Scotland is poised to reject independence – but only based on the votes of half a million English living north of the border.
Scottish-born voters are evenly split, 48 per cent to 48 per cent, with just six days to go before next week’s historic referendum, according to a poll published last night.
But after the 477,000 voters born in England are taken into account - as well as tens of thousands of Welsh, Northern Irish and foreigners entitled to take part on Thursday - the ‘No’ to independence campaign enjoys a four point lead.
Immigration is going to derail independence for the SNP and yet they are so keen on it and want lots more.
Scotland does need it's own immigration policy though, but separate residency rights are still possible. Plus we get to cap citizenship, which is great for us as we need to give them a quota.
I think Canada insists new migrants have to live and work in low population areas before they move around freely for a few years, so it is not without precedent. It would take the strain off the south east.
We could cap the numbers low for England and divert the excess to Scotland. No one can then accuse us of not taking the best people etc.
That doesn't make any sense. An English parliament would have exactly the same powers as a Scottish Parliament under the devolved settlement. The size of the population has nothing to do with it.
I realise that. I was just referring to the fact that its size would make it almost as powerful as the UK govt, if not more so. This could be a problem.
The London Assembly while unique is really not much more than a grander form of a county council. It doesn't have the same devolved powers as the Scottish government or even the Welsh Assembly. In many instances it has less powers than a county council as it does not have responsibility for council housing, schools, social services and hospitals. There is nothing to stop the powers it has being given to other metropolitan areas or county councils if they don't already have them.
Using it as an argument for further devolution within England is a flawed one.
In which case they'll have no problem with losing their existing powers, will they.
I see no justification whatsoever for giving one part of England more powers than the rest, when that part already is the hub of power for the UK.
They should lose their privileged status IMMEDIATELY on the formation of an English parliament, if devolved powers are to be denied to the regions of England. Anything less is thoroughly unacceptable.
Any form of government has to be implemented on the basis of equal democratic provision for every citizen of the country regardless of where they come from.
You have either centralised government, devolved based on the regions and nations or devolved based on the nations. London is an anomaly under the latter system and it is disgraceful that Londoners should be given preferential treatment.
Err, well if you read my post it is sort of obvious.
The SNP is always whining during immigration debates in the Commons about how Scotland must have more migrants. Problem is the migrants are going to cost them their independence.
The referendum should have been Scottish born with Scottish ancestry only. At least three generations, whether they live there or not.
Scots are split 48% / 48%, add the immigrants and the pro union side win.
Unionists however will point to the 750,000 Scots living in England, many of whom are strongly anti-independence, that cannot vote next week.
Overall, some 63 per cent of English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters living in Scotland are planning to reject independence, according to last night’s YouGov survey.
Just 27 per cent of non-Scottish Brits plan to vote for independence and only a third of those born outside the UK.
More than half of foreign immigrants living in Scotland plan to against separation.
That doesn't make any sense. An English parliament would have exactly the same powers as a Scottish Parliament under the devolved settlement. The size of the population has nothing to do with it.
This is correct. If the devolving of powers to four national parliaments is genuine, fair, and conducted on an equal basis, then the population size of each isn't an issue - as no single country's parliament could impose it's will on another.
There are a lot of successful federal countries out there and I'm broadly in favour of the structure which seems to be emerging in discussions - one UK parliament with four national parliaments exercising an equal measure of devolved power. The one thing we absolutely mustn't do under such a structure is make UK-wide decisions on the basis of what the four national parliaments think. That's what they did with the six (later eight) constituent republics in Yugoslavia, and it contributed massively to the breakup of that country.
London as a capital territory would substantially reduce the size of England.
London's overrated. Without the rest of the country where would it get it's power from or food? Some of the water probably comes from outside and the sewage has to go somewhere.
Could A No Vote Lead To The UK Becoming A Federal Country?
Unlikely.
For starters, we'd need a written constiution.
I don't think this is as unlikely as you suggest. You could probably accomplish the same end result with a series of parliamentary acts - but frankly I've been an advocate of a written constitution for years and I'd be glad to see one ratified. It would be long overdue, and the way the winds are blowing I don't think it's all that unlikely.
I realise that. I was just referring to the fact that its size would make it almost as powerful as the UK govt, if not more so. This could be a problem.
