If people are worried about the SNP, the answer is they should vote labour.
Well you've turned everyone's thinking upside down with this.
I was inclined to say ridiculous, but the more you read, the more bizarre and fascinating it is for me.
It is akin to watching a game of football.
We all see the same match, yet all have different views.
Like I say, I find it all fascinating.
What I said is logical. If you are worried about SNP, you should try to avoid the situation where they have the most power surely!!! If you accept that neither Labour or the Conservatives will have a majority - even with the Lib Dems - And the odds on this with the real pollsters (the bookies) are really low. The more powerful Labour are the less influence the SNP will have.
I agree. However a vote for SNP will be costing Labour seats, not the Tories.
The Tories are appealing to the floating voters, the people that could vote blue or red.
They are saying, if you vote red, you will also be giving more influence to the SNP.
Whereas if you vote blue you won't, because the Tories will not be doing deals with the SNP.
Yet you say the Tories will be more likely to do a deal with the SNP.
You are the only person I've heard, say it more likely for a centre/right party to be more likely to do a deal with a strong left party, than a centre/left party.
Chizz, to take one example, consider prescription charges. The Scottish parliament has the devolved power to decide there won't be any (north of the border). English Welsh and N Irish MPs have no say. Yet Scottish MPs would have the right to vote on precisely that issue at Westminster. Some people think that it is only right and proper that the Scottish MPs are excluded from voting on such devolved matters.
It is not confined to a concept of "English laws". There is also a strong case for a separate English parliament since England is the only one of the four countries in the union that has no assembly of its own. There will probably end up having to be a federal system anyway if Scotland remains in the union, due to the devolution that has taken/is taking place.
se9 & Chizz - you've both missed the point of my post.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
He has views and he has a platform to air them. Just like you. You air your views on here because you are able to do so. If you had a larger platform I dare say you would use that.
I'm not saying I agree with much of anything he says but I'm not going to slag the blokes right to say it and get it across any ways he can.
Well they haven't said they won't - Miliband has. So going into any sort of coalition with them or doing any deals would do him great damage. You have to look at the reality of the situation. The likelihood of any party having a clear majority, even with the lib dems is low. Could the Conservatives survive- unlikely SNP have already said they would vote against them. Could Labour form next government - quite possible as SNP would have to vote against them, which would be seen as supporting the Conservatives. So to get the SNP to do anything to prevent a left of centre government, they would have to be enticed. Labour arguably only needs the knowledge that helping the Conservatives would lose the SNP support.
What in this is not logical?
Not saying this is likely as a deal with SNP would damage Conservatives too. But neither is Labour doing a deal with them and by not, Labour has less of a problem in all probability. And any deal would be around a vote of confidence- the SNP and Tories could not work together in Government. But If they are needed to bring Labour down, promises could be made under the table if the Conservatives are desperate for power.
se9 & Chizz - you've both missed the point of my post.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
I agree, but my objection would be less about it being unfair that we couldn't do the same to Scotland, rather an anti Union party being in a position to manipulate affairs to make a break up of the Union or another Scottish referendum more likely.
se9 & Chizz - you've both missed the point of my post.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
Some of the stuff you've written here is true, but utterly irrelevant. The Tories may well be the "largest party in England", but that's of no relevance. The LibDems might be the largest party in Cornwall. Does that mean only the LibDems should be allowed to bring forward an Act of Independence for Cornwall and then be the only MPs allowed to vote on it? Of course not. If we go down the route of only allowing *some* of the (democratically-elected) MPs to vote on various issues, it will end in constitutional chaos. To extend the case (merely to demonstrate how it doesn't make sense) we would end up with London MPs being excluded from any votes which impact farmers, fishing or wind farms; Midlands MPs being forbidden to vote on any bills protecting coastlines; MPs for Wales being excluded from Air Traffic Control legislation, as there are only ATC centres in England and Scotland; and so on, and so on.
MPs are elected to represent the views and issues of their constituents; *and* to influence the UK government. The so-called West Lothian question is fundamentally flawed. If you are an MP, you represent *your* constituents and you vote to support *your* country, the UK.
