Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?