We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......
Comments
-
I don't buy the Labour line about "can't have English votes for English laws or it would create a two tier system of MPs". We already have a two tier system for MPs. English MPs get to represent their own constituents on matters of health and education and other devolved issues. Scottish MPs already do not get to represent their own constituents on those matters. That difference will only become more striking as and when more powers are devolved. Persisting in allowing Scottish MPs to vote on matters that have nothing to do with their constituents won't change that. Wales and NI similarly.You'd have an English First Minister, and a British Prime Minister.
A vote of no confidence could work for both (i.e. English members could vote in a no confidence motion against the English First Minister) but only a no confidence motion against the UK government would cause Parliament to be dissolved.
The English First Minister would appoint those ministries that only have territorial effect in England. The Prime Minister would appoint all other ministers.
British MPs could speak in all debates, but only vote on bills or parts of bills that have effect within the territorial boundaries of their nation.
The current system can't survive if there is widespread devolution of powers.
That does sound worthy of consideration as a possible way forwards that avoids the massive and unnecessary cost of introducing a whole new English parliament. We've seen the Scots, Welsh and N Irish manage fine under a PM and FM of different parties. However, who appoints the ministers for ministries that cover England and Wales but not Scotland? What if a party had a majority in England but not in England-and-Wales? The difference in the extent of devolution between Scotland, Wales and NI is what makes it so messy.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Seriously.....
Best.
Day.
Ever.
I can see why you think so. Since I'm not a Scot but am a teacher, I have to say that for me, Gove's departure tops Salmond's.
Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
I don't buy the Labour line about "can't have English votes for English laws or it would create a two tier system of MPs". We already have a two tier system for MPs. English MPs get to represent their own constituents on matters of health and education and other devolved issues. Scottish MPs already do not get to represent their own constituents on those matters. That difference will only become more striking as and when more powers are devolved. Persisting in allowing Scottish MPs to vote on matters that have nothing to do with their constituents won't change that. Wales and NI similarly.
That does sound worthy of consideration as a possible way forwards that avoids the massive and unnecessary cost of introducing a whole new English parliament. We've seen the Scots, Welsh and N Irish manage fine under a PM and FM of different parties. However, who appoints the ministers for ministries that cover England and Wales but not Scotland? What if a party had a majority in England but not in England-and-Wales? The difference in the extent of devolution between Scotland, Wales and NI is what makes it so messy.
I can see why you think so. Since I'm not a Scot but am a teacher, I have to say that for me, Gove's departure tops Salmond's.
if it's worth the cost of introducing a parliament for Scotland, NI and Wales why it is 'massive ' cost to have one for England?
If that were the case, couldn't we save 3 lots of massive costs by abolishing the NI, Wales and Scottish ones?
How is it that NI, Wales and Scotland need/deserve a full time parliament each for small population but England would have a part time one (as some time would be spent on UK policies)
maybe the NI, Wales, Scotland could share one to reduce the costs?0 -
if it's worth the cost of introducing a parliament for Scotland, NI and Wales why it is 'massive ' cost to have one for England?
If that were the case, couldn't we save 3 lots of massive costs by abolishing the NI, Wales and Scottish ones?
How is it that NI, Wales and Scotland need/deserve a full time parliament each for small population but England would have a part time one (as some time would be spent on UK policies)
maybe the NI, Wales, Scotland could share one to reduce the costs?
Of course it would save lots of money not to have the devolved political structures in Scotland etc. But it wouldn't be the right thing to do given that the people of those three nations, so much smaller than England in population terms, voted in legitimate and democratic elections that they wanted to be able to have some matters devolved to be under their own governance. Despite being English, I can appreciate that our huge majority with regard to population can have the effect of making them feel that their voice in the UK isn't loud enough to give them proper representation if everything is dealt with on a UK-wide basis.
England doesn't need protection from the English majority in Westminster. We've no reason to feel that our national identity is in danger of being overlooked unless there's a separate full time English parliament. London is the capital of England as well as of the UK. There's so much less reason why we would need a separate English parliament that the costs of setting one up and then running it won't appeal to the electorate. We've still all got recent memories of the row about MPs' expenses - that's not likely to make English voters keen to start shelling out for twice as many of them if we all need MPs and whatever the members of the English parliament would be called too. (Can't call them MEPs, can we?)