But it wouldn't because its powers would be stipulated by devolution. For example, the Scottish Government is currently responsible for matters like agriculture and health. An English parliament would be restricted to those same matters for England. The UK government would be responsible for foreign affairs, defence and overall economic policy.
So basically the big three parties are saying vote no and we will give you home rule or Devo max. Then they go on to list all the things that they wont give them.
They now have to mix all three plans together and come up with something they all agree on, on a fixed and promised timetable.
On first inspection their plans do not seem very impressive compared to voting yes for independence.
Thats because voting yes for independence doesn't actually provide anything it promises. It means less money to spend in Scotland - and less money and the freedom to spend it just means the freedom to spend.less money. If they want to miantain UK benefits and pension rates, and current services,, plus the Scottish gains from the current system like inffated NHS spending, and inflated numbers of dispersed UK civil servants Scots have to vote no - unless they really think Mr salmond can massively improve the Scottish economy, or find cuts elsewhere to sustain what Scots have now.
There's a curious, indeed bizarre, disconnect in the polls on that. The yes camp is primarily voting for "freedom" from Westminster. But only 25% are voting because they think they would be worse, or better off. Thats bizarre because "freedom to be worse off," and do less of whats fairer and what you want to, is nonsense as a freedom. Its like the teen ruinaway's claim to be free - as they doss down in the snow in the street.
There seems to be three problems there. The first is that many Scots seem to be where the Labour party was pre 1976 - there's a denial that money is finite, that choices have to be made, and that the world won't let you ignore your debts and spend what you like. The second is that the campaign has brought in many non voters who have no understanding of anything much - like the 16 year old on the news voting because he didn't want to have to pay for NHS treatment if he fell over. The third is that anyone who indicates the problems is discounted as bullying, or lying - when almost all the problems stem from basic economic theory, that anyone could read in an A level economics text, and political reality.
The third is a distorted battle because most voters can't challenge Salmond's soundbites, and many turn off if economic principles, logical contradictions, or detailed figures are produced. That means Salmond can claim growth will come from reducing business taxes at the same time as he's promising more social expenditure. He can claiming that oil revenue will rise when the experts say it will fall. And he can claiming its myth that jobs will move south, naval shipbuilding will cease, and interest rates and prices will rise - whatever the people involved say they will have to do.
You even have the nonsensical lies - like the one that saving on Trident replacement will finance the loss of income - because it cost "£100 billion" . In reality, Trident submarine replacement will cost 20% of that - and the the Scottish share of the expenditure to build it amounts to nearer £100 million a year stretching into the 2030s. Thats offset by the contribution the naval bases make to the Scottish economy.. Even if you include running cost for 60 years, to get nearer the £100 billion figure, you end up with an expenditure by scotland thats only slightly higher annually as running costs are much less than construction ones. Its no wonder some poeple jump at the idea of a free "100 billion" - and very few realise that means a trivial annual saving ofset by less spending in Scotland.
There's also the problem that limits to what can be offered to Scotland are set by the inability to offer Scotland an even more disproportionate share of the UK budget, and whats workable. You can't have banks regulated under different rules in different parts of the same state, or Scotland letting illegal immigrants in - who would then have entry to the rest of the UK - or different monetary policies undermining the same Central Bank. Scotland can't opt out of defending the UK and spend half as much either. What it can do, is decide its own spending on issues that don't damage the rest of the UK , and spend what is has as its fair share of income. If it wants to to ruin its own economy by putting up tax rates, and UK expenditure doesn't make up the difference it can try that too. Thats where you do see a different approach from the main parties - Labour doesn't suggest it as it would be bad for Scots, the Conservatives are more open to Mr Salmond making bad choices, and suffering in the next election, if Scots want that freedom now.
I don't think this is as unlikely as you suggest. You could probably accomplish the same end result with a series of parliamentary acts - but frankly I've been an advocate of a written constitution for years and I'd be glad to see one ratified. It would be long overdue, and the way the winds are blowing I don't think it's all that unlikely.
Absolutely. The current disagreements, West Lothian question etc stem directly from our lack of a written constitution.
Central government has been demonstrably proven not to work in the UK. Scotland and Wales in particular will not stand for it.
A codified legal framework of roles and responsibilities at local, 'state' (be it national or regional) and national level would get rid of this. Each of the 'states' would receive exactly the same placing within the country as the others -- with their own set of representatives, laws and institutions in parallel with each other.
