Scotland,Wales, N.Ireland & England to devolve – careful what u ££wish for.

[Isitmebut]

The Westminster parliament in allowing Scotland more tax raising, spending etc powers, will have to address the wishes of all members of the UK and devolve more powers to those member countries and their citizens.

In effect, if the member states had their way, the UK will become a mini 18 member Eurozone, one currency, one central bank, and member States with different tax, spend, education, NHS and god knows what else, policies.

Westminster’s 3-party finest will hand over powers and taxpayers money and say, ‘off you go, do your best’, while all new ‘Russian Doll’ layers of bureaucrats will emerge; starting with ‘big doll’ Westminster, next member states parliaments/assemblies and their new think tanks, more dolls at the Council level and their new advisors/bean counters/report writers to their parliaments – and right at the end is you, the client recipient, the tiniest doll, cute (lol), but too small to be heard.

My problem with all that is that all tax receipts should be treated as GOLD DUST, whether the next parliament (as will) still have a £90 odd billion a year budget deficit, or god willing one day, a budget SURPLUSS to distribute new sweeties - that don’t ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ and reduce annual budgets furthering paying interest on an ever higher £1.4 trillion national debt.

My problem is that we have only just reduced a big state, tax sucking vampire, that some people NOW SAY IS THE ANSWER to a UK devolved democracy as Westminster is ‘out of touch’ - as if THIS was the type of NON Eatonian/Oxbridge standard of local government sooo ‘in touch’ with ‘the people’ footing a huge inflation plus annual rise in Council Tax, wait until it becomes an individual nation’s pastime.

‘Manufacturing’ new government will reduce unemployment, but is both unsustainable and is‘the wrong kind of growth’.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

In conclusion; Westminster NEEDS to devolve powers to the 4-corners of these Isles, I get that, but Westminster has to remain the financial ‘gate keeper’, the annual bean counter of last resort, as now more than ever , every one of our taxpayer £££’s that can’t get to the front line, means less (or worse) services within a £90 billion plus annual overspend UK economy.

We have had a Scottish Referendum; hopefully next we have an EU one with MORE facts than assumptions, so should we STAY IN, the UK taxpayer (business or citizen) can not afford to support that honking bureaucratic monolith, as well as a smaller version at home. IMO.

But is the national, or indeed local, powers to tax and spend, all it is cracked up to be?

Scotland under Salmond appears to understand that there is no 'what comes first' chicken or egg dilemma, the employer, or the living wage employee social dilemma - and that a ‘competitive’ Corporate Tax is important to any economy.

People may remember that the Irish Dublin government, that has attracted so many new employers with a 12% Corporate Tax, needed an EU/IMF financial bailout due to overspending/debts, similar to other EU countries, but has bounced back remarkably due to the structure of their economy.

'Ireland (Dublin) economy grows at an annualised 2nd quarter 7.7% GDP rate –highest since early 2007'.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-18/irish-economy-grows-annual-7-7-fastest-pace-since-2007.html

Interestingly, when Dublin needed EU help, Germany & France told them within the terms to HIKE their highly competitive Corporate Tax to ‘assimilate’ better into the EU; they said ‘feck off’, the rest is economic recovery history.

So what would happen if there was a Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales & England lower Corporate Tax bun fight, what George Galloway called (astutely IMO and I never thought I’d say that) ‘a race to the (tax) bottom’?

The thing is running an economy is not easy, you have annual spending commitments (many set in stone), to set taxes (Income, Corporate Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Council Tax, VAT, Death etc etc etc) at a rate that obviously pays the bills, but when running an annual overspend, start to pay that off.

So if a UK state wanted to spend more on an NHS, they COULD lower Corporate Tax and raise the top rate of income tax to say, 75%, but while they could have crunched their numbers within the national spend/receipt abacus, it is still ‘suck it and see’, as the UK found when raising the top rate to 50%, or France up to 75% - as the result could be LOWER tax receipts to fund current spending.

