Answers to those questions
After many answers from bloggers, here are Sir Malcolm Rifkind's answers (or at least my paraphrase of his views) to the questions I posed yesterday about his plan to stop Scots MPs voting on purely English matters.
NR's Q: Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?
MR's A: Potentially yes although, as many have pointed out, Labour does currently have a majority of seats in England even though it got fewer votes in England at the last election than the Tories.
A UK government without a workable English majority would, Sir Malcolm argues, have to seek compromises and make deals just as governments faced by hung parliaments have had to do or, indeed, as parties have had to in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
NR's Q: If I am right, would the new English 鈥済rand committee鈥 with its Tory majority be able to impose Tory measures on Labour ministers?
MR's A: No because the government and not the new English grand committee would still retain control of the parliamentary timetable; the right to initiate legislation and sole access to the civil service.
NR's Q: If so, wouldn't Labour ministers refuse to implement what was passed or, in practice, seek to bypass MPs and make more and more changes by administrative fiat (more possible than you might think)?
MR's A: Ministers, as now, could simply withdraw amended bills they didn't wish to implement or, of course, seek a compromise amendment.
As well as the danger I pointed to, Sir Malcolm pointed to another - that ministers wrap up English legislation into all British measures to avoid separate votes in the Commons. His proposed solution to this is that the Speaker or an independent committee would determine what should and what should not be considered separate English legislation and, if necessary, order it to be unbundled. He points out that as a Scottish Office minister he was in charge of separate "Right to Buy" legislation for Scotland.
NR's Q: Is Sir Malcolm foreseeing a culture change in British politics whereby a Labour government could only pass those measures for which they could get Tory consent or build a coalition a little as Alex Salmond now has to do at Holyrood?
MR's A: Yes although this is not new since Jim Callaghan had to do this when his majority was not enough to govern alone.
This leads me to ask two more questions, the answers to which will determine your attitude to Sir Malcolm's ideas:
Q: Will English voters be satisfied by the fact that their MPs can block or amend the proposals of a UK government which does not have an English majority or will they, having been given that, go on to demand their own parliament and their own government?
Q: Will Scottish voters feel that this proposal makes it highly unlikely that an MP for a Scottish constituency will ever again become prime minister - since they would never have been able to vote on some of the issues which are dearest to voters鈥 hearts - and, therefore, increase the appetite for Scottish independence?
I'm 
Comments
I am glad to see that Sir Malcolm Rifkind replied to your questions, however his answers make you sound like an inexperienced interviewer who hadn't properly researched the issue.
I can't shake the mental image that this interview ended with you getting a pat on the head rather then a handshake.
Is it just me, or is this whole proposal going to create more problems than it solves?
The Tories are right to suggest that the current arrangement is unfair. They are wrong to suggest that this proposed arrangement would be any more fair. It's unfair to the English because they still don't have full control over primary legislation. It's unfair to Scotland, as you pointed out in your final question. Only a full English parliament restores fairness and guarantees the continuation of the union.
The question is, as you rightly point out, how could this affect the next Scottish Parliament election? Will it boost support for the SNP, or will it boost support for independence? Because they are not the same thing.
As a footnote, I greatly appreciate Malcolm Rifkind's calm and reasoned attitude in confronting this issue. It is much more palatable than David Cameron's foaming-at-the-mouth Daily-Mail-reading Little-Englander approach.
Malcolm Rifkind comes across as a pragmatic, rational politician.
But like most conventional politicians, especially those from Scotland who are plying their trade in England, he has very little feeling for the English public mood.
The English have had enough.
They want their own Parliament, nothing less will do.
Once we have our own Parliament, we English will soon find that there is no need for a 'United Kingdom' layer of Government.
Ambitious politicians at Westminster who fear that prospect can simply move on to the EU gravy-train.
Nick
Both your subsidiary questions (and the original ones) only arise because of the existence of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly without similar arrangement for England.
No-one doubts that resolving the the unfairness of Scottish MPS voting on English-only issues will be difficult - of course it will.
But having opened the Pandora's Box of the Scottish Paliament (without really thinking through the implications) the politicians HAVE to find a way to solve this. Otherwise, within 5 years the clamour for full Scottish independence and / or English self-governement may become deafening.
I believe we are at a tipping point in public perceptions about the UK. Sentiment in my local pub is virutally unanimous: let the Scots, Welsh and Irish have independence, English votes only on English interests.
This may be the start of the unravelling of the UK as we know it.
What we really need is an independent England. The current system with different arrangements for each of the 4 nations in the UK and any proposed system where the different nations are treated separately are a mess and will always be unfair on one of the nations.
I just think its common sense that scottish mp's shouldnt vote on english matters,i think most people who dont support a specific political party would agree,as a so called little englander living in scotland i think alec salmond and the snp no that most scots wouldnt want independence,there needs to be a proper debate without scare mongering and calling anyone who doesnt agree with labours view little englanders.
Sorry Nick, your article leaves me even more confused than before... Does Labour have a majority of English seats or not? If it does, why do you keep referring to the English Grand Committee's "Tory majority"? Also why do you go on about it being 'Scots MP's' who won't be able to vote? Surely the proposal excludes MP's from Wales and Northern Ireland as well?
You're trying harder than most to present the facts, but I'm really concerned that the London-based media in general is now adding Scottish funding and constitutional arrangements to the existing list of Europe, and crime, as topics which are so distorted by a partisan press that many people believe the opposite of the facts to be true.
In response to your last question a Scottish PM (or any PM representing a Scottich seat) without an English majority would be in similar position to a US President with a Congress and Senate from an opposing party. There are not huge policy differences between the 2 main parties so compromise is perfectly possible as long as a reasonable approach is taken.
This would not make the possibility of a future Scottich PM any less likely than it is already. Scottish PM's from Scottish seats are a rarity as it is.
I feel the biggest threat to the Union is the growing momentum among the English that they would be better off by cutting Scotland loose.
Scottish MP's must not be able to vote on English only matters.
The Barnett formula must end. Every person in the Union is equal and government spending per head should reflect this.
The size of Consituencies should be evened out so that Scottish MP's no longer represent 30% less voters than an English MP. Each MP should represent the same (or as near as possible) number of voters as each other.
These proposals will strengthen the Union by making it much fairer and not damage it. At least with respect to the English feelings of unfairness.
I would like to add that I make these comments as a pround Scot who believes in the Union.
Noteworthy that Rifkind suggests this now he is an MP for Kensington rather than Edinburgh.
The problem would not just be at PM level. It would be daft to have any Minister in a situation where he can draft legislation and argue for it around the country and yet be unable to vote on it. So Scottish MPs would be effectively prevented from becoming PM, health, education, Home minister etc - all major areas of tax spending.