Most laws are placed on the statute to cover the whole of the UK. Some of them are then ameliorated locally in Edinburgh, Cardiff, etc. I can't think of any law that has been introduced that impacts only people living in England.
To put it in context, can you suggest what might be introduced ads a "purely English matter"?
I don't have a strong opinion on this. But, if there is something tangible that *only* impacts people in England and has no impact whatsoever in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, I'd like to know what it is. Especially as it might change my opinion.
se9 & Chizz - you've both missed the point of my post.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
I agree, but my objection would be less about it being unfair that we couldn't do the same to Scotland, rather an anti Union party being in a position to manipulate affairs to make a break up of the Union or another Scottish referendum more likely.
Well exactly. The legitimate concern is that the SNP would defy convention and prop up Labour on English devolved matters if Labour promised another referendum or a devo-max that works for Scotland at the expense of the other home nations.
se9 & Chizz - you've both missed the point of my post.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
I agree, but my objection would be less about it being unfair that we couldn't do the same to Scotland, rather an anti Union party being in a position to manipulate affairs to make a break up of the Union or another Scottish referendum more likely.
But what's wrong with a democratically-elected, anti-union party bringing forward its constituents' aspirations? I don't want the union to be broken up and I am fiercely opposed to nationalism. But if that's what the people of several constituencies want, then that's what we have to put up with.
We can't complain if a party takes a mandate and maximises it.
This is where there is contention. You could argue that if the Scots manage their own NHS budget, they shouldn’t vote on wider NHS funding. But they argue they should be able to as it affects their budget! I think that is a fair point to be honest. And that is the sort of problem you will get separating English matters.
Well they haven't said they won't - Miliband has. So going into any sort of coalition with them or doing any deals would do him great damage. You have to look at the reality of the situation. The likelihood of any party having a clear majority, even with the lib dems is low. Could the Conservatives survive- unlikely SNP have already said they would vote against them. Could Labour form next government - quite possible as SNP would have to vote against them, which would be seen as supporting the Conservatives. So to get the SNP to do anything to prevent a left of centre government, they would have to be enticed. Labour arguably only needs the knowledge that helping the Conservatives would lose the SNP support.
What in this is not logical?
Not saying this is likely as a deal with SNP would damage Conservatives too. But neither is Labour doing a deal with them and by not, Labour has less of a problem in all probability. And any deal would be around a vote of confidence- the SNP and Tories could not work together in Government. But If they are needed to bring Labour down, promises could be made under the table if the Conservatives are desperate for power.
I expect the Tories to get more seats than Labour. But not enough for a majority.
I expect Labour to cut a deal with the SNP (contrary to everything Miliband has said).
Lib Dems could go either way.
UKIP is an irrelevence as it won't get more than 2 seats.
This is where there is contention. You could argue that if the Scots manage their own NHS budget, they shouldn’t vote on wider NHS funding. But they argue they should be able to as it affects their budget! I think that is a fair point to be honest. And that is the sort of problem you will get separating English matters.
No, its the sort of problem we already have after separating Scottish matters!
Lib Dems cant though can they? They are only any use if they make a difference. If Labour want a few more votes, they could go in coalition with Lib Dems and hope SNP don't vote with Tories. This would be more likely if Tories get a few more votes which I accept is likely. What is the scenario where Tories can go in with anybody given even more generous projections? There isn't one. That is mathematics- not politics.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
Brogib - If the UK pulled out of the EU what would happen to British citizens currently living in the EU?
Oh, I never thought of that......
Actually can you even vote from France? How does that work? And CA has a point there are 700'000 brits every year that emigrate or make the most of the free movement in the EU.
This is what I find ridiculous .. Britons living permanently overseas, presumably not paying UK taxes and having a vote in UK elections ?
