English votes for English laws

[TonyR]

The problem with English votes for English Laws is that it's the Parliament of Great Britain. With 59 Scottish MPs (almost 10% of the total number of MPs) who wouldn't feel rigthly aggrieved at such a cynical proposal. The last time I looked we were still a United kingdom. Which means I can travel and work and vote anywhere in the British Isles I desire and no one to impede me.

That's great. So can my (English) MP vote in Parliament on the matters which have been devolved to Scotland please on the basis we are still a United Kingdom? And should the 90% of MPs feel aggrieved if they can't? It seems to me what has been proposed is a simple solution to not setting up a devolved English Parliament (with all its costs) to vote on English matters with the UK Parliament left to vote on what's left of the national powers.

[TonyR]

The Scots MPs have had a self imposed moratorium on voting English only issues and have exercised this abstention for many years now.

I think you'll find its "had had". They decided to end it this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... t-from-snp

[al_yrpal]

English votes for English only laws sounds fine to me. If the Scots want to be independent thats fine too.

Al

[Tangled Metal]

Except the right to vote on issues affecting Scotland, part of Welsh issues and part of northern Irish issues. In that way they're more like the English MPs. They can of course vote on Scottish issues locally in Scotland if they still claim to live there. You can never be sure where MPs are claiming to live.

The above was a long time posting. A reply to an earlier post from y@h.

[Tangled Metal]

I think nobody can agree the current system is right and fair. Start from there and perhaps get a forum agreement b on the best system with equal rights and representation for all.

BTW the idea of no change that costs more than spent now perhaps should have been applied to devolution in Scotland. Now that's out of the bag it's unfair to apply that extra rule to anything that changes to make a fair solution for all.

[Psamathe]

I think nobody can agree the current system is right and fair. Start from there and perhaps get a forum agreement b on the best system with equal rights and representation for all....

I agree. I also think that for England, having a Parliament outside London/SE could have massive benefits in how those elected representatives think about England and what they are doing.

...
BTW the idea of no change that costs more than spent now perhaps should have been applied to devolution in Scotland. Now that's out of the bag it's unfair to apply that extra rule to anything that changes to make a fair solution for all.

I also agree. But also think that the existing Westminster is run as a very lavish operation. Look at the recent arguments over the canteen subsidy (a yearly subsidy of £1.3m - just for Lords food and drink). I suspect that were there to be just a teeny bit of sanity brought to Westminster than another Parliament elsewhere in England could be run with very little increase in overall expenditure (and we would find them an existing building, not have architects design some modern statement/work of art and then pay for it to be built). I think Scotland was done on a big'ish budget. I'm sure we can reduce existing Westminster costs a lot and the English Parliament can be set up on a more sensible basis from day 1.

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

I also agree. But also think that the existing Westminster is run as a very lavish operation. Look at the recent arguments over the canteen subsidy (a yearly subsidy of £1.3m - just for Lords food and drink). I suspect that were there to be just a teeny bit of sanity brought to Westminster than another Parliament elsewhere in England could be run with very little increase in overall expenditure (and we would find them an existing building, not have architects design some modern statement/work of art and then pay for it to be built). I think Scotland was done on a big'ish budget. I'm sure we can reduce existing Westminster costs a lot and the English Parliament can be set up on a more sensible basis from day 1.

Ian

The Scottish Parliament building cost £414 million. It was ten times over budget. We didn't really hear too much about it because Donald Dewar was where the buck stopped and he died around the time it was being finished - not talking ill of the dead and all that.

It's also regularly been voted one if the buildings Britons would most like to see demolished. I've seen it regularly and I think it's awful. Subjective I know but obviously lots agree.

[Tangled Metal]

£414m? Well in the interests of equality that should be a the final budget for an English parliament building. Same for Wales and northern Ireland although I think Wales has its assembly building built for £69.6m. The northern Ireland parliament building cost £20,000 for the grounds and £1.7m for the building back in 1932. That's £976k and £82.9m in today's money. It all makes the Scottish parliament seem very expensive somehow. That's £444m in today's money.

All talk of cost is a diversion away from the core issues over democratic representation evenly around the union. IMHO the other aspect is constituency size being more evenly arranged.I believe that an electoral constituency body has independent responsibility and b power to change constituencies for each election based on population size. What I mean smaller areas in built up constituencies and the opposite in rural constituencies so that each has the same number of eligible voters. Or as much as it is possible to do so. It's ot but IMHO representation has issues based on equality of representation if that makes any sense.

[ambodach]

I think Donald Dewar was having a bit of a laugh when he commissioned the building for the Scottish Parliament. I agree it is dreadful.
One thing not mentioned so far is that decisions on English only matters ( health service funding for example) have a knock on effect on funding available to Scotland for their NHS. So if Scotland want to maintain or increase funding for health service the money has to be "stolen" from some other budget. Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on matters which affect Scotland in this case. Result is less money available all round or increase taxes. A sly way to try to make the SNP unpopular?
There are other instances of undermining the Scottish govt. by underhand means but that is really off topic.

