Could the change to devolution have been handled better?

[Jdsk]

The clock mechanism was overhauled in Cumbria. At least it brought some work North.

This year's George Daniels Lecture:

"The Conservation of the Great Clock of Westminster, Big Ben":
Wednesday, 30th November 2022, 18:15 – 20:30
https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/ ... A9,WV7TY,1

Jonathan

[Biospace]

Basically I'm thinking of equal arrangement for several parts of the whole of the United Kingdom such that there is more localism but at the same level and maintaining the larger unit. Not a parliament here, assembly there and even less somewhere else. I don't agree with selective and uneven devolution. I also don't think the 4 nations are the right boundaries to devolve power to.

Yes, this.

As someone else noted, 'Federal' is a dirty word in UK politics so another word would need to be invented. The uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity around Britain is leading London and the South-East to overheat badly, draining regions of good brains and generally having a bad effect on the nations as a whole.

The Scottish Parliament has not improved stability or wealth for Scots, rather it has led to a lack of representative power in Westminster which has only increased the bubble of arrogance which bursts out of that Palace, worsening matters for everyone outside of London/SE and further reducing bonds which hold together The Union.

The North of England at times can seem a disaster of infrastructure and planning, seen by Westminster as a culturally and economically impoverished backwater - a mistaken, long-lived and deep-seated attitude which can trace its origins all the way back to the genocidal Harrying of the North. Scots moan that they have endured over 300 years of rule from Westminster, here in The North we've been subjected to this for 1000 years.

The current political systems represent reality poorly, many of the early 70s re-drawing of boundaries were a failure. The most succesful bondaries are ones which are historically rooted and plenty of historical regions exist no more yet their people and language do, quite distinctly. A UK made up of a small group of self-governing regions under an umbrella of central government could solve a lot of the frictions which plague us at present, release energy to improve all our lives and increase stability in an increasingly uncertain world in a way that devolved assemblies rarely do.

What is wrong with devolution? In Scotland we control almost all day to day matters. Land use. Roads. Health. Education. Police. Fire. Local Govt. Income Tax

What advantages would a federal system have?

The beauty of a federal system when run well is that decisions are made as locally as possible and no higher than necessary.

[Tangled Metal]

Devolution is great but not selective Devolution across the union and not Devolution that gives some nations more influence over other nations than the reciprocal. My point was that Devolution should have been equal across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but due to the size of England there's compelling arguments that Devolution in England should have been further split into large regions of England.

Iirc devolution in the North East was more like creating a super county than a devolved parliament like Scotland has.

Tbh the least that should have happened was for every devolved power the devolved parliaments or assemblies got the nations MPs lost the right to debate and vote on in Westminster. Of course that would probably mean tory control of England. Not to Bliar's liking no doubt hence the system we got.

Whatever the situation devolution should have always been about giving power to the people in an equal / equitable way or no devolution. My view and if I'd been Scottish I'd probably hold it still.

[Jdsk]

...
The beauty of a federal system when run well is that decisions are made as locally as possible and no higher than necessary.

Yes. And the enormous and excessive centralisation in the UK system often isn't recognised by people who haven't lived in other systems or studied how they work.

Jonathan

PS: That subsidiarity is a moral principle of Roman Catholicism!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiar ... olicism%29

[Tangled Metal]

Well if the clerks for the earliest forms of England's civil service came from clerics of the Holy Church of Rome I guess it's not surprising that the political system mirrored the Catholic ideas on subsidiarity.

[pwa]

Devolution is great but not selective Devolution across the union and not Devolution that gives some nations more influence over other nations than the reciprocal. My point was that Devolution should have been equal across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but due to the size of England there's compelling arguments that Devolution in England should have been further split into large regions of England.

Iirc devolution in the North East was more like creating a super county than a devolved parliament like Scotland has.

Tbh the least that should have happened was for every devolved power the devolved parliaments or assemblies got the nations MPs lost the right to debate and vote on in Westminster. Of course that would probably mean tory control of England. Not to Bliar's liking no doubt hence the system we got.

Whatever the situation devolution should have always been about giving power to the people in an equal / equitable way or no devolution. My view and if I'd been Scottish I'd probably hold it still.

To be fair to the man (yes, even him) I don't think he saw the system we ended up with as ideal. He favoured a stronger role for regional government, but couldn't get popular support for it in England. And even in Wales, with its well established spearate identity, it was a close thing whether devolution would get the nod from the electorate.

[Tangled Metal]

Does anyone know why northeast got a devolution referendum but northwest, South West Midlands, etc didn't? Was it purely that if it went to yes then the likelihood was that the devolved institution would be controlled by the party in power at the time? Is that a cynical idea of mine or was it true?

[Tangled Metal]

Devolution is great but not selective Devolution across the union and not Devolution that gives some nations more influence over other nations than the reciprocal. My point was that Devolution should have been equal across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but due to the size of England there's compelling arguments that Devolution in England should have been further split into large regions of England.

Iirc devolution in the North East was more like creating a super county than a devolved parliament like Scotland has.

Tbh the least that should have happened was for every devolved power the devolved parliaments or assemblies got the nations MPs lost the right to debate and vote on in Westminster. Of course that would probably mean tory control of England. Not to Bliar's liking no doubt hence the system we got.

Whatever the situation devolution should have always been about giving power to the people in an equal / equitable way or no devolution. My view and if I'd been Scottish I'd probably hold it still.

To be fair to the man (yes, even him) I don't think he saw the system we ended up with as ideal. He favoured a stronger role for regional government, but couldn't get popular support for it in England. And even in Wales, with its well established spearate identity, it was a close thing whether devolution would get the nod from the electorate.