Where England is concerned, you either break it up immediately, treat it as one, or start off as a single entity with break-offs to be negotiated at a future date.
London as an entity has no place in this framework; it's an anomaly, unless you treat it as a separate 'state' and deny its representatives the right to interfere in the rest of England's affairs in the same way as Scotland.
London's overrated. Without the rest of the country where would it get it's power from or food? Some of the water probably comes from outside and the sewage has to go somewhere.
Yes, national things are why you have a federal government.
This is correct. If the devolving of powers to four national parliaments is genuine, fair, and conducted on an equal basis, then the population size of each isn't an issue - as no single country's parliament could impose it's will on another.
There are a lot of successful federal countries out there and I'm broadly in favour of the structure which seems to be emerging in discussions - one UK parliament with four national parliaments exercising an equal measure of devolved power. The one thing we absolutely mustn't do under such a structure is make UK-wide decisions on the basis of what the four national parliaments think. That's what they did with the six (later eight) constituent republics in Yugoslavia, and it contributed massively to the breakup of that country.
It doesn't work unless the individual parliaments have little power. Once they have that little power they become pointless. The result with any real power is what you have in the US, or worse. You can't have unified action on some issues because its not in the interest of some areas- global warming prevention has different costs if you live in Texas or North Dakota, or California. Does Wales have to finance its road links to the rest of the UK? You can't have a national health service with three or 4 nations - unless you prevent people travelling to where its best. If its not better anywhere, why bother to add to the existing bureaucracy? Why would more, national, MPs be better at getting things done locally than the current ones? You can't put benefits up in Wales and then exclude the English who move there to get them. The price of not thinking as one state is that the collective interest goes out of the door the more you do it - as the Scots will find out when the west country inherits their naval jobs , and the UK chancellor stops the moritorium on increasing whisky duty.
It gets even sillier and more devisive if you go to the regional level where regions will just compete for resources, Nimby's will stop nationally needed projects, and a few regions will just refuse to pay the bills for more spending elsewhere. Thats why it was clear to the electorate, when there were referendums on it, that it would just be another pointless level of expensive bureaucracy. Stopping at the national level just opens more divisive issues - as Yorkshire still wants money that London pays, and Liverpool has an equal case for.
You also get the problems the US has with localism reflected in different institutions held by different parties with different policies. There you just get deadlock between a Senate, House and President - all elected by the same people voting in different perms.Nothing happens. How does the UK government work if it refects the voters of three or four countries who want to do different things, and vote for different parties and leaders? What can a Labour Leader - there on seats from Scotland and Wales - do if he has no majority in England? Do you have vetoes, weighted yeses and nos? Can you have austerity in England and spending in Scotland, or England going to war on its own? If you have regionalism on top, do you have a Uk government thats responsible for war and peace, but has no say if Rotherham is abusng its children, or inner London education is abysmal , or Yorkshire is costing more in dole payments because its local economic policies have failed badly?
Its basically a dud idea that had failed before the Norman conquest. The last remnants fell when villages lost the power to chase away the poor who turned up from outside, and when the central authorities had to determine adequate national standards for health care, sewage disposal, road maintainance and railway building.
It doesn't work unless the individual parliaments have little power.
I don't agree. It's not the quantity of power devolved which makes the difference in determining whether the exercise is considered a success, but the nature of the powers to be devolved to a sub-national level.
Some powers, like defence, make absolutely no sense whatsoever to devolve to sub-national executive bodies. Others, like regional development, make a lot of sense.
You can't have a national health service with three or 4 nations - unless you prevent people travelling to where its best.
We already do - healthcare is devolved in Scotland as things stand. And I think you also highlight the downside of uniformity. What happens under a unitary, national structure when there's a genuine disagreement over what the right course of action is? You get a monolithic imposition of the view of officialdom from the centre, and rival ideas are silenced – never to see the light of day. Devolution potentially offers a remedy to that. We see already that there are real differences between Scotland and England on how best to run the NHS, with politicians in England pushing ahead with much greater private involvement in the provision of services and the Scots being horrified at the very idea. Allowing people to vote with their feet could potentially provide an indicator as to who's actually correct. Homogeneity has it's drawbacks too.
The price of not thinking as one state is that the collective interest goes out of the door the more you do it.
