To not understand why the SNP are so anti EVEL?

[ninaricci]

They have always abstained from voting (except on fox hunting ) on EVEL.

It's so hypocritical.

Add message | Report | Message poster HirplesWithHaggis Tue 14-Jul-15 23:40:21
Thank you, prettybird. Like Scottish taxes paying for updating London sewers, their Crossrail, their HS2 etc - no extra for Scotland.

Surely London pays more tax than the whole of Scotland?

I happen to think that the SNP has played right into the Tories' hands wrt the hunting bill. What better way to demonstrate the need for legislation on EVEL to be brought forward quickly than NS/AS quite obviously meddling politically in English affairs.

Cameron could not have planned it better (and I suspect he did).

On the news last night, I saw a clip of Nicola Sturgeon appearing on Question Time, saying that the fox hunting legislation was an example of a law affecting only England and Wales, that the SNP would not vote on at Westminster. Going back on a firm, principled statement like that, does not look good, imo. It looks like opportunism.

I think its complicated, and seems to be being proposed at the moment partly as a 'punishment' for the Scottish referendum.

Will they stop London MPs voting on transport issues (as transport in London is devolved to the London Assembly)? MPs without any coastline in their constituencies voting on fisheries policy? MPs from affluent rural constituencies voting on inner city regeneration funding?

Once you get into the nitty-gritty of it, it seems absurb that in a national parliament they are proposing that not all MPs can express a view on all issues.

I think the logic is impeccable.

MPs cannot vote on matters devolved to the Scottish / Welsh / N Irish parliaments, therefore it follows that MPs representing those areas should not vote on equivalent matters outside them. It corrects an imbalance that was never addressed when devolution was brought in in the 90s. It is true that there is political benefit to the Tories, but that only reflects the fact that they are more popular in England than elsewhere.

If an English parliament were created, the effect would be just the same. It would just be more cumbersome and more expensive, and it ignores the fact that the UK is 90% England anyway. An English parliament would pretty much be Westminster in disguise, so why bother with the disguise?

Coffee

Parliament doesn't belong to the monarch. Constitutionally, it doesn't belong to anyone but itself. It hasn't been at anything like the beck and call of the monarch for over three hundred years. The fact that its powers were once exercised by the monarch is a historical detail.

One hears strange claims like the Scottish Parliament "belonging to the people" or how in Scots law "the people are sovereign", which are either false, meaningless, or constitutionally irrelevant.

it seems absurb that in a national parliament they are proposing that not all MPs can express a view on all issues.

True, but the alternative is to create an English parliament so as to be equal to Wales and Scotland, and then limit the Union assembly only to matters which concern the whole Union, such as foreign policy. Except that would be, as toad points out, expensive and cumbersome (and effectively Westminster in different clothes) and something tells me the Scots wouldn't like that solution either.

The 'two classes of MP' objection is hugely disingenuous. Scotland already has two classes of MP - MPs and MSPs - and I don't see English MPs getting a look-in at the matters MSPs deal with. No-one in England objects to that. So why, if EVEL effectively creates MPs and M(English)Ps in England, only they both sit in Westminster and are the same people, should the SNP object?

I see it as a battle, within the SNP, between fairness and an opportunity to attack all those institutions they hate so much, that are associated (in their minds) with being English.

What rules them ultimately is not fairness but political opportunity. That is what they base their decisions on, and why they cannot make up their minds on how to act on broad principles and stick to it.

Much of the British constitution is based on convention, and I don't see any proposals for anything better coming out of the Scottish Government (no written Scottish constitution, for example). Therefore, there is nothing to stop them and everything to encourage them to initiate a constitutional convention of their own not to vote on purely English issues. But they wont commit to that, because it means they might miss out on political opportunities in the future.

On the news last night, I saw a clip of Nicola Sturgeon appearing on Question Time, saying that the fox hunting legislation was an example of a law affecting only England and Wales, that the SNP would not vote on at Westminster. Going back on a firm, principled statement like that, does not look good, imo. It looks like opportunism.

