committee? The Conversative party one? As they only have one Scottish MP this is not unlikely ansd bringing it up is not a case of the tories misrepresenting. Labour are in the same boat.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Democracy? My A***!

Democracy is working on the results of a ballot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As for my example of a non-English man/woman being unable to become PM, well if a party led by a Scottish MP becomes the government, then we have the ludicrious situation of the Prime Minister not being able to vote on English only matters. Effectively, they would be a lame-duck. Politically, it's a nonsense.

No politically you are spouting nonsense. There wouldnt be a ludicrous position.
Let me see if I can teach you basic logic.
A Scottish Prime Minister will not be able to vote on issues which his own constituents have devolved to Holyrood. His constiuency has representation on select issues devolved to Holyrood and his is not elected to represent people on those regards. A Scottish Prime Minister is first and formost the MP for his constituency, all Prime Ministers are. We dont ever elect a seperate President/Prime Minister. We elect MPs to parliament from local constituency. The party chooses who its leader is. Normally we do this in advance but sometimes one is fostered on us. Gordon Brown was never elected while standing for or as Prime Minister. We have alrerady had a worse position than you put forward in that he was Prime Minister and never even indirectly elected to the role. He was also Scottish.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What if a future labour government needs Scottish and Welsh MPs to form a government? A Tory majority in England can block them. Deadlock. Constitutional crisis.

Where do you get your propaganda from. Someone has been spoon feeding you garbage.

Explain how and where Scottish asnd Welsh MP's are disavowed from helping form a government? Go on try.
And dont copy paste the entire rebuttal and say its hogwash. I will come back to you on this until you post your explanation or admit you have been spouting BS.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly what the Tories want.

Watch out those EVEL Tories are removing Labours ability to add Welsh and Scottish MPs to their total to formk a majority in parliament.
They are also the EVEL cause of global warming, solar flares and zombies.
Busy guys.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Your argument is that the union has fallen because issues that affect only the English are to be voted on only by their locally elected representatives.
My point makes it clear that if this is true, the union fell when the various regional assemblies were set up.
Your horror and outrage therefore seem rather theatrical.

Point.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Why is EVEL a problem?

For example, if there is a new bridge needing built in Scotland, that comes out of Scotland's money, which is fair enough, and my tax money helps pays for that.

If that new bridge is needing built in London, London takes the cash out of the central pot, which my tax money contributes too, but my MP has no say on that, because it's an English only issue,...

Errrr.....But Scotland's money (in the first example) also comes out of the central pot, ultimately. It just stops at one more place before it gets to the bridge. To put it further:-

Scottish Bridge:- All taxpayer pay in -> Central pot of money -> Chunk removed and put in pot marked 'Scotland' -> Scottish MSP's vote to put it into bridge construction

English Bridge:- All taxpayer pay in -> Central pot of money -> English MP's vote to put it into bridge construction

If English MPs vote to cut funding to the English NHS, that has a knock on effect to the rest of the UK's health budget, but again, my MP has no say on this...

No, it doesn't. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides what amount of the budget goes on public utilities as opposed to defence or the judiciary. Not English MP's. And Scotland is represented in the Parliament that the Chancellor comes from.

Fiscally, we're a unitary state for funding purposes, but the Tories want to lock us (Scotland/Wales/NI) out of the decision making process.

People will say Scotland has its own health service, which is true. We can decide what we spend the money on, but we don't get to decide how much money we get.

For fiscal purposes, we're either one united kingdom or we're not. EVEL has taken a sledgehammer to this.

It really, really, has not. Both of your claims above are patently not the case, I'm afraid.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Why is EVEL a problem?

For example, if there is a new bridge needing built in Scotland, that comes out of Scotland's money, which is fair enough, and my tax money helps pays for that.

If that new bridge is needing built in London, London takes the cash out of the central pot, which my tax money contributes too, but my MP has no say on that, because it's an English only issue,...

Heathrow expansion will take money from Scotland, and again Scottish MPs are locked out of this...

If English MPs vote to cut funding to the English NHS, that has a knock on effect to the rest of the UK's health budget, but again, my MP has no say on this...