A point which is only worth making if you believe that English politicians are in the least bit interested in the collective interest or the common good today – a notion I find incredulous. We used to have a strong sense of social solidarity from Land's End to John O'Groats back in the days before Margaret Thatcher crushed the unions, closed down most of British heavy industry and tried to convince everyone that they should borrow more rather than fighting as a collective for higher wages and better conditions. Yes, division is bad. However, when the prospect of staying together is conditional upon the prevalence of a toxic ideology of individualism, you could make the case that solidarity on a smaller scale within four different countries is preferable to the homogeneous false pretence of a “union” in which everyone is ultimately expected to look out for number 1. Solidarity is a two-way street. It requires English people and politicians to care about the fate of Scottish people (and vice versa) to a degree that hasn't been seen in this country since Jimmy Reid led the work-in at UCS in 1971. I would love to go back to those days, I just don't see it happening.
and a few regions will just refuse to pay the bills for more spending elsewhere.
You assume all taxes will be devolved – which would be mad. Countries which exercise a federal structure typically operate a system of national and regional/local taxes. They don't tend to operate systems whereby the sovereign national parliament is funded by grants from the sub-national parliaments. You could even argue that we do something similar today with council tax going to your local authority, not central government. If one of the countries, Wales for example, wanted to raise additional funds for a project instituted by the national assembly there, it could exercise it's right to raise additional tax revenue within it's jurisdiction to do so. There's no reason to assume that devolution automatically means one sub-national parliament would be subsidising another.
Stopping at the national level just opens more divisive issues - as Yorkshire still wants money that London pays, and Liverpool has an equal case for.
We already operate a system of government that can have anything up to 5 levels of hierarchy in it. For example, where I live my taxes would be divided between the national government, a county council, a district council and a parish council. These entities used to have much more power than they do today – again it was Thatcher who crippled local government in an effort to crush dissent against her policies during the 1980s. Chipping away at the stranglehold Whitehall holds on the politics of the country may in fact be a very positive thing that a) gets more people involved in grass roots politics and b) restores local control of local issues, where they should properly reside.
You also get the problems the US has with localism reflected in different institutions held by different parties with different policies.
In America, this tends to be about things like gay marriage and gun rights. We like to think we're above that kind of thing, but then I remember that abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. You can't account for bigotry and stupidity.
What can a Labour Leader - there on seats from Scotland and Wales - do if he has no majority in England?
If he sits in the UK parliament, his voice would carry equal weight with all the other MPs drawn from all four nations. The body in which he sat simply wouldn't take votes on matters that were devolved to the sub-national parliaments.
Has this thread got the most in depth analysis/reposes rather that couple of line vitriol? Not that I agree with all that I have read, but lets be fair, its argued (longly - yes I made that word up) from a reasonable point.
Err, well if you read my post it is sort of obvious.
The SNP is always whining during immigration debates in the Commons about how Scotland must have more migrants. Problem is the migrants are going to cost them their independence.
The referendum should have been Scottish born with Scottish ancestry only. At least three generations, whether they live there or not.
That would have been both undemocratic and impractical.
But it wouldn't because its powers would be stipulated by devolution. For example, the Scottish Government is currently responsible for matters like agriculture and health. An English parliament would be restricted to those same matters for England. The UK government would be responsible for foreign affairs, defence and overall economic policy.
Yes, I accept there isn't a problem with the division of powers, and have made that very point elsewhere. It's just that an English First Minister could become a more important and influential figure than the UK Prime Minister, given that the EFM would be taking over most of the PM's current responsibilities and would be speaking for 85% of the UK population. While the PM would be left with comparatively little to do!
I'd personally favour a move towards a federal system across the UK, and I think it would work well if people understood it, and could agree sensible internal boundaries. Unfortunately, it's a concept that confuses a lot of people, and I've spoken to loads of Scottish folk who aren't even aware that things like Health are already devolved in Scotland, so I'm not sure that it can be sold as a concept.
If I was in charge of boundaries, I'd split it to have Scotland, Wales, N Ireland, and five or six English areas. The exact boundaries to be determined, but broadly London, rest of SE, SW, NE and NW England. I'm not sure if the Midlands should be part of one of the other areas, or do their own thing. You'd need to set the regions big enough to have proper clout over and above the county councils, but small enough so that people feel it can reflect their local values.
These areas could have a certain amount of control over health spending, education priorities and policing. These are the things that matter to people, but where priorities often vary.