“Francois Hollande admits French taxes too much.”
www.cnbc.com/id/101046068

My point here, is that a UK country or region, could base their taxes/spending on policy need, ideology, or just incompetence, but WITHIN a UK, if all a business or citizen has to do is move intra UK country or county - similar to France who found much of it’s wealth just left the country and they still have over 10% unemployment and near flat growth – they could have to keep making annual adjustments, so in several years time, they are all fairly ‘standard’ and they all say, ‘what was the point’?

Just a thought.

That's too complicated for me.

All I know is Welsh devolution wastes a huge amount of money paying second rate bureaucrats to duplicate jobs already being done at a national level.

Elephant .... life is complicated, especially UK devolution, and as it will set the UK political agenda now until the next General Election (and beyond) - it will be worth people getting their head around it - as how will people know if being sold a highly expensive and troublesome pup.

Talking of troublesome and expensive 'pups', no buyers for this old nasher, so do we know have to worry about this type of devolution - and order a larger pot bellied 'Russian Doll', mentioned within my OP.

“North-east voters reject regional assembly”

www.theguardian.com/society/2004/nov/05/regionalgovernment.politics
"The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, tonight experienced the bitter taste of defeat after the north-east overwhelmingly rejected his dream of an elected regional assembly on his doorstep.2

"Over three-quarters of voters showed themselves unwilling to test out devolution, voting against the proposal by a majority of 499,209 on a turnout of 47.8% of the region's 1.9m electorate."

I hear Mr Miliband wishes to oppose a fair UK devolution, and wants Scottish devolution, but we have to wait for a year or so, until Labour is in power, before England etc gets the same.

Trust the party who though the Scottish parliament was initially via their devolution plans not to produce a SNP majority. Trust the party that would never offer 'the people' an EU Referendum and probably never would have a Scottish one either.

No doubt Mr Miliband wants to horse trade more powers to their northern power bases he's party failed to do, rather than finish the devolution job HIS PARTY STARTED.

Quite how you give 'full powers' to all English cities to spend more. when the country still has the honking great budget deficit they left, beats the hell out of me - especially when the COST of fat government spending a deficit, goes up.

Scotland's bid to give England independence has failed for the moment, though almost half the voters in Scotland were in favour (other citizens were not able to vote).

However it has brought the Barnett formula into sharper focus. With one UK, the distribution of public spending, more generously to Scotland, NI and Wales, seemed much more reasonable.

It looks like English taxpayers may become dissatisfied at the extra 19% per head of public funds that Scotland's taxpayers get.

Will it be England voting for independence next time?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29278544

Isitme, with respect, your problem is you can't see how terrible things are now. For many, anything is better than this.

So we are getting devolution, that much is inevitable. Could you stop with all the scare mongering and work with what is on the table.

The Barnett Formula, is memory serves, was put in place in the mid-late 1970's, it isn't new.

Scotland IMO has an oil premium due, and Northern Ireland and Wales need a bit of extra revenue help until the UK economy as a whole is more balanced, we're a constitutional family, thats what we do.

But this isn't just about money, it is constitutional fairness as well, so if Scotland further devolves, the rest should at the same time, it can't be trusted to be done peace-meal if A political party is happy, nay known, to load the electoral dice in their favour.

Yegods .... unless you are the boards censor, please ADD to the debate rather than criticise those WORRIED what a complete screw up certain politician WITH A HUGE PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY FOR 13-YEARS, have left this country in.

What is on the table you are sooo excited about, 'trust' in the next parliament????

"The Barnett Formula........isn't new"
did someone say it was?

We are a constitutional family while we are the UK.
If we become the Formerly United Kingdom, all bets are off.

I will try to add to the discussion where there is less SHOUTING and more clarity.

I asked politely, isitme, as I was hoping you would calm down and explain. You've been doom mongering about the Yes vote and now that the Noes won, you're doom mongering about devolution. Trouble is, many people have had to live with doom and gloom for generations. I am one of the lucky ones, but that doesn't mean I'll settle for the status quo when others are hurting. Enough is enough.

SNP made cuts to the NHS in Scotland while increasing spending.

Remember there are a lot of costs that go with the oil industry. 0.5m a day for hiring an oil rig, for starters. Need a new ship? Well they take years to build and they have to be make to expected regulations and specifications. Not cheap, and some companied order them besed on paying with oil they haven't found yet. Let's hope Norway don't get to it first! Then there's the inflated salaries and jobs for the boys in the cushy jobs. And those helicopters, they could do with some new ones of those too, but they are hired too I think.