But there is an increasing groundswell of opinion that resents seeing the Scots and others get free prescriptions and free uni places and so on, when we don't get them, and knowing that their politicians are helping to decide what happens to us about those things. It isn't a particularly pragmatic feeling - it's not as though the non-English MPs have been particularly supportive of our prescription charges and uni fees (although the Barnett formula makes us feel that we are paying for their free things). But there's also general feeling that the status quo entails the Scots and others having their cake and eating it. I rather suspect that most people in England would like to find a way to fix that unfairness without coughing up any more money than necessary.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.0 -
Of course it would save lots of money not to have the devolved political structures in Scotland etc. But it wouldn't be the right thing to do given that the people of those three nations, so much smaller than England in population terms, voted in legitimate and democratic elections that they wanted to be able to have some matters devolved to be under their own governance. Despite being English, I can appreciate that our huge majority with regard to population can have the effect of making them feel that their voice in the UK isn't loud enough to give them proper representation if everything is dealt with on a UK-wide basis.
England doesn't need protection from the English majority in Westminster. We've no reason to feel that our national identity is in danger of being overlooked unless there's a separate full time English parliament. London is the capital of England as well as of the UK. There's so much less reason why we would need a separate English parliament that the costs of setting one up and then running it won't appeal to the electorate. We've still all got recent memories of the row about MPs expenses - that's not likely to make English voters keen to start shelling out for twice as many of them if we all need MPs and whatever the members of the English parliament would be called too. (Can't call them MEPs, can we?)
But there is an increasing groundswell of opinion that resents seeing the Scots and others get free prescriptions and free uni places and so on, when we don't get them, and knowing that their politicians are helping to decide what happens to us about those things. It isn't a particularly pragmatic feeling - it's not as though the non-English MPs have been particularly supportive of our prescription charges and uni fees. But there's also general feeling that the status quo entails the Scots and others having their cake and eating it. I rather suspect that most people in England would like to find a way to fix that unfairness without coughing up any more money than necessary.
I am sure that if there was an English parliament quite distinct from the UK parliament, the Barnet formula would have been abandoned years ago as it's quite outrageous.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »You know, every now and again I think of the UK still being a country, Alex Salmond resigning, and all those nationalists crying on Thursday night, and it just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
That is such an awesome quote it's in danger of making it into my signature for a while.....:D
And yes. Me too.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
From Wings.MBC on September 20, 2014 at 14:48
Thanks for keeping your sign up and badges on. I have decided to do the same, as solidarity is so important right now. Yesterday driving around Edinburgh where 61% voted No, (which must have been much higher in more affluent areas like mine as Leith and Craigmiller were 4:1 Yes) I was convulsed with rage and disgust as I realised that most of my fellow citizens that I saw on the street and was interacting with must be traitors. I went into a complete melt down for a while and drove around cursing them all madly (nobody could hear me inside my car, it was just a kind of therapy to get my rage off my chest).
It was a sickening and disorienting experience, mass betrayal. I felt that I had been exiled by my own country, that I had no country, I was bereft. But the one thing that rallied me was seeing Yes stickers on cars and Yes posters and banners still up on houses. It comforted me to know that there were still pockets of Scotland left.
I feel much better today, my black rage is lifting, but not my view of the folly of the Noes.
Good grief. I fear for Scotland with these people perambulating around in their automated conveyances of seething resentment.
There will be riots at the benefit offices next week.
They are planning a campaign against the boomers. The boomers who are their members are all fearfully wearing Yes badges when they go out so they aren't targeted by their own side.
One is complaining that his "yoke of resentful Oppression" has gone and he wants it back in favour of the blanket of national humiliation that he is now wearing.
Another believes a horde of Bullingdon boys are going to rampage over the border to rape everyone, close the NHS and return Scotland to the dark ages.
They dont appear to be joking. Run away!
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/19/welcome-to-north-britain/#comments0 -
If it's ok for England to have a part time parliament with English MPs why not do away with the Scottish parliament, Welsh and NE assemblies and just let their MPs vote on matters effecting them.Of course it would save lots of money not to have the devolved political structures in Scotland etc. But it wouldn't be the right thing to do given that the people of those three nations, so much smaller than England in population terms, voted in legitimate and democratic elections that they wanted to be able to have some matters devolved to be under their own governance. Despite being English, I can appreciate that our huge majority with regard to population can have the effect of making them feel that their voice in the UK isn't loud enough to give them proper representation if everything is dealt with on a UK-wide basis.