I think it would need to come with a shake-up to the House of Lords, which is long-overdue anyway.
an English First Minister could become a more important and influential figure than the UK Prime Minister, given that [the EFM] would be speaking for 85% of the UK population.!
Only if 100% of the English population all voted for the same party - and that's never goint to happen. It doesn't matter what electoral system an English parliament uses to choose its representatives, no English first minister could reasonably claim to represent the views of all of England - I doubt they could even claim to represent the majority view.
Remember how shocked we were when the SNP managed to gain an outright majority in Scotland? I imagine that many in the "no" campaign would be horrified at the idea that Alex Salmond is entitled to speak for every Scot.
This is largely academic in any case - if devolution is properly structured, the fact that one sub-national parliament accounts for 85% of the population is irrelevant, because he or she wouldn't have a vote on issues that affect the other devolved assemblies, and truly national decisions would still be taken on a truly national basis - meaning that we couldn't assume that the majority will in England would automatically be the outcome. A 45./55 split on an issue in England could transpire as 55/45 the other way if national MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales (not the devolved assemblies) all supported the minority view. in England.
Only if 100% of the English population all voted for the same party - and that's never goint to happen. It doesn't matter what electoral system an English parliament uses to choose its representatives, no English first minister could reasonably claim to represent the views of all of England - I doubt they could even claim to represent the majority view..
They would represent England in the same way that the PM represents the UK. Whether it's actually the majority view is immaterial - they are basically in charge!
This is largely academic in any case - if devolution is properly structured, the fact that one sub-national parliament accounts for 85% of the population is irrelevant, because he or she wouldn't have a vote on issues that affect the other devolved assemblies, and truly national decisions would still be taken on a truly national basis
I know and accept all this. My point was just that an English First Minister could well get more media attention than the UK PM, as the FM would be responsible for health, education, and masses of other things which are important to 85% of the UK population. I'm just wondering if this would be a problem, that's all.
If I was in charge of boundaries, I'd split it to have Scotland, Wales, N Ireland, and five or six English areas. The exact boundaries to be determined, but broadly London, rest of SE, SW, NE and NW England. I'm not sure if the Midlands should be part of one of the other areas, or do their own thing. You'd need to set the regions big enough to have proper clout over and above the county councils, but small enough so that people feel it can reflect their local values.
I'd just go with the existing regions; so 9 in England.
Don't see the appeal of an English parliament, power should be devolved to the regions.
I think you'd see support for the idea of devolution in England drop dramatically if you carve England into regions.
I think it has to be four national assemblies - one for each of the four countries in the UK.
It would depend where you live.
I expect in London, the South-East and East Anglia there would be more support for an English Parliament.
However in the Midlands, The South West and The North there would be more support of regional Governments as they would not want to have an English Parliament dominated by the other three regions.
Comments
I still can't stop laughing.
Immigration is going to derail independence for the SNP and yet they are so keen on it and want lots more.
Scotland does need it's own immigration policy though, but separate residency rights are still possible. Plus we get to cap citizenship, which is great for us as we need to give them a quota.
I think Canada insists new migrants have to live and work in low population areas before they move around freely for a few years, so it is not without precedent. It would take the strain off the south east.
We could cap the numbers low for England and divert the excess to Scotland. No one can then accuse us of not taking the best people etc.
I realise that. I was just referring to the fact that its size would make it almost as powerful as the UK govt, if not more so. This could be a problem.
In which case they'll have no problem with losing their existing powers, will they.
I see no justification whatsoever for giving one part of England more powers than the rest, when that part already is the hub of power for the UK.
They should lose their privileged status IMMEDIATELY on the formation of an English parliament, if devolved powers are to be denied to the regions of England. Anything less is thoroughly unacceptable.
Any form of government has to be implemented on the basis of equal democratic provision for every citizen of the country regardless of where they come from.
You have either centralised government, devolved based on the regions and nations or devolved based on the nations. London is an anomaly under the latter system and it is disgraceful that Londoners should be given preferential treatment.
Err, well if you read my post it is sort of obvious.
The SNP is always whining during immigration debates in the Commons about how Scotland must have more migrants. Problem is the migrants are going to cost them their independence.
The referendum should have been Scottish born with Scottish ancestry only. At least three generations, whether they live there or not.