We have no choice but to trust the next parliaments, so let's get things constitutionally set in stone for all before they wriggle out of it.

What changes would you like to see, isitme? Yes of course, equal devolvement for all goes without saying. But how should that be managed, and should the new jobs created be tenured or short term (voted in locally?)

I like small government, that excites me. I don't like being dictated to be Westminster any more than many Scots do.

PigletJohn .... England will not be voting for independence, it doesn't need to, it just need a fairer constitution where English MP's vote for English policies.

So any notion of a Formerly United Kingdom, or a FUK, is now off the table and put to bed, so to speak.

Yegods ….. I find it interesting that whenever posters either don’t like the facts, or cannot dispute them, the other person is getting ‘shouty’, or something else, to bully/discredit them. It’s found here whatever the subject, from UK politics to Palestine, it’s a ‘tell’. So as I rise to bullies, let me please correct you on a few things.

The Scottish ‘yes’ campaign gained so much traction in the weeks before the election for two main reasons, and both were due to a lack of clarity.

Firstly the SNP’s financial plans e.g. the currency, that were KEY to the success of an Independent Scotland, so if people found the FACTS and explanations that I provided to show the SNP were leading the Scottish people to a massive financial disaster ‘a negative’, but could not dispute them - I would not call that trying to enlighten, not doom monger..

Secondly Labour had to take on the SNP, but they were too similar in key policies, ideology and anti Conservative government mantras at election times, to seriously make arguments against some of the SNP’s key ‘values’ fears of Westminster. Protecting the NHS is an example, where Labour did more ‘privatization and budget damage during their last administration e.g. Private Finance Initiatives, than the Conservatives ever have – so could not even offer a tacit support that the NHS is in no worse hands under a Conservative government in Westminster, than a Labour government, so the SNP ‘won’ that argument with many voters.

As to oil, I’m really not sure what you are trying to say. But my point to Scottish nationalist after Scottish nationalist disingenuously saying to gain votes that we (Scotland) ‘are one of the richest nations on earth’ when only £5 billion came into the UK Exchequer last year – and even if 100% went to Scotland of a commodity with price volatility it was only approx 3% of their income – as you say, ‘enough was enough’.

Democracy cannot work effectively if too few facts on either side are known by voters on polling day and there were so many risks that were known by both sides, never mind the unknown ones, but one side called those facts “scaremongering” which to me is unforgivable, based on what was at stake for Scotland and the rest of F.U.K.ers.

And if Scotland was the informative blue-print for an EU REferendum, god help us all.

So my FACTS were laid out there for ANYONE who knew what they were talking about, to shoot down in flames, but I guess when no one can/did, it proves my fears on the ‘bag of a fag packet’ Scottish financial assumptions being provided and misleading voters.

Re the Constitution out of national pride on the word of Westminster politicians, I want Scotland sorted out asap, but we cannot trust Labour as too often, they carry out major policies never mentioned in general Elections i.e the selling of our gold, the attack on Private Pensions (killing many company Final Salary Schemes) the secret policy in 2000 to ‘diversify’ the UK without building homes etc etc.

As to what I want to see, satisfied four-corners of the UK, especially Scotland receiving what was promised, all done as simply and as cheaply as possible, as per my OP, ‘as simple is what simple does’, and should bring forward the time table. The money we had for housing, nuclear power stations, and other projects to ensure UK growth/prosperity has gone during the best decade in probably a century to do it (up to 2007) – but we blew it, often on fat government, so it must not be repeated.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

You may call this doom mongering, I’d call it common sense for this and future generations.

I asked for clarification and for what policies you wanted to see rolled out now, how devolution should look in real terms. I wasn't bullying you, nor censoring you. I asked for clarity. You've effectively said no.

No problem, I'll leave then.

I haven't kept up with the referendum debates because I had no vote.

"So my FACTS were laid out there for ANYONE who knew what they were talking about, to shoot down in flames, but I guess when no one can/did, it proves my fears on the ‘bag of a fag packet’ Scottish financial assumptions being provided and misleading voters."