Fiscally, we're a unitary state for funding purposes, but the Tories want to lock us (Scotland/Wales/NI) out of the decision making process.

People will say Scotland has its own health service, which is true. We can decide what we spend the money on, but we don't get to decide how much money we get.

For fiscal purposes, we're either one united kingdom or we're not. EVEL has taken a sledgehammer to this.

Eh? You seem confused. Every home nation gets a percentage handout of the total money raised as per the Barnett Formula. EVAL mean that how that money is spent in each home nation is that nation's business and no one else's. As I said before, EVAL now stops Blair and Thatcher era ramrodding of policies through by using Scottish sitting MP's to push through legislation that affects only England - again, why is this a bad thing? Being annoyed at the fact that the English can raise and lower their own taxes and how we spend our allocation is not a good enough argument! Having a strop because there's a chance the English could cut taxation for the English only with the knockon effect that Scotland will get less in its Grant is a case of want to have your cake and eat it too.

As an aside - do you have any links and statistics you have, preferably with HMRC figures, that show Scotland pay out more than they get back. SNP press releases don't count!

Oh, and as a further aside, should the Scottish Government get upset when they get a reduced allocation, they can always raise their own taxes to make up the shortfall


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What if a future labour government needs Scottish and Welsh MPs to form a government? A Tory majority in England can block them. Deadlock. Constitutional crisis.

Where do you get your propaganda from. Someone has been spoon feeding you garbage.

Explain how and where Scottish asnd Welsh MP's are disavowed from helping form a government? Go on try.
And dont copy paste the entire rebuttal and say its hogwash. I will come back to you on this until you post your explanation or admit you have been spouting BS.

Seconded.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Why is EVEL a problem?

It would be a problem if what you said was remotely true.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For example, if there is a new bridge needing built in Scotland, that comes out of Scotland's money, which is fair enough, and my tax money helps pays for that.
If that new bridge is needing built in London, London takes the cash out of the central pot, which my tax money contributes too, but my MP has no say on that, because it's an English only issue,...

1. Scotland is raising its own taxation and that money is being spent by Holyrood not Westminister. With exception of funds set aside for centra projects like defence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Heathrow expansion will take money from Scotland, and again Scottish MPs are locked out of this...

You mean the central funding pot the Englsioh taxes go into and Scottish taxes dont? Or another mythical funding pot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If English MPs vote to cut funding to the English NHS, that has a knock on effect to the rest of the UK's health budget, but again, my MP has no say on this...

Good. Its an issue for the English how much is spent on the NHS in England.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fiscally, we're a unitary state for funding purposes, but the Tories want to lock us (Scotland/Wales/NI) out of the decision making process.

No we are not. Some reality for you.

Scotland raises and spends its own taxes:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05984/SN05984.pdf

Holyrood set the tax rates:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/snp-to-consider-raising-scots-income-tax-next-year-1-3795822#axzz3pUtQfCRP

People will say Scotland has its own health service, which is true. We can decide what we spend the money on, but we don't get to decide how much money we get.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For fiscal purposes, we're either one united kingdom or we're not. EVEL has taken a sledgehammer to this.

As kilkrazy stated if this is the case devolution was the sledgehammer.


THE REAL ISSUE.

I honestly think your SNP buddies are laughing at you. Here is what they call a 'neep' who is easy to fill with lies, and lies they have filled you with.

Sorry buddy but on this thread, the actual truth about what is happening with regards to Scotlands relationship with the rest of the UK is almost directly opposite to what you are spouting.
Even the SNP dont make the arguments you are making, because they don't want to look fools. Cybernats to do it for them.

What you have been filled with is Goebbelsesque (is that a word? it is for now). I should feel sympathy for you, but actually I am worried because I see this happening a lot. You are being radicalised. Your political opinions make as much sense as Islamic State's. Now I am not saying you are violent, but I am saying you are likely brainwashed. Its easy to happen. You rile a populace then when you have their attention you will them with lies, as the lies fit their beliefs they want to believe them, and the hatred grows.
It may soon reach a point where you will believe in what you are spouting her so much even direct documentary evidence will not dissuade you, and if it doesn't happen to you it is happening to others. It is getting very nasty and explains why a lot of English homeowners are leaving Scotland right now.