At present the majority of Scots do not support complete separation, but an arrangement like that would be enough to achieve it. eg no Scot could ever aspire to be PM or senior minister unless they moved to an English constituency - such a deal!
The only logical solution to devolution is a federal one, where the House of Commons has responsibilities for UK matters and a separate English Parliament (not necessarily based in London, how about in Manchester?) has similar responsibilities to the other home nations' parliaments/assemblies. Anything less is inherently unfair and even undemocratic.
It would be a major political shake-up, also because proportional representation would surely be introduced, and I think would be good for the country.
If this English votes on English issues were to go ahead then it would make the Scottish PM and MPs in Westminster look very silly as I believe approx 80% of governance is now devolved to Scotland so surely this amount of governance in Westminster would be English only.
It will show how little they actually do to Scotland and how much they effect English affairs.
Only an English parliament is acceptabel for the English.
Though our pro EU political parties will fight this to the end because it will go against Brussels plans for my country.
Surely the problem is the overwhelming power that an English parliament would have over the entire UK, because it's decisions would effect ~80% of the population, leading to inevitable and massive knock-on effects upon the other 20%.
The only solution I can see is to have a number of English parliaments, each covering a smaller chunk of the population, thus no single body would have that kind of power.
If proposed legislation affects England and Wales but not Scotland, do the Welsh MPS get to join this committee? If more power is devolved to the London Mayor and Assembly, do London MPs have to drop out of the committee?
This proposal still doesn't make things more democratic, it gives more power to a group of MPs but no more power to individual voters. The English still wouldn't get a separate vote on regional issues - it would all be lumped in with the national issues of a general election.
The suggestion that we have an English parliament also denies us a vote on regional issues because it would cover much too big a part of the country (50 million people or 83% of the population); it would be dominated by the South East.
The only option that gives individuals a vote on issues in their own region is to devolve power to the English regions.
A key point that Mr Rifkind made, that you seem to repeatedly avoid or ignore is that "Labour does currently have a majority of seats in England".
Given that fact, how can you continue to dribble on about the "tory majority"?
We all know that the 麻豆官网首页入口 is a predominantly left wing, labour supporting organisation, but could you bias possibly be more evident?
Anyway, even if it were true that there are more English Tory MPs than Labour ones, have you forgotten that those MPs were ELECTED by the PEOPLE of ENGLAND? How is it that this (imagined, in this case) majority can be discounted because it's notionally in favour of the Tories? Surely it reflects the preferences of the English people?
The answer to your subsequent questions - and any others which arise - is that any such settlement for England would have to be seen as a 'stopgap' measure until a final constitutional settlement could be achieved for Britain as a whole.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind's proposal is good but it is not a final resolution of the problem which exists.
It has long been a source of amazement to me that this has been allowed to go on for so long. I think I'm right in saying that not only is Gordon Brown a scot but so is Tony Blair.
How things would be different if those two didn't have any power in Westminster.
The simple solution/elephant in the room in all this is a UK federation of equal parliaments. Four equally powerful legislatures for each constituent part of the UK would sort this problem out at a stroke. I speak as a pro-Union Scot, by the way; not a little Englander or Scot Nat seeking to accelerate the break up.
One caveat, mind - I would argue that an English parliament shouldn't be based in London and especially not in Westminster - it would hardly be fair to have the UK and English parliaments made up of the same legislators sitting in the same chamber. I'd suggest a new English parliament in one of the great cities of the north - Manchester being the obvious choice. This might even help England to overcome its own north/south divide a little...
Aren't we forgetting that the Labour party created this problem by establishing a ridiculous "half-baked" constitutional change that is so blatently unfair to England? Surely they they must have realised that this, combined with the Barnett formula was always going to have this effect eventually?
Also, Alec Salmond's comments about oil are also disingenuous. The City is located in London, does that mean that London should keep all of the money from that?
We are in a headlong rush to the break-up of the UK. Why? Because of Labour's inept and unfair implementation of devolution. The Conservative proposal to prevent MPs with devolved constituencies from voting on devolved issues is probably the least bad way of addressing the current unfairness to England in the short term. Longer term, independence for England and Scotland looms.
The constitutional unevenness and nationalism this generates would be solved by a proper unification of these islands. If politicians are seriously considering all reasonable solutions to these difficulties then this must be put on the table. If it isn't, I sniff cleverness and jockeying for position not the greater good of the nation.
The Conservative and Unionist Party is going to break up the UK.
You can blame labour for starting a process. You can claim its just about fairness.
But ultimately its going to be the Tory party that breaks up the UK and thats the sad truth about these proposals.
The importance of Sir Malcolm's "Grand committee" is that it has got the debate rolling along. It would never work in practice.
There are only 2 solutions to the current mess.
1) Remove the devolved parliaments. Close them down.
2) Have an english parliament. The "UK govt" becomes a federal body with separate elections UK-wide.
No. 1 above won't fly becuase there too many snouts embedded in the devolved financial troughs. That leaves No. 2
The federal govt would be responisble for common issues - defence, tax collection, foreign policy, etc. The Home Office would be abolished completely and all its functions would be handed over to the new English parliament. Funding is handed out to the devolved parliaments on a per-capita basis and how they spend it is up to them.
Too bad for Labour if they lose control of England forever. They started this mess. They were warned by many people that a shambles would result. They can d*rn well live with the consequences.
The people talking about Blair being a scot give this whole debate a worrying feel of sectarnianism/ racism.
He didnt represent a constintuency, so wouldnt be affected by these proposals at all.
To claim that as someone of scottish descent he shouldnt have been able to vote on english legislation is as legitimate as claiming someone of carribean descent shouldnt be able to do the same despite representing an english constituency.
Bring it on as soon as possible.
We don't need to create another parliament if England has its own sub committee doing that job. The party system will insure that anyone, Welsh, Scot, Irish English can become leader. This is a duff question.
All the mini-nations, Eng,Wal,Sc,Ir, will be better off with one security force, one foreign policy, one trade policy, one immigration policy etc as it's cheaper, makes sense and stops the need for hard borders with expensive policing. The devolved system can work if we all get a fair say for our areas/nations. 12 Eng Regions would be meaningless and costly.
Nick, can you please tell us how many Scots are currently on the governmant payroll?
Any measures seen to prevent a Scot from becoming Prime Minister of the UK would lead to independence for Scotland in a very short order.
i am just wondering how the barnett formula will work if there is 'english only' legislation as this is based on english expenditure?
i would really be grateful if nick robinson could address this question.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental question raised by this proposal which no-one appears to be addressing. If the principle is to be applied that only English MPs may vote on England-only matters, will the principle be applied to restricted legislation solely affecting other parts of the UK? For example, would the whole house be able to vote on (say) a proposal to extend devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, or only MPs from the country affected?