[Shootist]

All of this thread serves to demonstrate just what an unholy mess UK politics has become in an effort to be 'fair', and, possibly as a consequence, just how much people know of it, i.e. not very. Most interesting, for me at least, is in the last general election the SNP had a total number of votes of 1,454,436 which resulted in 56 MPs. UKIP had 3,881,099 votes and yet has only 1 MP. Hardly democracy at it's finest.

All I would add is that the next vote on Scottish independence should be held among the rest of the UK only. I think that the Scots would then walk it.

[TonyR]

One thing not mentioned so far is that decisions on English only matters ( health service funding for example) have a knock on effect on funding available to Scotland for their NHS. So if Scotland want to maintain or increase funding for health service the money has to be "stolen" from some other budget. Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on matters which affect Scotland in this case.

What about the reciprocal argument that decisions devolved to the Scottish Parliament can have a knock on effect on England (& Wales and NI)? Are you arguing for an end to devolution?

There are a whole load of issues within Scotland that Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on, so why are they so upset about not being allowed to vote on some issues in another country?

[Shootist]

One thing not mentioned so far is that decisions on English only matters ( health service funding for example) have a knock on effect on funding available to Scotland for their NHS. So if Scotland want to maintain or increase funding for health service the money has to be "stolen" from some other budget. Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on matters which affect Scotland in this case.

What about the reciprocal argument that decisions devolved to the Scottish Parliament can have a knock on effect on England (& Wales and NI)? Are you arguing for an end to devolution?

There are a whole load of issues within Scotland that Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on, so why are they so upset about not being allowed to vote on some issues in another country?

Are you suggesting there is a whole load of issues within Scotland that Scottish MPs are 'Not allowed to vote on'? I don't think that is the case. But if you are suggesting that there is a whole load of issues within Scotland that Scottish MPs are not exclusively allowed to vote on then you may be right. I'm not arguing for or against devolution, although I think the UK would be better served if it runs as one country, or even a Federalist Union. But I do dislike this piecemeal approach to taking the bits you like (power) and not wanting those bits that accompany it (responsibility). Rather than that I would vote for full blooded independence for England, Scotland, and Wales. Ireland can sort itself out one way or the other as far as I'm concerned.

[Psamathe]

...
One thing not mentioned so far is that decisions on English only matters ( health service funding for example) have a knock on effect on funding available to Scotland for their NHS. So if Scotland want to maintain or increase funding for health service the money has to be "stolen" from some other budget. Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on matters which affect Scotland in this case. Result is less money available all round or increase taxes. A sly way to try to make the SNP unpopular?
There are other instances of undermining the Scottish govt. by underhand means but that is really off topic.

Which is maybe why the Conservatives proposal for their solution is such a dogs breakfast. Create a proper English Parliament, fund it in the same way as the Scottish Parliament s funded, give it the same powers, elect it in the same way, etc. and I see virtually all such problems disappearing.

Ian

[TonyR]

Which is maybe why the Conservatives proposal for their solution is such a dogs breakfast. Create a proper English Parliament, fund it in the same way as the Scottish Parliament s funded, give it the same powers, elect it in the same way, etc. and I see virtually all such problems disappearing.

Which will double the cost and the number of politicians we have. A better solution would be to expand the Tory proposal, get rid of the Scottish Parliament with all its costs and problems and replicate EVEL with SVSL using the Scottish MPs (and WVWL)

[Psamathe]

Which is maybe why the Conservatives proposal for their solution is such a dogs breakfast. Create a proper English Parliament, fund it in the same way as the Scottish Parliament s funded, give it the same powers, elect it in the same way, etc. and I see virtually all such problems disappearing.

Which will double the cost and the number of politicians we have. A better solution would be to expand the Tory proposal, get rid of the Scottish Parliament with all its costs and problems and replicate EVEL with SVSL using the Scottish MPs (and WVWL)

As I said earlier, I don't think it would double the costs. Bring a bit of sanity to the expenditure on the Commons and Lords (just look at the Lords subsidised canteen for example). Create an English Parliament in Newcastle, just kit out a warehouse building, nothing fancy, nothing "artistic".

In practice I can see no way they would get rid of the Scottish Parliament (your EVEL/SVSL might be the way things should have been done, but from where we are now and the number of Scottish people seeking independence, it's not going to happen).

If you create an English Parliament, it will lower the workload for the UK Parliament and things could undoubtedly be cut back. I doubt anybody is going to be able to stop Cameron making more and more and more peers (he has a lot of mates and there are a lot of party donors). But if somebody could find a way to make them step down faster than Cameron can appoint them.

But, whilst I can think about such things, our politicians are never going to do anything even close (not even close to anything half sensible). They seem totally incapable of organising anything sensibly - probably self interest, power seeking, and lack of experience, etc.

Ian