I agree with the above. The Scottish bridge and the English bridge are two different scenarios.

And I'm fairly certain that the last time I checked, Scotland gets grants from rUK. I remember running the numbers once. Scotland can't survive in its current state without that money.


Also, you can't rely on oil. All those figures you had during the referendum about money and oil turned out to be wrong less than six months later because the price of oil dropped like a bomb.


I also agree that we need to have a stronger economy outside of London. I think it has gotten so big, that its starting to become a pain in the butt.

Shame about the collapse of the old industries in the north, but we can't compete with Asia or the US on that, we need something else.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I agree with the above. The Scottish bridge and the English bridge are two different scenarios.

And I'm fairly certain that the last time I checked, Scotland gets grants from rUK. I remember running the numbers once. Scotland can't survive in its current state without that money.

In fact you could say that while devolution means that Scotland claims the entirity of local taxation, and a proportion of national taxation. Eng,land cannot say the same.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Also, you can't rely on oil. All those figures you had during the referendum about money and oil turned out to be wrong less than six months later because the price of oil dropped like a bomb.

They are laying off oil workers in Aberdeen. The oil price volativity is geopolitical and wont last long, prices will rise again. However the problem the North Sea has is that the remaining oil is becoming increasingly expensive to mine. It was far closer tom the point where the remaining reserves were unviable than most predicted.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I also agree that we need to have a stronger economy outside of London. I think it has gotten so big, that its starting to become a pain in the butt.

London is a financial capital, not an industrial hub, this is why there is little trickle around. It is also why the UK cant and wont deal with the bankers. Our economy relies on them, and London has ovetaken and reclaimed its place as the glovbal financial hub over New York.
The EU wants to tax the crap out of this, and is being blocked, and only want to do that to make Dusseldorf bigger.

Our actual industries are mostly high tech and pharmaceuticals. A lot of patent work occurs in the UK. 50$ of global patents are connected to the Uk in some way, but only rarely does the prfit come here. The short termism of Britains busines community is central to this, and that needs a thorough sweeping.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Shame about the collapse of the old industries in the north, but we can't compete with Asia or the US on that, we need something else.

Cameron made a £24Billion deal with China this week. That is mostly for industrial development in the North East. Chinese investment means that the scourge of British industry, the Trades Unions wont get as much of a see in; threats to down tools wont cut any ice with Beijing. The UK has a lot of potential for industry once the Trades Union bugbear is dealt with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Palestine back to the Jews, and Rhodesia back to the Zimbabweans. I think all of those transitions went rather smoothly, with all everyone getting along just swimmingly.

At first I was like "but those didn't go smoothly at all!" Then I was like "ooooooh."

What strikes me about EVEL is what a two finger salute it is to the scots who were convinced (stupidly, in my opinion) by the promises of "The Vow" that they were going to get more devolution.

Then the very next day, Cameron turns around and says it's England that needs more devolution, not Scotland.

The obvious solution is a federal UK with London as an independent city-statelet, like Hamburg, Bremen or Berlin in Germany. You'd have to break England up into regions for it to work, but it's not at all impossible.

It's either that or totally do away with regional assemblies, which is unlikely to work as long as Norn Iron is the way it is.

 Da Boss wrote:
What strikes me about EVEL is what a two finger salute it is to the scots who were convinced (stupidly, in my opinion) by the promises of "The Vow" that they were going to get more devolution.

Then the very next day, Cameron turns around and says it's England that needs more devolution, not Scotland.

The obvious solution is a federal UK with London as an independent city-statelet, like Hamburg, Bremen or Berlin in Germany. You'd have to break England up into regions for it to work, but it's not at all impossible.

It's either that or totally do away with regional assemblies, which is unlikely to work as long as Norn Iron is the way it is.

Indeed. Cameron was clever enough to break the Labour Party as part of the referendum (although arguably they did that to themselves), but at the cost of most likely dooming the union.

I believe he thinks it's worth it - he's knocked a fairer voting system on the head and he's busy redrawing electoral boundaries to ensure a permanent Tory majority in England. Of course the SNP managed to break a similar set-up in Scotland - and the stronger you make the box, the bigger the beast when it finally does break out.