I think this shows quite well have confused and impractical this proposal is. If we are to hold this union together, you simply can't have a situation where the English would, in effect, get in effect a complete veto over the appointment of a United Kingdom Government that they did not like.
English devolution is a good thing and is necessary. But the only way to do it properly is to have proper, elected, devolved institutions - trying to fudge some compromise for the sake of those that cling to unitary government risks, as non-Conservative politicians have pointed out, undermining the very fabric of our union.
I find this whole issue completely daft.
MPs do and will always vote for things that don't effect them or their constituents.
Perhaps city MPs should not be able to vote on agricultural issues.
Maybe MPs in hilly areas shouldn't vote on flood plain proposals.
You get the idea.
I think there are two solutions to this:
1. We pander to the views of the narrow minded, nationalist minority and split the country up - the consequence of which we end up with 3 meaningless places that the world forgets about. (Northern Ireland does best as it joins with the South)
2. We remember that for the most part we are all the same people. Perhaps we should tell our politicians and right wing media to go get stuffed and get back to the success that working together wrought over so many years. (except this time we can make it fair)
Some debates are the height of selfish stupidity!
I am glad that someone has at last made this an issue. It's been a running sore for years but protected, I think, by its relative technical complexity for voters.
In answer to the two questions - I believe most English voters will be swayed by cost concerning another tier of government. God knows the Scottish parliament building was a frightener were one needed.
I believe that as long as the English population dominates the UK in the way that it does and Scots want autonomy while the English do not, the predominance of MPs from English constituencies is inevitable. It would be more interesting if a party had a candidate for PM who did not represent an English constituency. It might result in the kind of unseemly grubbing about involved in the Patrick Gordon-Walker fiasco.
Moving on ... if enough English people vote for independent candidates at the next General Election then we would be able to implement a more representative democracy in England.
This would enable English people to :
a) regain their own country (in the political sense)
b) provide a written constitution for England.
c) institute fixed terms of Government
d) recast both Houses as a 100% elected (anti-phase as per the USA) English Parliament.
e) provide a 'direct democracy' electronic voting mechanism whereby English people can provide a vote on crucial issues, thus counterbalancing the tendency of people engaged in the same trade e.g. nominally independent MP's, to form cliques, groups or parties.
These five ideas could provide the political mechanism to transform England completely.
The current clapped out political system is on its last legs, everybody can see that (except most professional politicians).
The depressing thing about all of this is 95% of people seem to agree with whats needed.
Up here in Scotland are majority of people think England needs either a parliment or regional assemblies like Scotland.
It appears to be the same down South - the big problem is the politicians. They all have their noses in the trough and dont appear to have the balls to change things.
The people want change but the politicians dont.
Surely its the pefect time for the Lib Dems to step in and offer whats needed? Its a vote winner staring them in the face.
EU-style "Regions" aren't popular but why not County Assemblies to take on the same powers as the Scottish/Welsh ones? They would vary in size, but so be it - so do US States.
The current situation is no more or less anomalous than John Major's government reorganising Scottish local govt and introducing the poll tax despite palpably not having a mandate in Scotland.
Most politically aware people understand the basics of the west Lothian question. Its mirror-image - a party with one tenth of the parliamentary representation of a nation introducing policies for that nation - is not so familiarly named. Why? Because it was a situation, unlike today, with which the Englsih majority of electors felt little or no discomfort.
And all those who call for an English parliament would do well to remember that, with ten electors in England for every one in Scotland, what we have now in Westminster is an English parliament.
Is it me or has it been overlooked that Wales does not have the same powers as Scotland (yet) and that this proposal would mean that Wales was forced to take on Acts accepted in England on such things as Education. How would decisions across the two countries be taken? or would that then allow Scotland to also vote?, so making this discussion worthless. I think this raises more questions than answers. And is another policy rushed out without much thought - with only voters in England in mind
There's only one simple solution - and that is to have a federal system with each of the four countries having their own Parliament with equal powers. A British Parliament would stay at Westminster to decide federal matters and an English Parliament in say Manchester to deal with English devolved matters.
Well at long last the issue is being discussed rather than ignored by the politicians.
Labour were warned when they introduced the Scotland Act 1998 that devolution for Scotland would cause pressure on the Union (have a look at Hansard) yet they ignored it for party reasons.
We have two problems:
1 The gerrymandering over constituencies in England being larger in size than in Scotland and larger in Tory areas compared to the Labour heartlands giving a built in advantage to labour.
2 It is undemocratic for the likes of Gordon Brown MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to be disenfranchised on Education and Health in his own area yet able to implement his pet theories in England. That is little better than the situation in Zimbabwe.
There are various solutions, they should be aired in a national Constitutional Convention and all the 4 countries should be treated equally.
My view is that we should have either a rejoined Union of the United Kingdom or a federated Union with devolved power to the 4 countries and a UK parliament. The power of the various levels should be open for discussion, debate and agreement.
"Q: Will Scottish voters feel that this proposal makes it highly unlikely that an MP for a Scottish constituency will ever again become prime minister - since they would never have been able to vote on some of the issues which are dearest to voters鈥 hearts - and, therefore, increase the appetite for Scottish independence?"
Yes. Personally I want independence right now, but I imagine there will be quite a few social climbers and ambitious Scots Labourites who will no longer be interested in the UK at all if they are effectively ruled out of the top job.
This discussion is becoming deeply depressing, not least because Conservative and Labour politicians seem to be taking an incredibly partisan approach to the problem.
Surely, it's obvious from Nick's blog that an English Grand committee is a muddle headed solution?
An English Parliament seems more logical, but the imbalance this parliament would create in a federated U.K. would surely lead to further instabilities? Besides isn't a country of 60M+ too large to be governed by a single parliament?
As I see it, the only solution that may preserve the integrity of the U.K. is for city states (like London) and regional assemblies in England (which can take over the responsibilites of unelected regional development agencies).
It's high time the unionists parties put political expediency behind them and worked through these problems together.
Although an English Parliament sounds like a good thing, it would mean the end of the union and this is why Blair did not create one. In fact, the only reason why Labour created the Scotland and Wales chambers is to gain the votes there in the election, the historical context of this will not be lost in years to come.
As soon as the Scotish Parliamnet was created a can of worms was opened that can never be rectified. This is not because it is wrong, but the powers it was given.
Education and health should have stayed a UK policy, but now the long road to a break with the union has begun. Question is, would the English be that bothered? It would be sad, but Scotland would soon find themselves adrift without the economic powerhouse of England behind it.
As usual a constitutional mess has been created by this government.
The only way to make this work would be on an American model, where the federal government controls the economy defence and foreign policy, and the regional bodies run themselves with their own laws and local taxes. This isn't just about votes in the house, it is a fundamental rethink of how the union is managed.