Ah but you are a bit presumptuous -)
- I pay UK income tax, kept my house (fortunately) and keep my savings in the UK - I've fully paid up all my NHI contribs, so will get a UK state pension (yet no longer qualify for NHS cover!!) - I care about my family back home, especially my elderly Mum, and my sister's two kids who somehow will have to face the housing crisis - I support a football club whose welfare is threatened by the suspicious cronyism of a Have I Got News for You personality, and a couple of pornographers and their female hired hand who contribute funds to the Tory party - I listen to Today every morning, and PM every evening
and you reckon I don't deserve a vote on the above matters?
The world has changed, Lincs. The old borders just don't exist, except in UKIP minds.
well you qualify as A 'true blue' .. except for the presumption that 'old borders don't exist' .. I don't want a free for all with every Henri, Pablo and Gustav living in England on social security paid for by taxes that I have contributed to, so if borders don't exist, many need reinstating .. BUT .. according to Big Rob's terms of reference, hypothetically (I love that word) if a 'Brit' has lived in (say) China for 50 years, has effectively cut ties with the UK other than retaining his nationality, has paid no tax for said 50 years, and owns no property in the UK, Monsieur Robbo reckons he should retain the right to vote in UK elections .. I don't think so .. no representation without either residence or taxation .. and residence doesn't mean claiming that you still live in your old mum's drum in Blighty having spent 20 years in Spain (or wherever) and not paid a penny in tax
"We can't complain if a party takes a mandate and maximises it"
Not sure everyone is complaining about how democracy works, just expressing reasons why there is a preference for one outcome over another and the different implications for a Labour/SNP marriage of convenience that can influence voting intentions.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
That's the crux though isn't it - 'if it has a knock-on effect'. Who decides if a devolved bill for English matters has a large enough knock-on effect to justify Scottish intervention? Technically because of the way the Barnett Formula is calculated, even if the bill was regarding library overdue fees or something equally trivial, there would be some tiny effect to the tune of pennies affecting Scotland's Barnett allocation.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
That's the crux though isn't it - 'if it has a knock-on effect'. Who decides if a devolved bill for English matters has a large enough knock-on effect to justify Scottish intervention? Technically because of the way the Barnett Formula is calculated, even if the bill was regarding library overdue fees or something equally trivial, there would be some tiny effect to the tune of pennies affecting Scotland's Barnett allocation.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that there are matters which have no effect on "Scottish MPs". Every MP has two jobs: one is to represent his constituents' views; one is to influence the government of the whole of the UK. No MP has another role within his or her "job description" which is to weed out which bills only impact the country of my constituency and determine whether or not to vote for or against, based on that decision.
Let me put it another way: there are no Scottish MPs. And by that, I mean there is no MP whose constituency is "Scotland"; there is no group of MPs whose constituency is Scotland; and there are no voters who select a group of MPs to represent Scotland. And for "Scotland", also read England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
If an MP for Aberdeen has a constituent who runs a printing business, which has won a contract to print car park tickets for NHS hospitals in England, that MP has every right (in fact, duty) to vote on a bill containing NHS car park charges, whether or not that bill extends beyond England to Scotland. Who else is there to represent that constituent's views?
I'd argue the service sector is on average less prone to foreign competition than the manufacturing sector.
Emerging economies can already produce world class manufactured goods (eg. Samsung, Embraer, Lenovo, Hyundai....) but can't hope in the medium term to recreate the networks, trust, governance etc. and most importantly attract the talent required to compete in the sectors we excel in.
Germany in my view is getting squeezed by its Eurozone commitments on the one hand and foreign competition on the other (including the resurgence of Japan).
I suppose that is true in the sense that you can reconfigure a service business to respond to threats more quickly than you can a manufacturing one.
Germany. Excuse me everyone that I keep banging on about the place, but having lived two hours from the border for the last 22 years, and thus having good sight of it without actually living there, I find it one of the most instructive experiences of my life. Just before I left the UK in 1993, there were lots of voices in the City scoffing that Germany was the "sick man of Europe" - they assumed the Thatcher reforms had created a leaner fitter Britain, whereas Germany had taken a deep breath and embraced the East, at a one to one deutschmark exchange rate.I almost started to believe them until a mate of mine who'd become a big shot in the brewery business, said to me "they laugh at the Germans, but you'll see. They will be back, bigger and stronger than ever". And by the heavens, it took a while but he was right. And it took a while because the Germans think long term. When they build a stretch of motorway you don't find it closed again six months later for "essential repairs". What they have achieved in the East is colossal. It has taken them time and the political blowback is still going on, but go there and then tell me you are not impressed, and that you don't see the potential of all this investment. Roland Duchatelet has certainly seen it.