Scots are split 48% / 48%, add the immigrants and the pro union side win.
This is correct. If the devolving of powers to four national parliaments is genuine, fair, and conducted on an equal basis, then the population size of each isn't an issue - as no single country's parliament could impose it's will on another.
There are a lot of successful federal countries out there and I'm broadly in favour of the structure which seems to be emerging in discussions - one UK parliament with four national parliaments exercising an equal measure of devolved power. The one thing we absolutely mustn't do under such a structure is make UK-wide decisions on the basis of what the four national parliaments think. That's what they did with the six (later eight) constituent republics in Yugoslavia, and it contributed massively to the breakup of that country.
London's overrated. Without the rest of the country where would it get it's power from or food? Some of the water probably comes from outside and the sewage has to go somewhere.
I don't think this is as unlikely as you suggest. You could probably accomplish the same end result with a series of parliamentary acts - but frankly I've been an advocate of a written constitution for years and I'd be glad to see one ratified. It would be long overdue, and the way the winds are blowing I don't think it's all that unlikely.
But it wouldn't because its powers would be stipulated by devolution. For example, the Scottish Government is currently responsible for matters like agriculture and health. An English parliament would be restricted to those same matters for England. The UK government would be responsible for foreign affairs, defence and overall economic policy.
Thats because voting yes for independence doesn't actually provide anything it promises. It means less money to spend in Scotland - and less money and the freedom to spend it just means the freedom to spend.less money. If they want to miantain UK benefits and pension rates, and current services,, plus the Scottish gains from the current system like inffated NHS spending, and inflated numbers of dispersed UK civil servants Scots have to vote no - unless they really think Mr salmond can massively improve the Scottish economy, or find cuts elsewhere to sustain what Scots have now.
There's a curious, indeed bizarre, disconnect in the polls on that. The yes camp is primarily voting for "freedom" from Westminster. But only 25% are voting because they think they would be worse, or better off. Thats bizarre because "freedom to be worse off," and do less of whats fairer and what you want to, is nonsense as a freedom. Its like the teen ruinaway's claim to be free - as they doss down in the snow in the street.
There seems to be three problems there. The first is that many Scots seem to be where the Labour party was pre 1976 - there's a denial that money is finite, that choices have to be made, and that the world won't let you ignore your debts and spend what you like. The second is that the campaign has brought in many non voters who have no understanding of anything much - like the 16 year old on the news voting because he didn't want to have to pay for NHS treatment if he fell over. The third is that anyone who indicates the problems is discounted as bullying, or lying - when almost all the problems stem from basic economic theory, that anyone could read in an A level economics text, and political reality.
The third is a distorted battle because most voters can't challenge Salmond's soundbites, and many turn off if economic principles, logical contradictions, or detailed figures are produced. That means Salmond can claim growth will come from reducing business taxes at the same time as he's promising more social expenditure. He can claiming that oil revenue will rise when the experts say it will fall. And he can claiming its myth that jobs will move south, naval shipbuilding will cease, and interest rates and prices will rise - whatever the people involved say they will have to do.
You even have the nonsensical lies - like the one that saving on Trident replacement will finance the loss of income - because it cost "£100 billion" . In reality, Trident submarine replacement will cost 20% of that - and the the Scottish share of the expenditure to build it amounts to nearer £100 million a year stretching into the 2030s. Thats offset by the contribution the naval bases make to the Scottish economy.. Even if you include running cost for 60 years, to get nearer the £100 billion figure, you end up with an expenditure by scotland thats only slightly higher annually as running costs are much less than construction ones. Its no wonder some poeple jump at the idea of a free "100 billion" - and very few realise that means a trivial annual saving ofset by less spending in Scotland.
There's also the problem that limits to what can be offered to Scotland are set by the inability to offer Scotland an even more disproportionate share of the UK budget, and whats workable. You can't have banks regulated under different rules in different parts of the same state, or Scotland letting illegal immigrants in - who would then have entry to the rest of the UK - or different monetary policies undermining the same Central Bank. Scotland can't opt out of defending the UK and spend half as much either. What it can do, is decide its own spending on issues that don't damage the rest of the UK , and spend what is has as its fair share of income. If it wants to to ruin its own economy by putting up tax rates, and UK expenditure doesn't make up the difference it can try that too. Thats where you do see a different approach from the main parties - Labour doesn't suggest it as it would be bad for Scots, the Conservatives are more open to Mr Salmond making bad choices, and suffering in the next election, if Scots want that freedom now.