In comment 15, Mick talks about the fact that this situation has been allowed to go on "for so long". I don't think that 8 years is really that long, especially when you consider that what preceded it - laws imposed by English MPs against the opposition of the vast majority of Welsh or Scottish MPs - was allowed to persist for decades.
The Labour Party didn't intend the current situation to be a permanent solution, but was stopped in its tracks after devolving power to London when it seemed the other English regions didn't want to follow suit.
I'm not sure the "English votes for English laws" is really the considered view of most people in England, just a - readily understandable - reaction to what they're being told is the current situation (from Nick's post and the responses, it's not clear whether it's true or not, or most legislation passed since 2005).
I'd suggest that a Speaker's Conference be established to last no more than two years, with a commitment by the Government (and ideally the other major parties) to legislate in accordance with the outcome, ready for the new arrangements to come into being in no more than 5 years' time.
Respondents constantly make two mistakes about the Barnett formula. First, it contains the seeds of its own ending, since the differential in favour of Scotland decreases each year. Second, taxpayers have a right to reasonable equivalence of service in return for the tax they pay. In areas of Scotland, the Borders as well as the Highlands and Islands, populations are scattered and service provision is (a) more expensive per capita (b) in many cases absent altogether. In the Far North, decades of malign neglect by London is evidenced by the number of infrastructure projects only built once funded by the EU.
Yes, there are distortions in block funding and yes, both Labour & Tory Governments have manipulated Barnett payments in the past for their own political reasons. But, and maybe you can check on this Nick, I did read that the region roughly equivalent to Scotland in "excessive" funding is London.
Living in Scotland I would like to see (a) the English anomaly rectified as Malcolm Rifkins suggets (b) more powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament balanced by full fiscal autonomy. Scotland would only be able to spend tax revenues raised in Scotland. That would include, however, retaining all the oil revenues arising from the Scottish areas of the North Sea, which would not be to London's liking I think. By the way, English & Scottish areas were separately identified when exploration blocks were allocated in the 1960s, so there need be no row over whose bit is which.
Isn't the UK Prime Minister, by convention 'the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons'?
If the Commons spends more than 50% of its time discussing England only matters then isn't that person the leader of the party with a majority of English seats, irrespective of who won the UK general election?
(Just a thought but a constitutionally worrying one.)
The only logical continuation would be to make the Leader of the biggest English party the 'First Minister for England' and to split Whitehall into English departments (Health, Education...) and UK Departments (FCO, MOD...) These could potentially be run by different parties.
It starts to become two different Governments being drawn from mostly identical Parliaments and sounds very unlikely to work.
Does anyone know of a Country that has two different Executives drawn from the same legislative body? I doubt that it has been tried. Equally, I doubt that there is a federal country where one constituent part accounts for as large a percentage as England does of the UK (~85%?).
What to do?
I don't understand why this has only become a problem since devolution to Scotland. When Northern Ireland had a Parliament, before the troubles, its MPs were allowed to vote in Westminster and nobody complained about the West Antrim question then. Is that because NI MPs tended to vote Tory?
Also, how would a Speaker decide what it genuinely an English-only issue? Every decision by Parliament to spend money in England alters the amount of public expenditure available in Wales, Scotland and NI too. So the principle of every English-only Bill would be a UK issue.
Then how do you deal with Welsh MPs under the new arrangements which give the Assembly the power to pass primary legislation on a subject-by-subject basis? Exclude them from votes on the 3 clauses for which the Assembly has full legislative authority, then allow them back for all the rest of the Bill?
I have always agreed with the logic of the West Lothian question and I think Malcolm Rifkind's idea of a grand committee has merit. However, I would vote against it if I was an MP as giving English MPs this power when they are elected on a first-past-the-post basis is barmy! Real reform must include a form of PR for the elections to any new Westminster as well. Taking a leaf out of the USA's book and defining the role of central government would be desirable too.
BTW does this policy mean that the Tories are no longer the Conservative and UNIONIST party?
Laughable. For centuries the majority of English MP's have voted to implement laws in Scotland that had no impact in England. Nuclear weapons at the Holy Loch and the Poll Tax are two recent examples.
Now that Scotland no longer plays ball and has decided there's a better way forward for the country than going cap in hand to Westminster, the English MP's are up in arms.
Give Scotland independence tomorrow, if we are such a drag on the English economy and political system. Wouldn't that be the easiest/logical action to take?
Now why am I convinced Westminster will bottle it when pushed ? Because the truth is that England gains more from the deal than Scotland, in spite of what the spin doctors may tell us.
Which English local authority is going to vote to have Trident in its harbour area?
How will English local authorities make up the shortfall from Scottish oil revenues (even if Scotland accounts for 1/2 the total,as some spinners would like to tell us...) ?
Who will fight in the English army, given a high proportion of Scots make up the current British Army?
How will English 2nd home owners react at having to pay a local residence tax on this property? (ie. for non-residents).
etc.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Westminster will fudge the issue as usual.
This is a mess of Labour's own creation. All this was forseen in 1978 by Tam Dalyell then Labour MPs for West Lothian. However, Blair & Brown saw this as a means of holding on to power indefinately knowing that Scotland would bring in many Labour MPs. It has been suggested in some posting that the average number of voters in Scottish constituencues is smaller than in England but this is not the case if you care to go through the elctorate for each UK constituency. It is quite possible to bring down the total number of MPs at Westminster by up to 100 by increasing the elctoral role in each constituency to 90000. Many in the large cities are now under 60000. Many people feel that there are far too many MPs at Westminster.
You can be sure Gordon Brown will use every means at his disposal to change the set up at Westminster in any case because he is only too well what is at stake - namely his long cherished dream.
The current situation is not logical or tidy but it seems to me that few people are burning to change it. Mr Rifkind's proposal is a modest attempt to make things tidier, but I think that it is not worth major change unless you want to go the whole hog and have a federal govt with three national assemblies beneath it. So either live with the current untidiness or move to a clear and tidy system!
Yes there is an unfairness, and Mr Rifkind is right to be addressing it. His proposal is an interesting one, but I have to say that, more broadly, the resurgence of nationalism worries me. Isn't this all ultimately a step backwards? What or who has really driven this swing to pursuing greater independence? Is it really New Labour, or is there something else stirring within the mood of "Britons" that has led to this?
On a separate note, I don't often agree with him, but Sir Malcolm Rifkind is one of the very few Tory politicians I admire. His considered approach is a stark contrast to the type of Daily Mail-appeasing politician who exploits the audience's ignorance and fear at every opportunity. If only there were more Tories like him, I might be tempted to vote for them at the next election.
On Tuesday 23 March 1999, England gave away an estimated 30% of attributable oil revenue to the Scottish Parliament on the orders of a former First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.
Henry McLeish was First Minister of Scotland from 2000 to November 8, 2001.
