Scottish independence

[Henkeman]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England.

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

One way you could look to address that is similar to the US. The House of Representatives is based on population but the upper house, the Senate, has two people elected from each state. You could something similar with an elected House of Lords, with equal representation from each constituent country. It's likely too much change, but it illustrates the point that there are ways around these things to deliver democratic accountability - people get wrapped up in what is fair, rather than what is perceived to be democratic. A balancing upper house is one means of doing it.

 

[SWP's back]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

 

[west didsblue]

Who would set income tax rates in England, or would we have 9 different rates? 9 different VAT rates, corporation tax rates? Who would run the NHS in England, or would it be broken into 9?

There are some things that work best at a regional level but not everything. I've argued that an England parliament would be too dominant in a federal structure. But a federal structure without England as an entity goes too far in the opposite direction.

Why? Germany and the USA both have tax raising sub national entities that are similar in average size to the English regions. Both those countries have stronger economies than the UK.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

Looking like Proportional Representation?

 

[SWP's back]

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

Looking like Proportional Representation?

Would be a fine thing.

 

[Henkeman]

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

Looking like Proportional Representation?

Would be a fine thing.

I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?

 

[Len Rum]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

To answer your specific question, it would not be wrong if Labour and Lib Dems were 'forced' ( for 'political reasons', not involving coercion or foul means obviously) to agree with it. in such a situation it could only be agreed in principle - there is not a cat in hell's chance of agreeing the complex legislation before the end of this parliament, even assuming agreement in principle.
HOWEVER , Labour are not going to agree to it, so as I see it ,the Scottish Devomax will go through Parliament (Cameron cannot renege on this),and then Cameron will have to make a pledge in the Tory party manifesto regarding an English Parliament and Labour will also have to put their proposals in their manifesto. And then we the Voters can chose.

 

[Len Rum]

But how would it be wrong if Labour and the Lib Dems are forced to agree with it?

I know you personally wouldn't be a huge fan as it works against your political ideals.

Looking like Proportional Representation?

Would be a fine thing.

We agree on something at last!

 

[sir baconface]

There are some posts on the 'Vow' signed by the three party leaders doing the rounds on the Cameron thread ,with some posters suggesting increased devolution for Scotland is not possible or 'fair' without addressing the West Lothian question.
Whilst in theory this might sound fair, there was no mention of any 'conditionality' in the Vow.
This Vow must have had a major impact on influencing the vote and whilst not legally enforceable, surely a promise signed by three party leaders has to be 'morally' binding.
If these three leaders Cameron, Milliband and Clegg cannot deliver collectively the votes required in Parliament to effect legislation to give the increased powers to Scotland ( without settlement of the West Lothian issue or any other conditionality) as they PROMISED , then surely all three of them should resign and a new referendum he held?

They knew each others' positions before signing but they panicked. Now it's over they suddenly realise there's an English stake in this and are reverting to party political lines.

The vow would only have been honourable if they'd reached agreement in principle behind the scenes and were now collaborating willingly. This should have included an understanding one way or the other on conditionality.

They will no doubt come over as a bunch of untrustworthy fcukers but no surprises there.

Agreed.

We are agreed on that much but - now the deed is done - I think the one with most to lose is Milliband. Whether conditional or not, it's a no-brainer to stop Scottish MPs voting on England-only matters. It's fair, logical and arguably the only acceptable approach to the majority of UK voters, who have had little say thus far. Moreover it's straightforward to understand and implement.

Milliband is prevaricating with complex (and probably unwanted) stuff on a never-never timetable. He risks being called out for the feeble politician he is.

While all three are untrustworthy, one is patently smarter than the other two.

 

[Len Rum]

Looking like Proportional Representation?

Would be a fine thing.

I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?

You're absolutely right the detail is crucial.
But starting from the other end of the argument what I would like to see is - if the result of an election is say Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15%,UKIP 15%, rest 5% then the national parliament should reflect this split.
Everyone would then feel that their vote counts unlike the present system where only the marginals decide it, with a high proportion of the electorate effectively disenfranchised. Our government would change to one of consensus rather than conflict ( witness this thread). Extremists would get more power, but if they get the votes why should they be denied that, it's democracy.

 

[Henkeman]

Would be a fine thing.

I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?

You're absolutely right the detail is crucial.
But starting from the other end of the argument what I would like to see is - if the result of an election is say Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15%,UKIP 15%, rest 5% then the national parliament should reflect this split.
Everyone would then feel that their vote counts unlike the present system where only the marginals decide it, with a high proportion of the electorate effectively disenfranchised. Our government would change to one of consensus rather than conflict ( witness this thread). Extremists would get more power, but if they get the votes why should they be denied that, it's democracy.

The only major nation that has a directly proportional system is Israel. In the Knesset fringe parties hold disproportionate power and under a list system you cannot vote out a politician no matter what, as long as they're on the list. It gives the parties overwhelming power over the electorate. That's not very democratic at all.

