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.

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

BUT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble ahead...

How does this jive with Scotland wanting to bail?

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

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

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

Justification?

Dunno.

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

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

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

Probably the Queen.

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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

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

This is a gift from the heavens for us.

Good. England deserves it.

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

Hell no!

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

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

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

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

Do the maths

 Goliath wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

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

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

Do the maths

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

Here's an example for the Americans:

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

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

This will not end well.

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

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

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

This will not end well.

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

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

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

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

This will not end well.

That's...

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

Ooooh boy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will not end well.

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

Same for education

And your own tax rate

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

 whembly wrote:

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

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

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

This will not end well.

That's...

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

Ooooh boy.

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

O say can you see

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

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

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

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

This will not end well.

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

Same for education

And your own tax rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

BEAAANGAHZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

Do the maths...

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

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