Absolutely. The current disagreements, West Lothian question etc stem directly from our lack of a written constitution.
Central government has been demonstrably proven not to work in the UK. Scotland and Wales in particular will not stand for it.
A codified legal framework of roles and responsibilities at local, 'state' (be it national or regional) and national level would get rid of this. Each of the 'states' would receive exactly the same placing within the country as the others -- with their own set of representatives, laws and institutions in parallel with each other.
Where England is concerned, you either break it up immediately, treat it as one, or start off as a single entity with break-offs to be negotiated at a future date.
London as an entity has no place in this framework; it's an anomaly, unless you treat it as a separate 'state' and deny its representatives the right to interfere in the rest of England's affairs in the same way as Scotland.
Yes, national things are why you have a federal government.
It doesn't work unless the individual parliaments have little power. Once they have that little power they become pointless. The result with any real power is what you have in the US, or worse. You can't have unified action on some issues because its not in the interest of some areas- global warming prevention has different costs if you live in Texas or North Dakota, or California. Does Wales have to finance its road links to the rest of the UK? You can't have a national health service with three or 4 nations - unless you prevent people travelling to where its best. If its not better anywhere, why bother to add to the existing bureaucracy? Why would more, national, MPs be better at getting things done locally than the current ones? You can't put benefits up in Wales and then exclude the English who move there to get them. The price of not thinking as one state is that the collective interest goes out of the door the more you do it - as the Scots will find out when the west country inherits their naval jobs , and the UK chancellor stops the moritorium on increasing whisky duty.
It gets even sillier and more devisive if you go to the regional level where regions will just compete for resources, Nimby's will stop nationally needed projects, and a few regions will just refuse to pay the bills for more spending elsewhere. Thats why it was clear to the electorate, when there were referendums on it, that it would just be another pointless level of expensive bureaucracy. Stopping at the national level just opens more divisive issues - as Yorkshire still wants money that London pays, and Liverpool has an equal case for.
You also get the problems the US has with localism reflected in different institutions held by different parties with different policies. There you just get deadlock between a Senate, House and President - all elected by the same people voting in different perms.Nothing happens. How does the UK government work if it refects the voters of three or four countries who want to do different things, and vote for different parties and leaders? What can a Labour Leader - there on seats from Scotland and Wales - do if he has no majority in England? Do you have vetoes, weighted yeses and nos? Can you have austerity in England and spending in Scotland, or England going to war on its own? If you have regionalism on top, do you have a Uk government thats responsible for war and peace, but has no say if Rotherham is abusng its children, or inner London education is abysmal , or Yorkshire is costing more in dole payments because its local economic policies have failed badly?
Its basically a dud idea that had failed before the Norman conquest. The last remnants fell when villages lost the power to chase away the poor who turned up from outside, and when the central authorities had to determine adequate national standards for health care, sewage disposal, road maintainance and railway building.
I don't agree. It's not the quantity of power devolved which makes the difference in determining whether the exercise is considered a success, but the nature of the powers to be devolved to a sub-national level.
Some powers, like defence, make absolutely no sense whatsoever to devolve to sub-national executive bodies. Others, like regional development, make a lot of sense.
We already do - healthcare is devolved in Scotland as things stand. And I think you also highlight the downside of uniformity. What happens under a unitary, national structure when there's a genuine disagreement over what the right course of action is? You get a monolithic imposition of the view of officialdom from the centre, and rival ideas are silenced – never to see the light of day. Devolution potentially offers a remedy to that. We see already that there are real differences between Scotland and England on how best to run the NHS, with politicians in England pushing ahead with much greater private involvement in the provision of services and the Scots being horrified at the very idea. Allowing people to vote with their feet could potentially provide an indicator as to who's actually correct. Homogeneity has it's drawbacks too.