I look around my house. Kitchen: the whole thing, both furniture and appliances, German, including the little cheap ones. Vacuum cleaner, Miele. Garden, Bosch mower, shredder, Gardena hose stuff. It wasn't a conscience decision and they all work. The Bosch washer dryer is nearly 20 years old and its been faultless. The only way the Brits and the Japs get a look in is in the hi fi (took the amp in for repair last month) and AV systems, and the Jap stuff is mainly old. Samsung TV. Funny enough my car is French, after 16 years of driving Toyota. Most Czechs aspire to a German car, and Skoda is essentially German,
But those are the big names. What people in the UK ignore is that the German economy is powered by small and medium size companies which often are the main employer in a similar size town. For example, Faber Castell who make pencils, still, just as they did when I was at school. Or the headphone brand Sennheiser.
Thats is why at the risk of being a broken record I exhort everyone to look at how the Germans do things and ask if that isn't better than how we do it in the UK. Starting with the administration of professional football.
Tschuss!
Obviously it's no secret that Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse but the theory of comparative advantage (see here for example: http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php) implies that it would be as silly for say the UK to try to compete with Germany in cars or household appliances as it would for Germany to try to compete with the UK in hedge funds or insurance.
To use a more topical example, Apple is a $750bn company created from nothing in just a few decades. Most of that wealth generation has accrued to the US (also indirectly via its workers' wages etc.) yet virtually none of the manufacturing process occurs in the US. Why? Because the US has an edge in technology, design, marketing, finance (for capital-raising) etc. but not in large scale manufacturing - most importantly all of the 'margin' is in the former not the latter! (if you want to make a teenager cry, put an HTC phone under their Christmas tree!).
It's also not true to suggest that the UK does not have a manufacturing base - a quick look at the largest companies in the FTSE100 shows GlaxoSmithKline, BAT, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce etc. However I would agree we don't have the network of small businesses that Germany (or even Italy) has but I don't see that it matters a great deal.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
That's the crux though isn't it - 'if it has a knock-on effect'. Who decides if a devolved bill for English matters has a large enough knock-on effect to justify Scottish intervention? Technically because of the way the Barnett Formula is calculated, even if the bill was regarding library overdue fees or something equally trivial, there would be some tiny effect to the tune of pennies affecting Scotland's Barnett allocation.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that there are matters which have no effect on "Scottish MPs". Every MP has two jobs: one is to represent his constituents' views; one is to influence the government of the whole of the UK. No MP has another role within his or her "job description" which is to weed out which bills only impact the country of my constituency and determine whether or not to vote for or against, based on that decision.
Let me put it another way: there are no Scottish MPs. And by that, I mean there is no MP whose constituency is "Scotland"; there is no group of MPs whose constituency is Scotland; and there are no voters who select a group of MPs to represent Scotland. And for "Scotland", also read England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
If an MP for Aberdeen has a constituent who runs a printing business, which has won a contract to print car park tickets for NHS hospitals in England, that MP has every right (in fact, duty) to vote on a bill containing NHS car park charges, whether or not that bill extends beyond England to Scotland. Who else is there to represent that constituent's views?
You might not agree with it but the fact is Sturgeon herself has acknowledged there are 'English' and 'Scottish' MPs, as well as that there are 'English only' laws, and the fact that this convention has existed ever since the creation of the Scottish executive, to the point that Scottish and Welsh MPs used to and in most cases still do abstain from votes in Westminster on devolved matters for specifically this reason.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
That's the crux though isn't it - 'if it has a knock-on effect'. Who decides if a devolved bill for English matters has a large enough knock-on effect to justify Scottish intervention? Technically because of the way the Barnett Formula is calculated, even if the bill was regarding library overdue fees or something equally trivial, there would be some tiny effect to the tune of pennies affecting Scotland's Barnett allocation.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that there are matters which have no effect on "Scottish MPs". Every MP has two jobs: one is to represent his constituents' views; one is to influence the government of the whole of the UK. No MP has another role within his or her "job description" which is to weed out which bills only impact the country of my constituency and determine whether or not to vote for or against, based on that decision.