Well I'm afraid my view is that it's better to not have devolution if it's not fair across the union. Better to dissolve the union and let the Scottish Nats have independence I reckon. I don't think it's right to be fair to Bliar. He messed around with a system without any prospect of parity across the union. Without understanding or caring about the result being fair. I think it's another Bliar failure along with dodgy dossier.

[Jdsk]

Does anyone know why northeast got a devolution referendum but northwest, South West Midlands, etc didn't? Was it purely that if it went to yes then the likelihood was that the devolved institution would be controlled by the party in power at the time? Is that a cynical idea of mine or was it true?

There's a brief summary in the first paragraph of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Nort ... referendum
and more background in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ ... _(England)

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

PS my autocorrect seems to be stuck on Bliar. It sometimes gets it right...

[pwa]

Devolution is great but not selective Devolution across the union and not Devolution that gives some nations more influence over other nations than the reciprocal. My point was that Devolution should have been equal across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but due to the size of England there's compelling arguments that Devolution in England should have been further split into large regions of England.

Iirc devolution in the North East was more like creating a super county than a devolved parliament like Scotland has.

Tbh the least that should have happened was for every devolved power the devolved parliaments or assemblies got the nations MPs lost the right to debate and vote on in Westminster. Of course that would probably mean tory control of England. Not to Bliar's liking no doubt hence the system we got.

Whatever the situation devolution should have always been about giving power to the people in an equal / equitable way or no devolution. My view and if I'd been Scottish I'd probably hold it still.

To be fair to the man (yes, even him) I don't think he saw the system we ended up with as ideal. He favoured a stronger role for regional government, but couldn't get popular support for it in England. And even in Wales, with its well established spearate identity, it was a close thing whether devolution would get the nod from the electorate.

Well I'm afraid my view is that it's better to not have devolution if it's not fair across the union. Better to dissolve the union and let the Scottish Nats have independence I reckon. I don't think it's right to be fair to Bliar. He messed around with a system without any prospect of parity across the union. Without understanding or caring about the result being fair. I think it's another Bliar failure along with dodgy dossier.

What the Scots do is up to them. But here in Wales we like our devolution and wouldn't want to go back to having everything run from Westminster. And nor would we want total independence, something that is desired by only by a minority here. Mostly, we want to run what we can run ourselves, but under the umbrella of the UK. And we are happy for England to organise itself as the English voters see fit. If you want a federal England, tell your MP.

[Tangled Metal]

Does anyone know why northeast got a devolution referendum but northwest, South West Midlands, etc didn't? Was it purely that if it went to yes then the likelihood was that the devolved institution would be controlled by the party in power at the time? Is that a cynical idea of mine or was it true?

There's a brief summary in the first paragraph of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Nort ... referendum
and more background in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ ... _(England)

Jonathan

Why continue with one referendum but n not the other two? Oh! They kept the one most likely to back devolution. Wrong headed approach again. Unequal approach. Seems Bliar was about trying to only do things it would win out of. Maybe they should have tried getting away with gerrymandering too. Hmm! Wasn't there something about electoral boundaries favoring Labour already? Democracy is not very even. I remember one GE seeing an electoral power map. If your constituency had a score of 1 it was equal but less than one less power, greater more power. I think it basically meant the real election result is mostly decided by votes in a smaller number of constituency. I've only lived where there's be a score a lot less than 1.

[Tangled Metal]

To be fair to the man (yes, even him) I don't think he saw the system we ended up with as ideal. He favoured a stronger role for regional government, but couldn't get popular support for it in England. And even in Wales, with its well established spearate identity, it was a close thing whether devolution would get the nod from the electorate.

Well I'm afraid my view is that it's better to not have devolution if it's not fair across the union. Better to dissolve the union and let the Scottish Nats have independence I reckon. I don't think it's right to be fair to Bliar. He messed around with a system without any prospect of parity across the union. Without understanding or caring about the result being fair. I think it's another Bliar failure along with dodgy dossier.

What the Scots do is up to them. But here in Wales we like our devolution and wouldn't want to go back to having everything run from Westminster. And nor would we want total independence, something that is desired by only by a minority here. Mostly, we want to run what we can run ourselves, but under the umbrella of the UK. And we are happy for England to organise itself as the English voters see fit. If you want a federal England, tell your MP.

That's a good outcome for Wales and you. My view is you should not have that without all the union having it n equally.

[Jdsk]

Does anyone know why northeast got a devolution referendum but northwest, South West Midlands, etc didn't? Was it purely that if it went to yes then the likelihood was that the devolved institution would be controlled by the party in power at the time? Is that a cynical idea of mine or was it true?

There's a brief summary in the first paragraph of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Nort ... referendum
and more background in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ ... _(England)

Why continue with one referendum but n not the other two? Oh! They kept the one most likely to back devolution. Wrong headed approach again. Unequal approach. Seems Bliar was about trying to only do things it would win out of. Maybe they should have tried getting away with gerrymandering too. Hmm! Wasn't there something about electoral boundaries favoring Labour already? Democracy is not very even. I remember one GE seeing an electoral power map. If your constituency had a score of 1 it was equal but less than one less power, greater more power. I think it basically meant the real election result is mostly decided by votes in a smaller number of constituency. I've only lived where there's be a score a lot less than 1.

I think that it was a serious attempt at much-needed constitutional improvement but that it got caught up in practicalities.

(As with the House of Lords.)

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

So half @rsed? By that I mean they didn't solve the practicalities but went ahead anyway.