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.

 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.