No system is perfect, but the aim for proportionality has massive costs. People can decide what matters most to them, but the belief in proportionality as inherently fairer misses the critical point that fairness is irrelevant, democracy is the aim.

 

[Len Rum]

They knew each others' positions before signing but they panicked. Now it's over they suddenly realise there's an English stake in this and are reverting to party political lines.

The vow would only have been honourable if they'd reached agreement in principle behind the scenes and were now collaborating willingly. This should have included an understanding one way or the other on conditionality.

They will no doubt come over as a bunch of untrustworthy fcukers but no surprises there.

Agreed.

We are agreed on that much but - now the deed is done - I think the one with most to lose is Milliband. Whether conditional or not, it's a no-brainer to stop Scottish MPs voting on England-only matters. It's fair, logical and arguably the only acceptable approach to the majority of UK voters, who have had little say thus far. Moreover it's straightforward to understand and implement.

Milliband is prevaricating with complex (and probably unwanted) stuff on a never-never timetable. He risks being called out for the feeble politician he is.

While all three are untrustworthy, one is patently smarter than the other two.

Believe it or not I still agree with the substance of what you say.
Milliband is a 'fence sitter' , I wouldn't say 'feeble' but that's semantics.
As for the whole Scottish issue, the cards have always been heavily stacked in the Tories favour, after all if like Labour you've got 40 MPs in a country on the cusp of devolution from the rest of the UK ( and in my view it still is on the cusp and will ultimately go that way), then what cards have you got to play in a deck that is stacked?
So I can't agree than Cameron is smarter at all.
However that's disagreement over style rather than substance.
By the way one problem with Scottish MPs not voting on English issues would be if you had a Labour Government for Great Britain and a Tory English Parliament.
Off to the Etihad now,and today's game is much more important.

 

[whp.blue]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

"The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England."

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

and the present system where a minority is given more money and self determination cannot continue all political systems benefit the majority and that is the only way democracy can work

All this PC bollox needs to be thrown out we should stop Kowtowing to minorities people need to accept any civilized society can only work if the majorities needs are met first

Labour have filled this country with ethnic minorities and seem hell bent on changing English culture to ensure they get their votes; Islam carries way to much sway in Modern Britain and the blame for that sits squarely at the feet of the Labour Party.

The time is now approaching when the labour party will be held to answer for the irreparable damage they have done to our society if they continue on this path of relying on foreigners to put them into power they will totally alienate themselves from what should be their core support IE Working Class English.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

"The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England."

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

and the present system where a minority is given more money and self determination cannot continue all political systems benefit the majority and that is the only way democracy can work

All this PC bollox needs to be thrown out we should stop Kowtowing to minorities people need to accept any civilized society can only work if the majorities needs are met first

Labour have filled this country with ethnic minorities and seem hell bent on changing English culture to ensure they get their votes; Islam carries way to much sway in Modern Britain and the blame for that sits squarely at the feet of the Labour Party.

The time is now approaching when the labour party will be held to answer for the irreparable damage they have done to our society if they continue on this path of relying on foreigners to put them into power they will totally alienate themselves from what should be their core support IE Working Class English.

How on earth are you still not banned from this forum?

edit, I should add your anti-muslim sentiments go far and beyond any sensible, rational debate, and you've shown it time and time again - I suppose the mods are leaving your nasty, small - minded tirades on just to show everyone else what a bigot you are.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Would be a fine thing.

I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?

You're absolutely right the detail is crucial.
But starting from the other end of the argument what I would like to see is - if the result of an election is say Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15%,UKIP 15%, rest 5% then the national parliament should reflect this split.
Everyone would then feel that their vote counts unlike the present system where only the marginals decide it, with a high proportion of the electorate effectively disenfranchised. Our government would change to one of consensus rather than conflict ( witness this thread). Extremists would get more power, but if they get the votes why should they be denied that, it's democracy.

It sounds great on paper, but in reality nothing would ever get done. It's not the way to move a country forward. See Italy as a prime example of that.

 

[whp.blue]

"The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England."

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

and the present system where a minority is given more money and self determination cannot continue all political systems benefit the majority and that is the only way democracy can work

All this PC bollox needs to be thrown out we should stop Kowtowing to minorities people need to accept any civilized society can only work if the majorities needs are met first

Labour have filled this country with ethnic minorities and seem hell bent on changing English culture to ensure they get their votes; Islam carries way to much sway in Modern Britain and the blame for that sits squarely at the feet of the Labour Party.

The time is now approaching when the labour party will be held to answer for the irreparable damage they have done to our society if they continue on this path of relying on foreigners to put them into power they will totally alienate themselves from what should be their core support IE Working Class English.

How on earth are you still not banned from this forum?

edit, I should add your anti-muslim sentiments go far and beyond any sensible, rational debate, and you've shown it time and time again - I suppose the mods are leaving your nasty, small - minded tirades on just to show everyone else what a bigot you are.