Nicola Sturgeon is the new Nick Clegg ?

Lurking Nicola Sturgeon is the new Nick Clegg ?

This might, when we look back in 4 years time, prove to a seminal quote!

TheChandler - I don't understand why you are having a go at the Scottish Government for not having a written constitution as the constitution is explicitly reserved to Westminster.

They HAD however committed to a written constitution during the Indyref.

TheChandler - I don't understand why you are having a go at the Scottish Government for not having a written constitution as the constitution is explicitly reserved to Westminster

Because prettybird I would have expected them, if they had any genuine vision or foresight, to have produced a draft constitution by now. It would be the perfect way of tackling all the problems they constantly complain about re Westminster. I would also have expected them to have produced that draft before the Referendum.

How long has the SNP been in existence? Their "work" so far is characterised by a disorganised production of legislation designed to restrict what people in Scotland are allowed to do and panic-issuing of vote-winning policies, with no thought to the future.

As an example, here is what the Scottish Government has to say about the proposed extension of freedom of information rights across the EU in the field of environmental information (bearing in mind that Scottish local authorities currently refuse between one half and two thirds of all FOI requests):

"On the right to access information within the Member States: more EU competence or action is viewed as unnecessary in order to enable citizens to access official environmental information within Scotland;"*

"Preservation of the current EU position on access to environmental information. While there may be some benefits, harmonising rules across the EU on rights to access environmental information has created confusion among staff in public bodies and members of the public about how they differ from FOISA. Harmonisation does not add to the information rights people already have in Scotland under FOISA and almost all EIR requests come from people located in Scotland so there is no benefit in making it easier for people to make requests in various countries as there seems to be little demand for this;"

While confusion amongst staff members hardly seems a credible reason to justify extending citizen's rights, the denial of the benefits of such requests to those EU citizens who are outwith Scotland seems to fly in the face of the whole concept of the EU. It is hardly beyond the realms of possibility that a Scottish citizen may choose to work or study abroad while retaining an interest or property in Scotland that may be affected by access to such rights, or that a non-British citizen may have such an interest!

"Scotland and others with freedom of information legislation equivalent to the EIRs being allowed to opt out of the EIRs. This would reduce complexity for requesters and public bodies by allowing all requests to be handled under one regime. We believe Scottish legislation is more appropriate as Scotland already has very robust freedom of information legislation under FOISA which covers all information, including environmental information, and is designed specifically for Scottish circumstances."

Source: Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform, Scottish Government, August 2014 section 13, available at www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458063.pdf

I actually find that all pretty shocking. What are they wanting to cover up?

The Scottish Governemt can't win can it: if they spent money on consulting and putting together a draft constitution, you'd complain because it was a reserved matter .

Add message | Report | Message poster TheChandler Thu 16-Jul-15 09:32:20
Lurking Nicola Sturgeon is the new Nick Clegg ?

This might, when we look back in 4 years time, prove to a seminal quote!

How I wish we had a like button!

I wonder if EVEL will seem like such a good idea when (because I think it will eventually happen) the Conservatives try to introduce charges for using the NHS. I see that it has been announced on the sly that the government is now considering this, and because the NHS is protected under Holyrood in Scotland, it would affect England and Wales and not us. I would hope opposition parties like the SNP would vote against this as I don't think any UK citizen should have to pay for basic healthcare, but under EVEL the Conservatives will face less opposition which will heighten the chances of this happening.

Jack Wait, so you'd be absolutely okay with Scots MPs interfering on English matters that absolutely didn't concern or affect them, in a way that's a travesty of democracy, provided it aligned with your political stance? How utterly unprincipled.