Let me put it another way: there are no Scottish MPs. And by that, I mean there is no MP whose constituency is "Scotland"; there is no group of MPs whose constituency is Scotland; and there are no voters who select a group of MPs to represent Scotland. And for "Scotland", also read England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
If an MP for Aberdeen has a constituent who runs a printing business, which has won a contract to print car park tickets for NHS hospitals in England, that MP has every right (in fact, duty) to vote on a bill containing NHS car park charges, whether or not that bill extends beyond England to Scotland. Who else is there to represent that constituent's views?
Presumably you think that if the printing contract was won by a Belgian company, the relevant Belgian politician would have a right, nay, a duty, to vote in the British parliament?
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
I hold no particular candle for the SNP - far from it. But when Sturgeon was interviewed by Evan Davies a couple of days ago she said that SNP MPs would be sticking to the convention you describe in your third paragraph i.e. only voting on 'English' only issues if it could have a 'knock on' effect on devolved matters - particularly levels of Scottish spending. I don't rule out that she may have said something different elsewhere (like most of the others) but I have never heard or read her quoted saying what you claim - so I'd be interested if you could give a source for what you say?
That's the crux though isn't it - 'if it has a knock-on effect'. Who decides if a devolved bill for English matters has a large enough knock-on effect to justify Scottish intervention? Technically because of the way the Barnett Formula is calculated, even if the bill was regarding library overdue fees or something equally trivial, there would be some tiny effect to the tune of pennies affecting Scotland's Barnett allocation.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that there are matters which have no effect on "Scottish MPs". Every MP has two jobs: one is to represent his constituents' views; one is to influence the government of the whole of the UK. No MP has another role within his or her "job description" which is to weed out which bills only impact the country of my constituency and determine whether or not to vote for or against, based on that decision.
Let me put it another way: there are no Scottish MPs. And by that, I mean there is no MP whose constituency is "Scotland"; there is no group of MPs whose constituency is Scotland; and there are no voters who select a group of MPs to represent Scotland. And for "Scotland", also read England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
If an MP for Aberdeen has a constituent who runs a printing business, which has won a contract to print car park tickets for NHS hospitals in England, that MP has every right (in fact, duty) to vote on a bill containing NHS car park charges, whether or not that bill extends beyond England to Scotland. Who else is there to represent that constituent's views?
Presumably you think that if the printing contract was won by a Belgian company, the relevant Belgian politician would have a right, nay, a duty, to vote in the British parliament?
Obviously not. Because - and I want to make this quite clear, so there is no ambiguity - Belgium is not in the UK. Aberdeen is.
The area in Belgium in which the printer is located is not in a constituency which elects an MP sitting in the UK Parliament.
That's one of the things I have always been very clear about: Aberdeen is in the UK; whereas Belgium is very definitely not.
So, does anyone have an example of an "English Law"? That is, a law which applies in England and not in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. And, to be clear, I am not referring to UK laws which are varied within Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; I am referring only to laws which have been created only for implementation within England?
I can't think of any. But there must be some really important ones, otherwise the Tories wouldn't have been banging on about it since the last century. Surely?
Brogib - If the UK pulled out of the EU what would happen to British citizens currently living in the EU?
Oh, I never thought of that......
Actually can you even vote from France? How does that work? And CA has a point there are 700'000 brits every year that emigrate or make the most of the free movement in the EU.
This is what I find ridiculous .. Britons living permanently overseas, presumably not paying UK taxes and having a vote in UK elections ?