Isitmebut - your posts are difficult to read - there's too much detail. That's more likely why people don't contradicts you.

Inkanta ... if we want more people to engage with politics, then they have to UNDERSTAND the 'detail', as for too long they just hear soundbites.

I have JUST heard Brown winding up the Scots with such a thing, telling them legislation now in Scotland will not include;

• The Poll Tax, a 'Council Tax' under Thatcher where each household was taxed on the number within NOT how many bedrooms, toilets and god knows what else within a pensioner or any other single person might own - substituted by Labour increasing Council Tax 110% plus over 13-years. Why mentioned that 'soundbite' after the Poll tax cancelled 20 odd years ago?

• The Bedroom Tax, designed to free up over 800,000 spare bedrooms in the social sector, when Shelters figures show there were 1.7 million families (5 million individuals including children) WAITING for social housing in 2009/10. Why did Brown not mention the DEMAND for social housing at the end of his 13-years in power WITH SOLUTIONS instead.

As I say, politicians for too long get away with obtaining votes without the 'detail'. So if thats all people want, don't take the time read my posts and debate what you disagree with, read/trade soundbites on another.

YeGods . In the opening of parliament 2014 Queen's Speech, many opposition politicians said that it wasn't full enough, that this was a 'fag end' of a 5-year parliament, with no more ideas DESPITE all the changes over previous years.

It is not FOR ME to say exactly what needs to devolve in England, it is for politicians who if GOT OFF THEIR PART TIME ARSES, they could agree the framework etc by May 2015. What I show is what I don't want, fat expensive government, especially if designed to keep clueless politicians in office.

Real statesman COME UP with solutions the people need, not pretend to consult them on what needs to be done.

I repeat, it is not for me to say how devolution in ENGLAND should look like, but while I am very wary of bigger government in general (as tends to be expensive and inefficient), the MEP Daniel Hannan wrote an interesting article suggesting English counties should get more power AND explaining some of my other points e.g. taxation after devolution, far better than I did.

“Now we can give real power to English voters, by DANIEL HANNAN”
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2763063/DANIEL-HANNAN-Now-real-power-English-voters.html
“Where will Scottish home rule leave the rest of the UK? If most domestic matters were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, what would be the function of the 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster?”

“They would have almost no power to affect their own constituents’ lives because that job would be done by members of the Scottish Parliament. Their sole task would be to legislate for the lives of people living in England and Wales.”

Salmond disingenuously pipes up from his Scottish political grave and says that the ‘NO’ voters have been tricked by Westminster.

news.sky.com/story/1339600/salmond-no-voters-tricked-by-westminster

Firstly, has any one in Westminster said that they will renege on the Scottish Agreement, that Cameron always insisted from the beginning would be a YES or NO vote, not a ‘Devo Max’ others wanted – which please correct me if I’m wrong, Cameron had always said that on a ‘NO’ vote, Scotland would receive more powers.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9369801/Alex-Salmond-Devo-max-instead-of-independence-is-very-attractive.html

Yet I heard Mr Darling say today, why the prospects of a delay, Westminster has had yonks to prepare for a ‘NO’ vote – yet didn’t Mr Brown offering the Devo Max option in the LAST week of the campaign, change anything at all re the exact timing?

If there had been a ‘Devo Max’ option when the terms of the Scottish Referendum had been set, then the debate and potential work for ‘Devo Max’ to INCLUDE ENGLAND, WALES & N.IRELAND, could have been done by now – especially why 59 potential MP’s in Scotland can (and do) crucially influence Westminster policies that affect England, with 85% of the UK population.

Clearly history will either judge that Cameron panicked, bottled it (whatever) - or he made a Prime Ministerial last minute decision to try save the Union in clear danger to break up, but ‘Devo Max’ was never on the Referendum table for the current government –

But as no fair minded politician in Westminster can really argue that Scotland in getting what the SNP leader Salmond probably wanted all alone (see link above), England should NO LONGER have Scottish MP’s voting on English matters and that has to be agreed by all parties by May 2015.