Stitched up like a kipper.
Getting the Speaker to certify what is English legislation and what is not is fraught with difficulty becauses, as Sir Malcolm says, the UK governent wraps up English legislation with additional measures affecting Scotland and Wales.
The other problem with his proposal and with the existing Tory plan for 'English votes on English laws' is that it still leaves England without a voice. Someone needs to speak for England, either a First Minister or at the very least a Secretary of State for England.
It's a pity, Nick, that you didn't ask Sir Malcolm why the people of England should not vote on whether or not they want their own Parliament. Sir Malcolm doesn't want an English Parliament because he alleges (wrongly probably) that it would breakd up the Union but in a democracy in which the people are sovereign it is for the people to decide, not for politicians to say that the Union must be maintained at whatever cost without the expressed consent of the people.
Jamie:
As I understand it this was resolved at the last general election, with the reduction in the number of Scottish constituencies. I believe the target size is around 70k for both Scotland and England, and the NI is still proportionally over-represented. Not sure about Wales.
If the Tory proposal ever comes about then I think it will result in chaotic UK government and, inevitably, 'game over' for the UK. In my view that would be to the detriment of all its component parts.
There are two potential solutions, I think. One is to have devolved government for the English regions. There seems to be no appetite for that, though. The second is - and this is a bit radical, I know - to leave things exactly as they are.
I think there's a lot to be said for the latter option because, in fact, nothing much has actually changed. It has always been the case that the party in power was not represented exactly proportionately in all parts of the UK. Indeed, none of the main parties stand in Northern Ireland at all.
Westminster MPs, regardless of where in the UK they are from, decide on matters relevant to the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament decided to devolve some of its responsibilities elsewhere. So what?
Q1. No, English voters will not be satisfied with that. This does not answer the English Question and it is highly presumptuous of this Scotsman (who supported Scottish devolution) to impose a solution on England instead of asking the English how they wish to be governed through a referendum (as was Scotland's sovereign right).
Q2. Yes, it will fuel separatism. Because no English executive is proposed this measure will ultimately mean that fewer Scots will make it into Cabinet.
In the words of Malcolm Rifkind himself:
鈥淭he question鈥f whether 鈥楨nglish votes for English laws鈥 would still allow a Scot to be health secretary or prime minister is a political, not a constitutional matter. It may be foolish to appoint as health secretary an MP who will decide health issues for people other than his own constituents. But there is nothing unconstitutional about it."
Regardless of whether it's a political or constitutional question, to say that the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath cannot vote in Westminster on health and education is to say that he cannot be education or health secretary or, logically, chancellor or prime minister.
We have an arcane constitution, the workings of which are a mystery to the majority of the population. I therefore contest suggestions that English peple really want an English parliament for any other reason than "if Scotland's got one, then so should we". Try pressing people on how our existing system works and I guarentee they will have little real clue.
Personnaly I think the tinkering that Malcom Rifkind suggests will not improve government and will do little if anything to ensure the will of the people is implemented. If we (the UK) want that then I think a federal republic is the model we should be looking at.
Q: How many institutions does it take to run each of the devolved nations?
A: Four - UK parliament; Secretary of State, Grand Committee; devolved parliament/assembly
Q: What is the equivalent number required to run England?
A: One- UK parliament.
Q: How many of the constituent parts of the UK attend the international British-Irish Council?
A: Three: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Q: Spot the glaring omission
A:Guess!
Q: What is the way to eliminate this democratic deficiency?
A: Devolution for England, with its own parliament and executive.
A suggestion for new prison's - scrap devolution...
Actually Nick Evans (post 28) is wrong- when Harold Wilson had a tiny majority in 1964-6 he seriously considered excluding NI MPs from voting on certain issues precisely because 10 or 11 of the then NI MPs were Ulster Unionists who ususally voted with the Conservatives (even if the rleationship between the parties was rather more tense than was appreciated at the time). This was mentioned in an article on Conservative/UU relations published in the English Historical Review last year- sufficiently obscure for nobody in the commentatariat to spot it.
In the end Wilson got a substantial majority in 1966 so the issue never arose- but it's an intriguing precedent.
If it came to creating an English parliament we already have a building for it; The Palace of Westminster, this was the English parliament long before it became the home of the UK parliament, any UK parliament would have to find a new home. Mind you it would mean all those non-English MPs and peers having to vacate their cushy number in London.
Jamie 7, has very sensible ideas, unfortunately they are unlikely to come into being, to many vested interests.
Now for my Tuppence worth of ideas: All 4 UK regions to have there own parliaments with a UK Parliament of 200 members representing 100 seats 1 male, 1 female for each constituency, constituencies to be proportional to population, England with 85% would have 85 constituencies and 170 MPs. Similarly for the English parliament 200 MPs in 100 seats, 1 male, 1 female in each. End the Barnett funding formula and either make public funding on an equal funding per capita basis or each regional parliament becomes responsible for raising taxation and spending in its own area and funds the UK parliament in proportion to its population the sum required by the UK parliament for the funcctions it provides.
jamie @ 1158: "The size of Consituencies should be evened out so that Scottish MP's no longer represent 30% less voters than an English MP. Each MP should represent the same (or as near as possible) number of voters as each other."
With the exception of the two islands seats and the two north-west highlands seats (none of them Labour or Tory seats, as it happens, and all of them with what the boundary commission would call exceptional geographical circumstances), this has actually been the case since 2005. 13 Scottish seats were abolished that year in order that the average electorate in Scotland should be the same as that in England.
By contrast, Wales and Northern Ireland are still over-represented.
28. At 01:58 PM on 30 Oct 2007, Nick Evans wrote:
When Northern Ireland had a Parliament, ... nobody complained ... Is that because NI MPs tended to vote Tory?
--------------
What a preposterous theory - I'm sure that if Mr Rifkind where in the position then, he would have done the right thing and banished those pesky Irish Unionists too. The greener-than-green Tories are far too above petty party politics.
(I say this in the hope that you appreciate the irony!)
This 'Grand Committee' scheme still does not remedy the fact that as part of the electorate of England I will still only have 1 vote and that is for the UK govt, I will be in a democratic sense a 2nd class citizen compared to those in Scotland who have 2 votes, 1 for thier own Parliament and 1 for the UK govt. I want to be able to vote for an MP whose constituency is in England to represent England, the only way for this to come about is an English Parliament, nothing less
What a can of worms Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman and the whole Labour clan opened when they introduced devolution without bothering to think about, much less consult, the English who would, by virtue of their size, have to fund it but be offered no benefits by it.