A point which is only worth making if you believe that English politicians are in the least bit interested in the collective interest or the common good today – a notion I find incredulous. We used to have a strong sense of social solidarity from Land's End to John O'Groats back in the days before Margaret Thatcher crushed the unions, closed down most of British heavy industry and tried to convince everyone that they should borrow more rather than fighting as a collective for higher wages and better conditions. Yes, division is bad. However, when the prospect of staying together is conditional upon the prevalence of a toxic ideology of individualism, you could make the case that solidarity on a smaller scale within four different countries is preferable to the homogeneous false pretence of a “union” in which everyone is ultimately expected to look out for number 1. Solidarity is a two-way street. It requires English people and politicians to care about the fate of Scottish people (and vice versa) to a degree that hasn't been seen in this country since Jimmy Reid led the work-in at UCS in 1971. I would love to go back to those days, I just don't see it happening.
...oh, because that never happens under the current system does it.
You assume all taxes will be devolved – which would be mad. Countries which exercise a federal structure typically operate a system of national and regional/local taxes. They don't tend to operate systems whereby the sovereign national parliament is funded by grants from the sub-national parliaments. You could even argue that we do something similar today with council tax going to your local authority, not central government. If one of the countries, Wales for example, wanted to raise additional funds for a project instituted by the national assembly there, it could exercise it's right to raise additional tax revenue within it's jurisdiction to do so. There's no reason to assume that devolution automatically means one sub-national parliament would be subsidising another.
We already operate a system of government that can have anything up to 5 levels of hierarchy in it. For example, where I live my taxes would be divided between the national government, a county council, a district council and a parish council. These entities used to have much more power than they do today – again it was Thatcher who crippled local government in an effort to crush dissent against her policies during the 1980s. Chipping away at the stranglehold Whitehall holds on the politics of the country may in fact be a very positive thing that a) gets more people involved in grass roots politics and b) restores local control of local issues, where they should properly reside.
In America, this tends to be about things like gay marriage and gun rights. We like to think we're above that kind of thing, but then I remember that abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. You can't account for bigotry and stupidity.
If he sits in the UK parliament, his voice would carry equal weight with all the other MPs drawn from all four nations. The body in which he sat simply wouldn't take votes on matters that were devolved to the sub-national parliaments.
If some taxes are devolved to sub-national parliaments, yes.
No – as I've said, it makes no sense to devolve national defence.
That would have been both undemocratic and impractical.
Yes, I accept there isn't a problem with the division of powers, and have made that very point elsewhere. It's just that an English First Minister could become a more important and influential figure than the UK Prime Minister, given that the EFM would be taking over most of the PM's current responsibilities and would be speaking for 85% of the UK population. While the PM would be left with comparatively little to do!
If I was in charge of boundaries, I'd split it to have Scotland, Wales, N Ireland, and five or six English areas. The exact boundaries to be determined, but broadly London, rest of SE, SW, NE and NW England. I'm not sure if the Midlands should be part of one of the other areas, or do their own thing. You'd need to set the regions big enough to have proper clout over and above the county councils, but small enough so that people feel it can reflect their local values.
These areas could have a certain amount of control over health spending, education priorities and policing. These are the things that matter to people, but where priorities often vary.
I think it would need to come with a shake-up to the House of Lords, which is long-overdue anyway.
Only if 100% of the English population all voted for the same party - and that's never goint to happen. It doesn't matter what electoral system an English parliament uses to choose its representatives, no English first minister could reasonably claim to represent the views of all of England - I doubt they could even claim to represent the majority view.
Remember how shocked we were when the SNP managed to gain an outright majority in Scotland? I imagine that many in the "no" campaign would be horrified at the idea that Alex Salmond is entitled to speak for every Scot.
This is largely academic in any case - if devolution is properly structured, the fact that one sub-national parliament accounts for 85% of the population is irrelevant, because he or she wouldn't have a vote on issues that affect the other devolved assemblies, and truly national decisions would still be taken on a truly national basis - meaning that we couldn't assume that the majority will in England would automatically be the outcome. A 45./55 split on an issue in England could transpire as 55/45 the other way if national MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales (not the devolved assemblies) all supported the minority view. in England.
I think it has to be four national assemblies - one for each of the four countries in the UK.
I know and accept all this. My point was just that an English First Minister could well get more media attention than the UK PM, as the FM would be responsible for health, education, and masses of other things which are important to 85% of the UK population. I'm just wondering if this would be a problem, that's all.
Don't see the appeal of an English parliament, power should be devolved to the regions.
It would depend where you live.
I expect in London, the South-East and East Anglia there would be more support for an English Parliament.
However in the Midlands, The South West and The North there would be more support of regional Governments as they would not want to have an English Parliament dominated by the other three regions.