Reminds me a bit of Owen Jones all the lefties suddenly complaining about how undemocratic the EU is since the Greek crisis. They were perfectly happy for it to be as opaque and unaccountable as it liked, provided it seemed to be vaguely social-democratic; only now the EU is revealed to have grown some nasty neoliberal fangs they're all howling about national sovereignty

If we're all living under Westminster rule, ultimately, I think every MP should have an equal say. I won't be affected by a change in the NHS as it's devolved here, so if the Scottish MPs can't or won't vote then it's of no personal consequence to me. Although I think it should be opposed as it will have grave consequences for those who possibly couldn't afford treatment and I don't think it's fair on the members of the public that it will affect. I don't see it as us vs. the UK, what I do what to see is a strong cross-party opposition to the Conservatives.
With regard to the EU I'm all for it. I think the bailout conditions for Greece are unfair but all in all I think the EU works, all we can do is challenge the decisions we don't agree with, as no-one is going to agree with every decision, law, etc.

But why should Scots members vote on matters in England which in Scotland are devolved?

Take a specific case: Sunday trading. The Scots parliament could forbid it in Scotland; Westminster would not meddle. So why should the Scots members vote on it for England/Wales? If the majority of English/Welsh members vote for no restrictions (as is the law in Scotland) how does that concern or affect Scotland?

Anyone care to express a view on my question about whether London MPs should retain voting rights on issues which are devolved to the London Assembly?

EVEL is bollocks and it undermines the Union. If the UK is to have a fair future then England should just have a parliament for English things with similar powers to Scotland. Westminster is for all MPs in the Union and restrictions shouldn't be imposed within it.

Bramshott Anyone care to express a view on my question about whether London MPs should retain voting rights on issues which are devolved to the London Assembly?

Its a constitutional convention, enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998 ss. 29 and 30, which set up the Scottish Executive (now the Scottish Government) that the Westminster Government will only legislate on reserved matters and not devolved matters (without the express consent of the Scottish Government).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29

So I guess if the UK is going to become more regional, its a logical conclusion to have a similar provision in the enabling legislation.

I'm actually against regionalism, as I think there a problem with holding local authorities to account, particularly when they gain too much power.

Nevercallmehun Why cannot the Members for English seats just be the English Parliament? Why a separate body?

If the UK is to have a fair future then England should just have a parliament for English things with similar powers to Scotland.

Thinking about this, I've realised that in a sense the SNP do kind of have a point.

Let's imagine that there are devolved goverments for all the UK nations: Welsh MPs (MWPs), Scots MPs (MSPs), NI MPs (MNIPs) and English MPs (MEPs) and they all get to vote on devolved matters. Then Union MPs (let's call them MUPs) vote on all-Union stuff at Westminster. (Bear with me)

So I think the problem the Scots are raising is that at present, MWPs, MNIPs and MSPs aren't necessarily also MUPs and don't get a say on (for example) foreign policy or all-Union fiscal policy. Now, because England comprises most of the UK, if we were to implement EVEL as it stands, MEPs and MUPs would be the same people. I think what the MSPs want is the creation of a class of MEP that has equivalent powers to MSPs and MWPs; they are worried that creating a MEP/MUP class of politician would effectively concentrate power in a way that marginalised the other UK nations. I think that's a valid criticism. However, I don't think there are any easy alternatives.

For example there's a very justifiable reluctance to create a separate English Parliament along the lines of Holyrood, and along with it a whole new class of English politician. 533 of the 650 UK MPs are English; so to create a new class of MEP you'd have to find salaries, a meeting place, secretaries and all that jazz for 533-odd new politicians. The English public are already a bit suspicious of anything that looks like more career politicians, and highly critical of their expense-claiming ways, so I just don't see this being a popular move.

Then when you're spending all this money on the devolved assemblies, what's the point of having all 650 MUPs? Why do we need so many? There would be calls to reduce the number of MUPs drastically, which would mean radically redrawing constituency boundaries, or just getting rid of the constituency model altogether for matters of national government, perhaps in favour of some kind of PR. And if you do that, you're effectively creating a technocracy who'd be in charge of the really important stuff and only tenuously accountable to the electorate. Not to mention that you're basically talking about dynamiting the entire political setup of the entire UK and rewriting it again from scratch. I don't think anyone really has the balls (or an electoral mandate) to attempt that, and I don't think the UK population would want it if they tried.