England is a country, not a collection of Brussels-designed regions, and we wish to be governed as a nation. Demanding parity in self-government with the other nations of the UK is not to be "anti-Union"; far from it, without parity the Union is doomed. Of course Gordon Brown will resist any attempt solve the "West Lothian" question, but that is because he would become the first PM in history to be denied a vote on domestic policy anywhere in the UK. It is, however, a fundamental requirement of democracy that those passing laws are accountable to the electorate subject to those laws. The English cannot vote him (or any other MP sitting for a Scotish seat) out of office, so what has he to fear? That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism, and put simply, the English will not stand for it.
Robbie (post 16): will will site our parliament, which is inevitable now, wherever we wish, thankyou.
If the United Kingdom is to be saved then all the nations of the United Kingdom must be treated equally.
So that would either be the ending of the Scottish Parliament with the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, or the creation of an English Parliament complete with First Minister and the upgrading of the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies to Parliaments.
We could at the same time get rid of the Scottish MSPs the Welsh and Northern Irish equivalents and have duo mandate MPs where part of the week they would sit in their devolved Parliaments and the remainder sit in the United Kingdom Parliament.
The solution is....
scrap the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly and the thing in Ulster.
A bunch of self-serving jumped up failed councillors. I live in Glasgow and voted against the imposition of this tax burden on us and I have yet to find anyone who NOW admits they voted for it.
They couldn't run a bath far less a country.
Any system of government which is unfair will eventually fall. Labour have had an anti English policy since they came to power. The English will only have liberty when they have thrown off the union and made the European Union a free trade zone only.
Hysteria never stank this badly before.
Whilst its true that English people now think that there are lots of hairy scottish MP's making decisions on English affairs the reality is that Labour have an English majority.
With these shenanegans is the Tory party really admiitting defeat and forgetting that they are meant to be the party for the UNION.
And are they trying to play the FEDERAL UK card here which they refute in europe.
Sounds too much like opportunism to me.
What happened to Honest Dave and his new politic. Bah humbug!
Nick
It is disingenuous for you to infer (in the negative and leading manner in which you put your questions) that it is Sir Malcolm Rifkinds' proposals that threaten the Union.
Because, as you well know, but don't address, it has already been severely wounded by Labour's unbalanced devolution arrangements that not only left the West Lothian question unanswered but have allowed a funding inequality to grow to the point of being completely unacceptable to English voters.
An English Grand Committee doesn't need to have the consequences you infer. It would only apply to English only legislation, so doesn't need to stop the UK government from governing generally nor a Scottish MP from becoming PM. It might help to redress the unbalanced constitutional arrangements and reduce feelings of resentment that are building. Which would be a positive thing for the Union.
Sir Malcolm's proposals may not be perfect, but they are the first serious attempt in a long time to answer Tam Dayell's famous question. A question which Labour pretends doesn't matter, due to it's own self-interest in the shape of hordes of Scottish MP's.
So, Nick, it is the Government you should be asking the questions of.
What are Labour going to do to redress the constititional imbalances they created?
Will they reduce the number of Scottish MP's to a per-head-of-population basis is the same as England?
And, what are the Government going to do to address the patently unfair public spending arrangements that allows the Scottish parliament to spend, spend, spend English taxpayers money on free university education, free care for the elderly and free prescriptions; luxuries we cannot afford south of the border?
One of the arguments that the 'establishment' in all parties use against the notion of an English Parliament is that it would create two tiers of MPs.
Well, currently we have the situation where English MPs have no vote over Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolved matters.
Then there is the situation where Scottish members of the UK parliament also have no remit over Scotland's devolved matters, including our Prime Minister.
In yet another scenario, we have the situation where the MPs who represent Scottish, Welsh and Irish constituencies can vote on all matters that apply to England and yet we English cannot vote them out, (including our Prime Minister, and his Chancellor).
It seems to me that a federal system, giving each nation its own parliament and further autonomy,such as that which operates in many European countries, is the only solution. An English Parliament would certainly be far less expensive than the nine unelected, undemocratic and unwanted Regional Assemblies that were imposed on England, without consultation or consent.
Unfortunately, my proposal, is in contradiction of the current devolution settlement that was implemented by the European Union and its policy of EU Regional and Administrative Units and complied with by British politicians.
The complexity of the English Votes (EVoEMs) proposal is clear, even at this early stage. It is also clear to me that EVoEMs is a nonsense. Labour will not apply it and therefore in practice EVoEMs will only be introduced when the British government is Tory, in which circumstance they will undoubtedly have a majority of English seats as they have little representaion in the other home nations. So they will always be able to pass English legislation without relying on the votes of Scottish Welsh or N.Irish MPs (unlike Labour).
So, English Votes is a RED HERRING or should I say blue herring?
We need an English Parliament or English independence!
On 17, actually Alex Salmond's comments about oil are perfectly sound. The revenue calculation and the Barnett formula treat oil and gas revenue as "offshore" and belonging to neither Scotland, nor England, Wales and Northern Island. Whereas the answer to Paul Harrison's question is that the earnings of the City are indeed treated as onshore and credited to England.
If you allocate the "offshore" tax revenue to the appropriate country of the UK,in fact the much vaunted claim that the "Barnett formula" rperesents a subsidy of Scotland by the English taxpayer. The truth is indeed the ooposite - Scotland's oil revenues are subsidising England.
There would have indded been a case for treating all "invisible earnings" as "offshore", ie not allocated to any part of the UK, but the Treasury did not do this. It is very hard not to believe that the purpose of only not allocating oil and gas revenue between British countries was not deliberately to create the false impression that Scotland does not subsidise England.
Isn't the really interesting element of this proposal the fact that it will create a strange dual track Britain. The Central government, elected on a first past the post system, will keep its tendency for a single party government. While in all the provinces (including England) coalition government would be far more likely (and even in certain cases almost inevitable).
In effect the result would be a strong centre and an more unpredictable periphery. A phenomena that would, no doubt, be further encouraged by the fact that all the election systems of all the peripheries were so different.
Such a system would be rather interesting (and genuinely might reflect the nature of Britain) and yet would seem to me at least to pose two new questions. Firstly it seems unlikely the system is workable,as it would only be as fair as its definitions, which would surely be based on metaphysics rather than reality (how does one easily tell apart a purely English issue, from those that involve, in differing degrees Wales and Scotland?). Secondly it does rather undermine one of the main arguments against PR , as coalition government on the state level would now be the norm (- unless, as a cynical after though, this is the point, and the Tories secretly hope that the policy is unworkable, and so devolution itself is discredited by it...)
Dear Nick, you forgot to mention that Sir Malcolm (along with Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond) signed the Scottish Claim of Right pledging Scotland's sovereign right to determine the best form of government for itself and to put the interests of Scottish people first and foremost in everything he does.
Does Sir Malcolm not believe that English people have the same sovereign right to determine the best form of government for themselves or, in fact, that it is highly inappropriate for him to be deciding on the future of government in England when he has pledged to put Scotland's interests first and foremost?
