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.

 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.