England doesn't need protection from the English majority in Westminster. We've no reason to feel that our national identity is in danger of being overlooked unless there's a separate full time English parliament. London is the capital of England as well as of the UK. There's so much less reason why we would need a separate English parliament that the costs of setting one up and then running it won't appeal to the electorate. We've still all got recent memories of the row about MPs' expenses - that's not likely to make English voters keen to start shelling out for twice as many of them if we all need MPs and whatever the members of the English parliament would be called too. (Can't call them MEPs, can we?)
But there is an increasing groundswell of opinion that resents seeing the Scots and others get free prescriptions and free uni places and so on, when we don't get them, and knowing that their politicians are helping to decide what happens to us about those things. It isn't a particularly pragmatic feeling - it's not as though the non-English MPs have been particularly supportive of our prescription charges and uni fees (although the Barnett formula makes us feel that we are paying for their free things). But there's also general feeling that the status quo entails the Scots and others having their cake and eating it. I rather suspect that most people in England would like to find a way to fix that unfairness without coughing up any more money than necessary.0 -
If it's ok for England to have a part time parliament with English MPs why not do away with the Scottish parliament, Welsh and NE assemblies and just let their MPs vote on matters effecting them.
Great idea....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Of course it would save lots of money not to have the devolved political structures in Scotland etc. But it wouldn't be the right thing to do given that the people of those three nations, so much smaller than England in population terms, voted in legitimate and democratic elections that they wanted to be able to have some matters devolved to be under their own governance. Despite being English, I can appreciate that our huge majority with regard to population can have the effect of making them feel that their voice in the UK isn't loud enough to give them proper representation if everything is dealt with on a UK-wide basis.
England doesn't need protection from the English majority in Westminster. We've no reason to feel that our national identity is in danger of being overlooked unless there's a separate full time English parliament. London is the capital of England as well as of the UK. There's so much less reason why we would need a separate English parliament that the costs of setting one up and then running it won't appeal to the electorate. We've still all got recent memories of the row about MPs' expenses - that's not likely to make English voters keen to start shelling out for twice as many of them if we all need MPs and whatever the members of the English parliament would be called too. (Can't call them MEPs, can we?)
But there is an increasing groundswell of opinion that resents seeing the Scots and others get free prescriptions and free uni places and so on, when we don't get them, and knowing that their politicians are helping to decide what happens to us about those things. It isn't a particularly pragmatic feeling - it's not as though the non-English MPs have been particularly supportive of our prescription charges and uni fees (although the Barnett formula makes us feel that we are paying for their free things). But there's also general feeling that the status quo entails the Scots and others having their cake and eating it. I rather suspect that most people in England would like to find a way to fix that unfairness without coughing up any more money than necessary.
I can see the sense in having UK wide matters (foreign policy etc) decided by UK MPS and English matters by the subset of those same MPs representing English communites. If the Scots and other want to do things differently (perhaps they feel that they do not have enough UK MPs to form a sensible parliament/govt) and are willing to pay for the extra layer of govt then so be it.
The only issue then is the Scots can vote for different parties/policies on UK vs Scottish issues whereas for UK voters they have to choose a party package that covers both 'domestic' and UK policy.
As gen mentions elsewhere I thinking working out how to share out income and expenditure is very tricky. For example with income is corporation tax adjudged to be earned by the region where the companies who pay it are based or should it be shared according to population or according to where the profit is earned. Similarly with spending, if govt departments are in certain regions then they are effectively allocating national spending to one part of the country (which in turn will also drive tax revenue in that part of the country etc).I think....0 -
As gen mentions elsewhere I thinking working out how to share out income and expenditure is very tricky. For example with income is corporation tax adjudged to be earned by the region where the companies who pay it are based or should it be shared according to population or according to where the profit is earned. Similarly with spending, if govt departments are in certain regions then they are effectively allocating national spending to one part of the country (which in turn will also drive tax revenue in that part of the country etc).
Let's be honest no one has thought matters through. Not least that the infrastructure isn't in place or even been planned. Be interesting to see if people are so keen on the new devo max once the new stamp duty rules come into place next April. While there may be a nil band far higher than the UK. To be neutral in revenue terms higher rates of tax will apply on more expensive properties. A taster of how a left leaning Scottish parliament may inflict it's will on the electorate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards