Society & Culture0 min ago
English Votes For English Laws
English votes for English laws is passed in parliament.
http:// www.msn .com/en -gb/new s/uknew s/row-o ver-dis united- kingdom -as-mps -approv es-engl ish-vot es/ar-B BmkUdR? li=AAae UIW
http://
Answers
There is a slight difference between the two matters, QM (at least as far as the way the public are treated). As far as I know there are no plans to treat English people using airports in Scotland any differently to Scottish people using airports in England. If, say, the Scottish Parliament imposed an additional departure tax on people from Carlisle using...
11:51 Sat 24th Oct 2015
“NJ Surely it is England who are out of step with the rest of Europe regarding Uni.fees.”
I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your remark, SirO.
This is a matter of discrimination based on the area of the United Kingdom that students come from. It has nothing to do with Europe and I neither know nor care what they do elsewhere. Matters concerning University education should not have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, Scottish Universities are not funded solely by Scottish taxpayers, they do not entertain solely Scottish Students and Scottish students do not solely attend Scottish Universities. In short, universities are a national (UK) resource used by people from across the UK.
What happens in the rest of Europe is the affair of the individual nations concerned. I’ve no reason to believe that the UK or England should aspire to emulate other European countries, most of which are in seemingly terminal economic decline due to the various effects of the ill-fated “European Project”.
I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your remark, SirO.
This is a matter of discrimination based on the area of the United Kingdom that students come from. It has nothing to do with Europe and I neither know nor care what they do elsewhere. Matters concerning University education should not have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, Scottish Universities are not funded solely by Scottish taxpayers, they do not entertain solely Scottish Students and Scottish students do not solely attend Scottish Universities. In short, universities are a national (UK) resource used by people from across the UK.
What happens in the rest of Europe is the affair of the individual nations concerned. I’ve no reason to believe that the UK or England should aspire to emulate other European countries, most of which are in seemingly terminal economic decline due to the various effects of the ill-fated “European Project”.
But the issue as far as this question goes is not what the rest of Europe or Scotland feel about university education. It is what should happen with that facility in the UK. University education should not be for Scotland to determine differently to the rest of the UK. Westminster, in its folly, has decided that it should be and that has led to the mess we see now. The requirement for “English votes for English Laws” is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the ridiculous devolution nonsense of which the Scottish tuition fee fiasco is but one of many manifestations.
"In short, universities are a national (UK) resource used by people from across the UK."
Presumably then, NJ, you would feel the same about Heathrow. Sure, it's IN England, but your quote above about universities is certainly equally true of the UK's major airport.
The cabinet minister, Chris Grayling, claimed in the EVEL debate the other day that a third runway at Heathrow might well qualify as an "England only" * matter. If it does, one trusts that no element of Scottish tax will be used to fund its expansion!
* The following is an extract from http:// www.her aldscot land.co m/polit ics/138 88756.d isplay/
“There was also controversy after ministers suggested Scottish MPs could be barred from a future vote on Heathrow expansion. Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House, said that the issue could be deemed England-only, despite its impact on Scotland.”
Presumably then, NJ, you would feel the same about Heathrow. Sure, it's IN England, but your quote above about universities is certainly equally true of the UK's major airport.
The cabinet minister, Chris Grayling, claimed in the EVEL debate the other day that a third runway at Heathrow might well qualify as an "England only" * matter. If it does, one trusts that no element of Scottish tax will be used to fund its expansion!
* The following is an extract from http://
“There was also controversy after ministers suggested Scottish MPs could be barred from a future vote on Heathrow expansion. Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House, said that the issue could be deemed England-only, despite its impact on Scotland.”
There is a slight difference between the two matters, QM (at least as far as the way the public are treated). As far as I know there are no plans to treat English people using airports in Scotland any differently to Scottish people using airports in England. If, say, the Scottish Parliament imposed an additional departure tax on people from Carlisle using Glasgow airport then I would be similarly incensed.
However, that said, I agree with your contention (and disagree with Mr Grayling’s) that proposals for Heathrow (if or wherever this moribund government eventually decides to authorise airport expansion) is a matter for all UK MPs. Airports are a national resource: people from Scotland use Heathrow and Gatwick; people from England use Scottish airports. Expansion at Heathrow will be of benefit (and will cost) Scottish people as well as the English (and I’m not forgetting the Welsh and Northern Irish in any of this, but don’t want to keep repeating myself).
In fact, there’s the rub. There are very few things indeed that are purely Scottish or purely English matters. Anything that is publicly funded is inextricably linked because taxation is not separated between the two areas. This call for “EVEL” has only arisen because Scotland has been granted powers over some matters (some of which, as with the universities, are certainly not “Scottish only” issues) which take them out of the hands of English MPs at Westminster whilst Scottish MPs retain the right to vote on similar matters which, it is claimed, affect only England. It was an absolute certainty that devolution would lead to this confused and chaotic situation and the only surprising thing is that it has taken so long to come to a head. It was obviously prompted by Mr Cameron’s ridiculous reaction to a single rogue opinion poll in the run up to the referendum, where he jumped on an Easy Jet flight to Glasgow with a brief case full of further gifts for the Scots to persuade them to vote to remain in the UK.
These proposals will not cure the situation. They will simply engender more division and rancour. The answer is simple:
(1) Reverse devolution and simply ensure Scotland is subject to the same regime as England (and in fact go a little further by removing some other anomalies such as those existing in the legal systems).
(2) Immediately grant the Scots a second referendum on their membership of the United Kingdom under the new arrangements.
If they vote to remain they will be subject to exactly the same governance as the rest of the UK. If they vote to leave then they can do whatever they wish.