Perhaps because your argument holds very little water and as usual anyone who stands up for England is either a racist or a bigot I am neither
I don't care what race or creed people are I just don't like the fact That people can come to this country and try to change it
I welcome anyone one I just think they should adapt to our ways and not try to make us change to theirs

And for your information my family contains people of mixed race and people who were born outside this country But not one of them expects English traditions and laws to be changed to accommodate them instead they have adapted their culture to fit in and integrate. and I am more than happy to call them family. Several posters on this forum can verify this.

 

[Len Rum]

I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?

You're absolutely right the detail is crucial.
But starting from the other end of the argument what I would like to see is - if the result of an election is say Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15%,UKIP 15%, rest 5% then the national parliament should reflect this split.
Everyone would then feel that their vote counts unlike the present system where only the marginals decide it, with a high proportion of the electorate effectively disenfranchised. Our government would change to one of consensus rather than conflict ( witness this thread). Extremists would get more power, but if they get the votes why should they be denied that, it's democracy.

It sounds great on paper, but in reality nothing would ever get done. It's not the way to move a country forward. See Italy as a prime example of that.

And what has first past the post done for the UK?
I'll tell you - fcuk all.

 

[Len Rum]

Bottom line was the Jocks know where their bread is buttered and they voted to maintain the Status Quo because that guaranteed that they could continue to be bailed out by us south of the border.

I hope Westminster now tells Scotland that the next time they want a referendum that the the whole cost of it must be Bourne by the Scottish people and not by the UK in general.

It is now time to stop pampering minorities and put the majority IE. England first. We have been forced to take a back seat for way too long.

The Labour party are the worst offenders for this they seem to have forgotten that the vast majority of their supporters live in England but they seem to pay way too much lip service to a couple of million Jocks. Scotland makes up less than 10% of the population of the UK and it is about time they recognised that.

If they don't act quickly they run the risk of disenfranchising their core support and regional devolution is not the answer. However An English Parliament is.

Sounds simple but how could you have a UK government that was Labour say deciding on UK wide issues such as defence,immigration,foreign affairs (including Europe) etc. and then an English Parliament (Tory), Scottish Parliament (Labour),Welsh Parliament (Labour) deciding all other issues in their countries. Doesn't one affect the other? To pay for our national defences for example would have an impact on taxation, but then what if the country parliaments didn't vote in the necessary tax changes?

Non of these things prevented the formation of a Scottish,Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments and then getting more money for their respective countries It is time the English majority were put first

Any chance you could answer my SPECIFIC question of a Labour GB Government and a Tory English Parliament?
For instance how would defence spending agreed by a Labour GB Government be funded when they have no powers over English taxation and so and so forth for other GB issues that require funding.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

and the present system where a minority is given more money and self determination cannot continue all political systems benefit the majority and that is the only way democracy can work

All this PC bollox needs to be thrown out we should stop Kowtowing to minorities people need to accept any civilized society can only work if the majorities needs are met first

Labour have filled this country with ethnic minorities and seem hell bent on changing English culture to ensure they get their votes; Islam carries way to much sway in Modern Britain and the blame for that sits squarely at the feet of the Labour Party.

The time is now approaching when the labour party will be held to answer for the irreparable damage they have done to our society if they continue on this path of relying on foreigners to put them into power they will totally alienate themselves from what should be their core support IE Working Class English.

How on earth are you still not banned from this forum?

edit, I should add your anti-muslim sentiments go far and beyond any sensible, rational debate, and you've shown it time and time again - I suppose the mods are leaving your nasty, small - minded tirades on just to show everyone else what a bigot you are.

Perhaps because your argument holds very little water and as usual anyone who stands up for England is either a racist or a bigot I am neither
I don't care what race or creed people are I just don't like the fact That people can come to this country and try to change it
I welcome anyone one I just think they should adapt to our ways and not try to make us change to theirs

And for your information my family contains people of mixed race and people who were born outside this country But not one of them expects English traditions and laws to be changed to accommodate them instead they have adapted their culture to fit in and integrate. and I am more than happy to call them family. Several posters on this forum can verify this.

just the fact you seem to think minorities, in particular muslims, get some sort of preference and priority over the indigenous peoples is completely hatstand - I suggest you go on a little whirlwind tour of the Uk, especially the South East and Home Counties, and maybe you will see the reality. In fact, get a political map, and visit the places coloured in blue, and I dare you to tell me the people of bradford for instance are whooping it up.

 

[Len Rum]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England.

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

Cibaman, an excellent post on the difficulties of having an English Parliament and how it's wrong to assume it's the same as and as easy as running separate Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.
Sorry for not replying earlier I was on my way to a very important assignment - today's game , which ultimately was more frustrating than reading the views of the RWNJs on this thread.