Westminster has to do what is right for ALL four countries within the union, so the people need to tell Mr Miliband to put all member states, rather than his party already enjoying a huge benefit from dodgy English electoral boundaries, first, and get working on a blue print acknowledging England needs electoral justice.

In 2005 Labour with 35% of the votes had a 66-seat MAJORITY, in 2010 the Conservatives with 36% of the votes were 20 seats SHORT of a majority – yet Miliband is running scared in 2015 from a fair fight. Whoose.

everyone keeps telling you that all the bolding and underlining and massive posts back to back are hugely off putting and no one bothers to read them.

people come here to discuss - not to get to lectured at in bold.

either you just don't give a shit about discussing with people and engaging interest or you have some kind of comprehension problem.

Hello TheHoneyBadger ….. I am both willing and able to discuss my views with anyone, usually exchanging facts, rather than barking out instructions on other posters presentation and substance. So which one of my qualified views on devolution would you like to discuss, or add to?

FYI I am not importing the underline/bold functionality, they are facilities to be used on Mumsnet and I use them for key points, what can you or others not ‘comprehend’ (your word) about that?

In engaging people in politics, they have to know that often, ‘the devil GIVES the detail’, or lack of it.

So maybe it would suit some people here if say, Ed Balls stands up and says that he will cut the UK annual budget deficit by £75 bil and offer £4 bil max of cuts, and then there is 3 pages of short posts saying how clever Mr Balls is, so arguably (?) not worthy of Mumsnet’s bold type.

So moving on and getting thread policy specific, I’m guessing that you agree with Mr Miliband, would you like to discuss it WITHOUT bold type?

“Miliband: More Important Things Than Devo Max”
news.sky.com/story/1339172/miliband-more-important-things-

“The Labour leader says devolution is not the most important issue for most people - despite a warning from his predecessor.”

What is this Constitutional Convention, a Labour Party who REFUSES to acknowledge it is unfair for Scottish MP’s to vote through (often controversial policies relying on their vote) on English matters i.e. tuition fees from 1998 and Hospital Trusts around 2003, keeps harping on about for NEXT year?

What is a ‘convention’ north of Watford, who previously had to rely on Labour ‘growf’ by spraying fat government jobs around the country from the south eat, going to say, other than although new private sector jobs are now being created, more money please??

I thought some towns/cities already received more than others, so what new powers do they want to increase spending, the ability to RAISE taxes in towns, which as I’ve mentioned further above (and the link by Mr Hannan better explains) can become a liability - or a fixed Barnett Formula of their own relying on the ‘soft south’ to pay for new fat government regional assemblies/quangos and god knows what else?

Is this Mr Miliband’s ‘fairer’ democratic society, funded by the class rollocks (I’ve just turned of the TV) spoken by Ed Balls at conference, who continues to rely on divisive rhetoric and the poor basic economics & maths skills of the population, to obtain votes?

If Labour in government are going ahead with this Constitutional Convention as likely, how much will this larger government cost the taxpayer, to fairly spread around the country our budget deficit - they need to tell up prior to 2015.

The Scottish devolution issue begins the debate in parliament today, so far on schedule, as the Scottish Nats sounding as economic with the truth as during their campaign e.g. Scotland is one of the richest nations on this earth, with £5 billion of annual oil receipts (last year) of which substantial costs of increasing defense, alone costing half that revenue.

On the Daily Politics one of them suggested the 'English votes for English MP' question, not conditional on the Scottish devolution, but mentioned today "should be taken elsewhere", when the debate will be in WESTMINSTER.

Clearly he would not have been the sharpest nail, in the Independent Scotland's tool box.

On that subject, I hear that Scotland's first new tax for 300-years was to have those buying £250k homes pay 10% 'Stamp Tax', while others below pay diddly squat.

An interesting experiment for larger Scottish families needing larger Scottish homes, I wonder if the future demographics of Scotland will be childless and/or 1 child couples, and wrinklies who bought their homes before a penal 10% rate - as larger families drift over the border. Just a thought.

I see Mr Brown could be leading the charge of getting the best deal for Scotland agin the sassenachs - adding insult to sassenach injury - I always thought he was getting his own back for historic stuff like the Highland Clearances.