Instead of duplicating 80% of MPs, another solution might be to abolish the devolved parliaments in England, Wales and NI: so instead of the NI, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, all the regions would just have MPs at Westminster. Then you implement EVEL, SVSL, WVWL and IVIL for the respective MPs and leave them to sort out devolved stuff among themselves. That would, then, be fair across the whole UK. This solution would save a fortune in public money (Holyrood alone costs £72m per year, according to this through not having to duplicate regional and national politicians. But somehow I don't think it would be popular with Scotland, Wales or NI as effectively you'd just be going back to how things were before devolution.

So, in a nutshell, there are no easy answers on this as everything seems to inconvenience someone. Devolution was a godawful back of the fag packet mess and no matter what happens now, there are going to be grievances.

All of which really to say that I can sort of see where the SNP criticisms of EVEL are coming from; but that I also think it's the least worst solution without either abolishing the regional assemblies and doing everything within Westminster, just with restrictions on who decides what for which region, or else completely redesigning the UK constitutional setup to create national Parliaments for each UK nation including England, with a kind of presidential layer on the top for Union stuff.

Bramshott

You have a point. Parliament (at Westminster) can legislate in respect of matters that the GLA is empowered to deal with. However, the same is true of matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. TheChandler is correct in that there is a constitutional convention that Parliament won't do this without consent, but Parliament is entitled to ignore this (conventions aren't enforceable - they are like gentlemen's agreements).

However, there's not much comparison between the GLA and the SP. For starters, the GLA has far, far less powers than the SP. Secondly, Scotland is a large geographical proportion of the UK and has always had in some sense a separate administration, and it has always had a separate legal jurisdiction (as does NI). There's no practical reason for excluding Parliamentary intervention in London's affairs

OTheHugeManatee

The arrangement looks a mess, but if it works, who cares?

A lot of concern arises from the fact that Britain's constitution looks muddled and messy because it's "unwritten". All this actually means is there is no single document called "the constitution". This is a very good thing because it means lawyers can't get very rich arguing about what a bunch of men who died 200 years ago actually meant, or whether their views prevent a democratically elected goverment from doing things the majority want now (two problem our friends in the US suffer from).

The British constitution is actually very simple. It is basically that there is one Parliament, which can pass whatever law it likes. It is made of three parts: the House of Commons (the boss), the House of Lords, and the monarch, all of which must agree to any laws made by Parliament. Also there is an independent judiciary that interprets what those laws mean, applying case law principles as they do so.

It also provides that the monarch governs through her ministers. (in practice, this is under laws passed by Parliament allowing it do do what it needs to do).

That's basically it. There is no high falutin' document drafted on the basis of grand principle, and a good thing too. Law is a tool for resolving disputes, not a vehicle for philosophical statement.

Within this very flexible system, it's easy to carve out some powers and hand them over to a particular body (such as the Scottish parliament) and allow them to legislate essentially on Westminster's behalf. And it's also perfectly easy for Parliament to regulate its own procedure by barring some of its MPs on voting on certain issues, and for it to remove the bar. Both are done by a simple vote.

By contrast, creating an English parliament (Bwaaah! Bwaah! Scotland's got one - I want one too! It's not fair!!) would either create the daft situation whereby the supreme lawmaking authority in the UK basically had nothing to do, or was permanently gutted of its authority, thus ripping up centuries of legally established common-sense and practice. That would be a seriously daft thing to do.

NB: there are two other countries in the world that have "unwritten" constitutions: Israel and New Zealand. New Zealand's constitution is basically identical to the UK's. Like the UK it is a comparatively well-run country by international standards, so it seems to work there too.