Why am I so confident that this government will fall eventually? Because they turn everything they touch to poop. The armed forces are the weakest they have been in ages - we have more admirals than ships. No Fleet Air Arm or indeed a carrier to put it on. Conservative voters are publically waking up to the fact that they're going to lose a lot of money over tax credits, and they're going to get fracking in their backyard whether they like it or not. Senior doctors have warned that the Health Service is at the point of systemic failure. And I have a horrible feeling that we're going to see just how weak the economy is in the next couple of years. The Tories are basically good at making money for themselves - they're rubbish with the economy, other people and even foreign policy.

The Conservative Party has two wings at least - socially conservative at the grassroots and economically hyper-liberal at the top. Although generally authoritarian, many individuals have a strong libertarian streak. Europe is pretty much THE issue that pushes all the wrong buttons for Conservative unity.

Of course if you listened to newspaper dog-whistlers, everything that's wrong with this country is the fault of the Scots, the unions and Jeremy Corbyn - personally. There are good reasons the Tories were out of power for two decades, and good reason it may happen again soon.

Sorry - diversion over.

Lengthy responses from Orlanth, Ketara, Welsh Hoppo, and Zedmeister, so instead of replying individual to each post (it's Saturday night, and I'm heading out soon) here is my general response.

Thanks to North Sea oil, Scotland has been a NET CONTRIBUTOR to the UK for years, but despite this, a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that we in Scotland are subsidy junkies.

The reality is that Scotland more than pays for Barnett. We know as a matter of fact that the McCrone report was deliberately supressed for years to hid the true extent of Scotland's wealth.

Being part of the UK and not having full access to this cash, Scotland is around £200 billion worse off than it would have been if it had been Independent...

And thanks to Westminster, Scotland is also saddled with a massive share of the UK's deficit.

Unionists will say that Scotland gets higher levels of public spending per head (£1200 per person) but when you're sending £1700 per person in tax receipts, it's the very least you'd expect

Naturally, of course, nobody bats an eyelid at the higher levels of spending in London. The vast bulk of infrastructure spending in the UK goes London way, but hey, Scotland is the one with the begging bowl out all the time

And of naturally, Scotland had to pay for the London Olympics, and will pay for HS2 from London to that well known Scottish city called Birmingham

And a Heathrow expansion as well, even though it will stifle Scottish airports and airports in the North of England.

My tax money will be paying for stuff that my MP won't be able to vote on...

And we get the privilege of paying for nuclear weapons that a big majority in Scotland don't want...

Why is EVEL evil?

Hypothetical situation: labour government, with a majority, but no majority in England. Labour Prime Minister is Welsh.

He can bring forward a bill, vote on it, but because the Tories have a majority in England, they can veto it under the guise of it being an English issue...

End result: Labour Prime Minister is a lame duck, a laughing stock, and don't think the Tories wouldn't do this. It's all politics.

Similarly, how can you have a Welsh Health secretary in Westminster? Or A Scottish Chancellor? Or a Scottish Education secretary?

You can't because they would be lame ducks under EVEL.

The act of union also says that all MPs are equal...not any more...

English MPs also sit on Scottish committees, and theoretically, we could have a nuclear power plant built in Scotland, even if every Scottish MP were against it...

People think it's an SNP problem/issue. It's not. Labour are screwed if they can't win an English majority because the Tories will dreadlock their MPs from Scotland and Wales, and the boundary changes make it harder for Labour to win in England.

In short, and I'm repeating myself, EVEL is the Tories Gerry-mandering the situation for their own benefits.

Scottish MPs have only affected English only issues 0.7% of the time in the last 20 years or something, according to the HOC library. . The Tories are making a mountain out of a molehill with EVEL.

EVEL also politicises the neutral speaker and will see all sorts of legal challenges flying his way.

To expand on point about the Scottish bridge, that was raised from funding that came directly from Scotland. I paid into that as a taxpayer. Westminster told Scotland to pay for its own bridge.

The London bridge, however, was taken from the central pot, which I also paid into, and I get the privilege of paying for London bridges as well.

So London gets a bridge from my money, but London doesn't have to pay for my bridge...

And my MP has no say on this because he's Scottish and this is an English issue...