However, that said, I agree with your contention (and disagree with Mr Grayling’s) that proposals for Heathrow (if or wherever this moribund government eventually decides to authorise airport expansion) is a matter for all UK MPs. Airports are a national resource: people from Scotland use Heathrow and Gatwick; people from England use Scottish airports. Expansion at Heathrow will be of benefit (and will cost) Scottish people as well as the English (and I’m not forgetting the Welsh and Northern Irish in any of this, but don’t want to keep repeating myself).
In fact, there’s the rub. There are very few things indeed that are purely Scottish or purely English matters. Anything that is publicly funded is inextricably linked because taxation is not separated between the two areas. This call for “EVEL” has only arisen because Scotland has been granted powers over some matters (some of which, as with the universities, are certainly not “Scottish only” issues) which take them out of the hands of English MPs at Westminster whilst Scottish MPs retain the right to vote on similar matters which, it is claimed, affect only England. It was an absolute certainty that devolution would lead to this confused and chaotic situation and the only surprising thing is that it has taken so long to come to a head. It was obviously prompted by Mr Cameron’s ridiculous reaction to a single rogue opinion poll in the run up to the referendum, where he jumped on an Easy Jet flight to Glasgow with a brief case full of further gifts for the Scots to persuade them to vote to remain in the UK.
These proposals will not cure the situation. They will simply engender more division and rancour. The answer is simple:
(1) Reverse devolution and simply ensure Scotland is subject to the same regime as England (and in fact go a little further by removing some other anomalies such as those existing in the legal systems).
(2) Immediately grant the Scots a second referendum on their membership of the United Kingdom under the new arrangements.
If they vote to remain they will be subject to exactly the same governance as the rest of the UK. If they vote to leave then they can do whatever they wish.
As you say, NJ, “There are very few things indeed that are purely Scottish or purely English matters.” Indeed so!
I recall a debate on AB some years ago devoted to the West Lothian Question, of which EVEL is basically just the obverse. Believing the WLQ to be a bit of a ‘non-event’, I asked then if anyone could give me an actual example of a parliamentary situation in which Scottish MPs had, in effect, thwarted the will of English MPs in the decades since the phrase was first used. As best I recall, only ONE person came up with a SINGLE such occasion.
This seemed to support my attitude that the whole matter was of infinitesimally small significance. If something arises but once in forty years, is it worth fussing about?
Just as you are somewhat miffed that MSPs have powers that English MPs do not, because of devolution, do you not suppose that EVEL is just going to expand such miffery in reverse? The control areas allocated to MSPs were specifically agreed as part of the devolution process; no such 'overall' arrangement applies to EVEL, since each individual dubious area will be decided piecemeal by the Speaker, we are led to believe.
The problem there, of course, is that it is precisely people of Hammond’s ilk who will be deciding which are the “England only” legal areas!
I recall a debate on AB some years ago devoted to the West Lothian Question, of which EVEL is basically just the obverse. Believing the WLQ to be a bit of a ‘non-event’, I asked then if anyone could give me an actual example of a parliamentary situation in which Scottish MPs had, in effect, thwarted the will of English MPs in the decades since the phrase was first used. As best I recall, only ONE person came up with a SINGLE such occasion.
This seemed to support my attitude that the whole matter was of infinitesimally small significance. If something arises but once in forty years, is it worth fussing about?
Just as you are somewhat miffed that MSPs have powers that English MPs do not, because of devolution, do you not suppose that EVEL is just going to expand such miffery in reverse? The control areas allocated to MSPs were specifically agreed as part of the devolution process; no such 'overall' arrangement applies to EVEL, since each individual dubious area will be decided piecemeal by the Speaker, we are led to believe.
The problem there, of course, is that it is precisely people of Hammond’s ilk who will be deciding which are the “England only” legal areas!
Yes I quite agree with (almost!) everything you say, QM. I have to say that the university issue is particularly thorny. The Scottish Parliament was seen to be particularly vindictive to the English, especially when considering that students from elsewhere in the EU had to be provided with free tuition.
However, the individual details are not very important. In principle the whole thing is a mess and was brought about solely by devolution. These proposals - especially the decision on is an "English only" issue that effectively disenfranchises Scottish MPs - will be a constant cause of rancour.
Best to reverse devolution as I suggest (though that would entail politicians admitting they had made an error, so little or no chance) and let Scotland decide how they'd like to go forward.
However, the individual details are not very important. In principle the whole thing is a mess and was brought about solely by devolution. These proposals - especially the decision on is an "English only" issue that effectively disenfranchises Scottish MPs - will be a constant cause of rancour.
Best to reverse devolution as I suggest (though that would entail politicians admitting they had made an error, so little or no chance) and let Scotland decide how they'd like to go forward.
> The control areas allocated to MSPs were specifically agreed as part of the devolution process; no such 'overall' arrangement applies to EVEL, since each individual dubious area will be decided piecemeal by the Speaker, we are led to believe.
We might ask why it's being done like that for EVEL, rather than with an 'overall' arrangement as in devolved parliaments.
We might ask why it's being done like that for EVEL, rather than with an 'overall' arrangement as in devolved parliaments.
Exactly, Ellipsis. It's a dog's breakfast.
A simple way would be to "devolve" to English only MPs exactly the same things that are devolved to the other Parliaments/ Assemblies. It may not be straightforward but it would certainly be less complex (and less open to argument) than this current proposal.
I still reckon my idea of reversing devolution is best.
A simple way would be to "devolve" to English only MPs exactly the same things that are devolved to the other Parliaments/ Assemblies. It may not be straightforward but it would certainly be less complex (and less open to argument) than this current proposal.
I still reckon my idea of reversing devolution is best.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.