Rifkind's plan sounds like even more of a bodge than the current arrangement. How could a legislature function without a dedicated executive - which bring's us to MorpH's point about trying to draw two exectutives from one body.
The problem with devolution to an English parliament isn't just that it would be too dominant (though that is a big problem) - it's that it would be too large to reap the benefits of devolution/federalism. Why replace an electorate of 60m for one of 50ish m?
So the only viable solution is regional devolution - although the nation of England should have some sort of legal identity to go with it.
First question, absolutely yes. I don't *want* an English Parliament - we have more than enough layers of political parasites already without adding another one.
As for the second question, surely the answer to this would be to abolish the Scottish Parliament and then let Scottish legislation be dealt with by a Scottish Grand Committee in exactly the same way as that for the English. Surely nobody could complain that was unfair? Could they?
Rifkind's idea is really a hodge podge response to a problem which does exsist but the actual solution is unpatelable to his party. Realistically the entire constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom needs to be addressed. This isn't simply a matter of Scotland vs. England which it is being played as, the issue goes to the very heart of the British political system. Since 1997 more constitutional change has occured than at any time since the act of union. We have seen the human rights act, devolution (to Scotland and in part to Wales), partial reform of the House of Lords (which is also now being reopened- or was until Blair left), as a country (I don't like using the term nation- it is Different!) we are attempting to address our relationship with Europe and the recent report on the Scotish elections also opens the electoral debate. All of these issues are overlapping it is pointless simply to do an English only vote system what we really need is an open disucssion on the entire political arrangement of the UK otherwise this sticking plaster solution for political expendiency (used by ALL parties at the moment - including the SNP, Labour, Conservative, Liberal etc) will continue. This will not happen though as political parties find it impossible to work together for the good of the population they only really work for themselves. Perhaps we need a constitutional convention.
It is surely wrong for one area to have autonomy, ie Wales or Scotland and England not to be offered the same privilage? This should not be beyond any parliment to solve, and in answer to no 41, yes it is the considered opinion of those living in England to be governed by the MPs representing their areas and not the Scots, NI, or Welsh helping any party to push their views on us. Talking of the break up of the uion, if Labour were so keen to avoid such an event what were they thinking of giving Scotland and Wales the means to start the process. Rather another example of lack of straregy, they put it in place so they can hardly complain or be surprised that the English would demand the opportunity to have their own say. There is no need for an expensive or elaborate venue, we already have one.
With reference to post 42, I am confused. The Barnett formula gives a higher funding per head because of the large rural areas and scattered population, as this leads to higher costs due to the sparcity and economy of scales issues, so far so good.
Why then is it when the Central Government decides on the size of grant per head of population in England the reverse logic is used.Speecifically the large metroploitan areas through out England get larger grants per head of population that the sparsely populated rural counties. Both cannot be right.
The Government will argue that such metropolitan areas suffer from deprivation issues and require more funding than rural areas. In which case the funding for Scotland should be lowered, as even taking into account Glasgow and Edinburgh Scotland has a much lower density of population.
If on the other hand rural areas do require extra funding compared to urban areas, this should also apply in England - something does not add up
Neil
Nick can someone please answer these for me...preferably your good self...
1) What is a truly "English law" or England-only Bill? How many bills have been passed through Westminster since the Union that have have had NO direct or residual effect on Scotland, Wales or Northen Ireland? I'd venture that it's VERY few... according to Brian Taylor around 15 bills since 1707 have been "English only" bills, so this would seem to be a smokescreen
2) Considering the principles of the 1st question,how far do you go with it? Will people in cities have no rights to vote on, say, rural policy? Birmingham MPs not voting on fishing quotas? etc. etc.
3) The "Scottish subsidy" argument is boring me to tears... the figures vary wildly from 拢3000 more per head ion Scotland than in England down to 拢38 per head according to a recent story (in the Daily Mail of all places!)... what is the TRUE figure? Does the high subsidy argument have its basis on the UK average tax take per head rather than a simple difference between what the average Scot pays out and what they get back in terms of spending (actually roughly 拢38)? I think it's the former, making the subsidy argument very disingenuous.
4) Doesn't the Scotland Act 1998 (Section 28.7?) state that Westminster basically retains the right to overrule any legislation that goes through Edinburgh should it wish to do so? And therein doesn't that make the idea of "Scotland ruling England" an insidious one?
I don't want tabloid arguments based on petty jingoism and half-baked economics and opportunistism, I want a true picture, the FACTS.
Ahem. In your own time Mr Robinson....
PS. May have been wrong about Brian Taylor's figures on English only laws.... but still in practice this kind of Bill rarely EVER comes up surely? You can argue that the Scottish budget squeeze in Scotland is indirectly down to increased spending on Health and Ed in England and Wales, thereby arguably making it partly an issue for Scotland?
If this worked as suggested it is clear that much of the north of England would wish to be given the same status as Scotland.
It truly is a recipie for the destruction of the Union.
No wonder it is "David Camerons Conservative Party" rather than "The Conservative and Unionist Party."
It will not take long for the public to notice the London centricity of the Tories, centralised vies, nor that HMG is determined to bring government closer to people where the live and work.
We hear lots about how we English are subsidising Scotland through our taxes, then Alex Salmond says that independence would make Scotland the third richest country in Europe. Who is right???
Peter Boatang's comment shows how little he knows about the differences between the NATION of the Union.
Scotland has ALWAYS had a different Education, Health, Legal and Policing system. The money may come from the central pot, but the systems using it were always different.
I am a Unionist, and proud to be both a Scot and British and have sworn my allegiance to Quenn and Country, not President and Scotland.
The only solution I can see is for Federalisation.
Tom Bereny claims it would be "daft" to have a situation where a Minister could propose and argue legislation but be unable to vote on it.
How would this be any less daft than having Ministers who are able to propose, argue and vote on legislation yet in the secure and certain knowledge that there will be no democratic comeback from their own constituents as it doesn't affect their country?
The Grand Committee idea doesn't have to be totally fair or totally sensible - it only has to be better than the farce that is the status quo.
We should consider abolishing Scottish, Welsh and irish MPs altogether, and when a 'federal' issue comes up which requires a vote from across the country, each parliament holds its own vote, which is then represented proportionally (i.e. the total scottish vote is translated in to a proprtion of the number of MPs they would be entitled to if they sat at westminster) in a total tally which would decide the law.
Unlike some of the other suggestions, this not only doesn't cost any more money, but manages to save quite a significant amount!
It would involve more power for the welsh and irish to be equivalent to scotland and england, but a separate house looking after the UK would be expensive and wasteful (a bit like the EU parliament!)