Right....

No taxation without representation. If my tax money is going to London, but my MP has no say on how money is spent in London...Revolution!

And finally, for the record, despite my moaning, I AM FETHING OVERJOYED AT THE PASSING OF EVEL

It makes Scottish independence all the more likely.

I'm not an economist, but this report says that Scotland has been taking in more money that it gives away.


http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/simple-summary.html


For those who can't see it, it basically shows Scotland has been a net beneficiary (it takes more money than it gives) for 12 of the past 15 years.

I'm all for EVEL. I think that all countries should have a devolved parliament much like we do in Scotland. My only issue is this seems like a half assed way to do it when some time could have been taken to really create an enduring and lasting legacy towards English devolution or whatever it should be called.

I'm concerned it also damages the non partisan nature of the Speakers role.

Although I voted SNP and Yes I don't really see this as a major win for the argument for independence, however I admit my views have changed towards remaining part of the Union.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


... other hyperbole that's repeated again despite previously being repudiated ...

It makes Scottish independence all the more likely.

No, it really doesn't. SNP would like to try to turn anything that doesn't go their way as an opportunity to force another vote, kind of like a ratchet democracy.

Also, waiting for evidence on how Scotland gets less than it pays out? At the moment, from what I can see in that blog posted above, Scotland has only been a Net Contributor in 3 of the last 15 years. Come again on how Scotland tax pays for England projects?

I got quite curious over the course of the referendum as to whether or not Scotland paid it's way. After actually digging into the financial figures for about half an hour, the result was that Scotland didn't raise enough in tax revenue to get near to meeting it's government expenditure, it was only if you took the oil sales into account that the books balanced (and went slightly back the other way).

So yes, if you include oil, Scotland has paid in slightly more than they've received the last decade or so. But the flip side of the coin is that the oil price has now crashed. Had Scotland gone independent, they'd be in the serious economic doldrums right about now. But because they're part of the UK, the standard of living and budget will be maintained.

It does irritate me slightly though, that the SNP lot crowed on about how Scotland was propping up the UK during the indie campaign as a crowbar to bludgeon the opposition, but now the flip side is true and Scotland is drawing on the financial reserves of the UK, no-one is turning around and saying, 'Huh, this Union thing is financially useful after all'. It's almost as if they're all for financial independence when the going looks good, but when things aren't so bright economically, it's all for one and one for all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I was making the point that English MPs will always have a majority compared to the Celtic nations, and a proper devolved settlement for England, with an English parliament, could have been sorted years ago. That they didn't is largely down to the Tories who think that EVEL + boundary changes, will lock Labour out of England and give the Tories an English majority for years.

It is short term, Gerry Mandering from the Tories.

For the record, I love EVEL

People may think I'm complaining, I'm not. This is a gift from the heavens for Scottish independence supporters.

But...why? It really has absolutely nothing to do with Scotland, as I just demonstrated. It affects you not one whit.

All this carping about Scottish MP's being a 'second rate member of Parliament' is ludicrous, as our MP's are not second rate MP's because they're not allowed to vote in Scottish affairs. The fact you gents have two chaps to do the job (i.e. exercising power on national affairs and exercising power on local affairs) that we have one chap for doesn't mean the two chaps are somehow 'inferior' to the first one. It just means the power/function has been delegated into two job roles instead of one.

I mean really, if it was an issue, the logical thing to do here would be to pressure for the Scottish members of Parliament to take over the jobs of the Scottish Parliament. Not 'INDEPENDENCE!!!'

Why is EVEL a problem?

For example, if there is a new bridge needing built in Scotland, that comes out of Scotland's money, which is fair enough, and my tax money helps pays for that.

If that new bridge is needing built in London, London takes the cash out of the central pot, which my tax money contributes too, but my MP has no say on that, because it's an English only issue,...

...

Scotland's money also comes out of the central pot. In fact, the Barnet Formula has for decades ensured that Scotland gets a bigger slice out of the central pot than England.

Hey weird question but where is the information for the breaking up of Great Britain.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office

Just google Scottish Referendum. That's the current situation. It's all over the Internet.

This current situation is caused by a bill known as English votes for English laws.