The extraordinary thing abot this is that the suggestion comes at a time when Scottish politics is heading toward independence, Welsh politics toward sceptical diffidence and Northern Ireland is crafting a form of elective autonomy and cross-border collaboration. In effect, the idea of an English Grand Committee is one more complex, different, element in what appears to be a messy mix.
What we OUGHT to do is to discuss rationally the nature of a federal government and state structure that would allow these variations in form and approach. That, to my mind, has never been addressed here. Unlike Canada, for example, where federalism is complex BECAUSE of the polarity of the elements of the conferedation, here federalism could be an advantage.
With reference to the posts concerning the different size of the population for constituencies between Scotland and England, I always think the facts are useful.
Latest population figures for Scotland (2004)are 5,062,011. Number of M.P.'s are 59. Size of average constituency is 85,797.
Latest figures for Enland (2001)are 49,138,831. Number of M.P.'s are 529. Size of average consituency is 92,890.
To level this out consituencies would need an average population of 92,178,302.
Across England and Scotland this would mean Scotland needs to lose 4 seats and England gain 4.
This of course takes no acount of population changes in recent years. But with the recent high profile situation with immigration, particularly into England, it is highly unlikely that such changes would effect the situation in favour of Scotland.
I have not included Wales or Northern Ireland, but it would be easy for some one to do, the facts are readily availlable.
I enjoy a debate, especailly when it's informed.
Neil
The idea that this is an issue of money, rather than one of principle, does a great disservice to all sides of the argument. As far as I can gather from published figures, the oil revenues of Scotland roughly balance out the additional per capita tax subsidy (apparently the subsidy exceeds oil revenue by about 拢1 billion, but in a Kingdom where we spend 拢100 billion on a flawed health service that is barely a drop in the ocean).
Many of the Scottish Nationalist respondants have cited perceived injustices of the Thatcher years viz. policies forced upon Scotland without Scottish mandate. They have said this was wrong - a claim I don't dispute. So if it was wrong for Scotland, why should it be right for England? Is their philosophy so blinkered that they believe "Well, it's your turn now! Hahaha!" is a valid argument, rather than the petty retort of a school child of below-average intellect? I mean, in all honesty, it's pathetic.
The issue runs far deeper than that. By the same token, those little Englanders who believe it is a monetary issue of England paying for Scotland make an absolute mockery of the whole problem. It is constitutional injustice that lies at the heart of this debate, not division of tax subsidy - if taxes were meant to be fair, they wouldn't exist - their purpose in a socialist system (which the UK 'enjoys') is to balance social justice.
The issue is one of justice. She may be blind, but it wasn't until I've read the posts here that I discovered she was also deaf and mute.
A larger percentage of English voters supported the Conservatives at the last election than the Government. The Government, despite this, still retained 100 more English seats in parliament than the Conservatives. That is not justice, nor is it the Representation that our parliament is supposed to strive for.
It is this fact, rather than Scottish devolution, that fosters the view that England is ruled by a minority government (which, by definition, it is - rather like Zimbabwe). It is simply because the head of the snake is Scottish (and has been since 1997 - Blair was an Edinburgh boy) that the issue manifests as an England vs. Scotland one.
Even if the Grand Committee idea was accepted into law, England would STILL be under the heel of a minority government. That will be the case until the next General Election, at the earliest. That is not subjective, that is fact - look at the numbers from the returning officers at the last GE - they're still available from the 麻豆官网首页入口 website.
Morally, there should be devolution of the areas for which Scotland enjoys devolution, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no more reason for an MP from Glasgow to vote on whether or not pensioners in Newcastle get free prescriptions than there is for the reverse to be true. This does not, however, require the creation of an independent English parliament - it simply requires an understanding. If a proposal only affects England and Wales, because it doesn't apply to Ireland and it's devolved in Scotland, then it's wholly fair that only MPs representing constituencies in England and Wales vote on it.
There is no room for confusion over what is an 'English' issue. Simply looking at the list of devolved powers the other components of the UK have gives all the information a sensible mind needs. If it's devolved for them, then Westminster cannot be voting on it for them, and as such they have no moral or political justification to vote on it at Westminster - quod erat demonstrandum.
People seem to take great joy in complicating this issue - including our beloved British Broadcasting Corporation, who appear to believe that artificially polarising an issue rather than giving the public all of the facts and letting them make up their own minds is the order of the day for so-called non-partisan journalism.
Personally, I do not believe this issue will cause the breakup of the UK. The Union has withstood Buonaparte and Hitler - she'll survive Brown and Blair. If the New Labour era does cause the breakup of the UK, then the two of them will go down in history as being jointly responsible for destroying one of the most valuable contributions to civilisation, science, technology and culture made in the past thousand years.
Heck of a legacy, eh?
Malkie is as usual not taking his arguments to the fullest extent.
I fully agree that England does need a method of governance, but I think that we now need to rethink the whole governance of the UK.
We have, for better or worse, a quasi federal system, where 3 of the 4 segments of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland have their own State governments, and England does not.
So, if England does get either a central government, or governments of the areas - the major cities and areas eg: South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West - then should not the continued governence in it's present form at Westminster be questioned?
Why do we need 650 UK MP's still? Could we not consider reducing the number down to say 125, with another 55 or so in an upper chamber.
Could not the central English Government be outside London, in say York? And made up of 20 members from each area and 10 from each city.
(Please note, I am suggesting areas, for the simple reason that certain areas or counties would feel swamped by the metropolitan or south east power hubs - viz: Cornwall or Newcastle.
Heaven forbid, that by giving power to a central hub, that this would encourage the break up of England as the periphal areas feel that they lack represntation.)
Westminster is prime to be cut down, as with the best will in the world, out of the 650 MP's, how many of them do a job of running the country, rather than as at the moment, the majority spending their time being over paid social workers, or coming up with bright "ideas" from the bowels of Kensington and Chelsea rather than the joys of Edinburgh Pentlands?
A lot of the above reads like a description of a wooden Noah's Ark, wiht the animals and buildings supposedly capable of being divided up neatly.
Government isn't like that, neither are many other of our social affairs.
2 points:
1 - good to see that the Tories are in favour of coalitions: can we now expect a consensus in favour of PR?
With objections on the grounds of 'weak government' removed, we need a House of Commons that reflects the country (ie. more liberals and less labour and tories)
2 - if we are to have fewer Scottish and Welsh MPs, by making constituencies more equal in size, then will we also have more urban MPs? (since London constituencies, for example, usually represent more people than rural ones)
Sorry, a 3rd point:
Interesting that the Conservative Party only came up with this wheeze when they realised that they would never win a significant number of seats in Scotland ever again, due to their own centrist, South-centric record in government.
We should have proper devolution, with regional assemblies all over Britain. Wales and Scotland have shown that legislative bodies can work more effectively for 3-8 million people than for 6O million.
How exactly would a Grand Committee representing 50 million be any closer to the people than the present parliament?