Ah but you are a bit presumptuous -)
- I pay UK income tax, kept my house (fortunately) and keep my savings in the UK - I've fully paid up all my NHI contribs, so will get a UK state pension (yet no longer qualify for NHS cover!!) - I care about my family back home, especially my elderly Mum, and my sister's two kids who somehow will have to face the housing crisis - I support a football club whose welfare is threatened by the suspicious cronyism of a Have I Got News for You personality, and a couple of pornographers and their female hired hand who contribute funds to the Tory party - I listen to Today every morning, and PM every evening
and you reckon I don't deserve a vote on the above matters?
The world has changed, Lincs. The old borders just don't exist, except in UKIP minds.
well you qualify as A 'true blue' .. except for the presumption that 'old borders don't exist' .. I don't want a free for all with every Henri, Pablo and Gustav living in England on social security paid for by taxes that I have contributed to, so if borders don't exist, many need reinstating .. BUT .. according to Big Rob's terms of reference, hypothetically (I love that word) if a 'Brit' has lived in (say) China for 50 years, has effectively cut ties with the UK other than retaining his nationality, has paid no tax for said 50 years, and owns no property in the UK, Monsieur Robbo reckons he should retain the right to vote in UK elections .. I don't think so .. no representation without either residence or taxation .. and residence doesn't mean claiming that you still live in your old mum's drum in Blighty having spent 20 years in Spain (or wherever) and not paid a penny in tax
Thing is Lincs, in the example you gave, I really doubt that the Brit in China would care two hoots about voting in the election whereas Big Rob (I assume @brogib) and I are both modern Europhiles who maintain our ties with the UK while enjoying the freedom to expand our horizons that the EU has offered us, so we both want to exercise our vote to keep those freedoms. We are both active UK citizens, as can be seen on CL
I'd argue the service sector is on average less prone to foreign competition than the manufacturing sector.
Emerging economies can already produce world class manufactured goods (eg. Samsung, Embraer, Lenovo, Hyundai....) but can't hope in the medium term to recreate the networks, trust, governance etc. and most importantly attract the talent required to compete in the sectors we excel in.
Germany in my view is getting squeezed by its Eurozone commitments on the one hand and foreign competition on the other (including the resurgence of Japan).
I suppose that is true in the sense that you can reconfigure a service business to respond to threats more quickly than you can a manufacturing one.
Germany. Excuse me everyone that I keep banging on about the place, but having lived two hours from the border for the last 22 years, and thus having good sight of it without actually living there, I find it one of the most instructive experiences of my life. Just before I left the UK in 1993, there were lots of voices in the City scoffing that Germany was the "sick man of Europe" - they assumed the Thatcher reforms had created a leaner fitter Britain, whereas Germany had taken a deep breath and embraced the East, at a one to one deutschmark exchange rate.I almost started to believe them until a mate of mine who'd become a big shot in the brewery business, said to me "they laugh at the Germans, but you'll see. They will be back, bigger and stronger than ever". And by the heavens, it took a while but he was right. And it took a while because the Germans think long term. When they build a stretch of motorway you don't find it closed again six months later for "essential repairs". What they have achieved in the East is colossal. It has taken them time and the political blowback is still going on, but go there and then tell me you are not impressed, and that you don't see the potential of all this investment. Roland Duchatelet has certainly seen it.
I look around my house. Kitchen: the whole thing, both furniture and appliances, German, including the little cheap ones. Vacuum cleaner, Miele. Garden, Bosch mower, shredder, Gardena hose stuff. It wasn't a conscience decision and they all work. The Bosch washer dryer is nearly 20 years old and its been faultless. The only way the Brits and the Japs get a look in is in the hi fi (took the amp in for repair last month) and AV systems, and the Jap stuff is mainly old. Samsung TV. Funny enough my car is French, after 16 years of driving Toyota. Most Czechs aspire to a German car, and Skoda is essentially German,
But those are the big names. What people in the UK ignore is that the German economy is powered by small and medium size companies which often are the main employer in a similar size town. For example, Faber Castell who make pencils, still, just as they did when I was at school. Or the headphone brand Sennheiser.
Thats is why at the risk of being a broken record I exhort everyone to look at how the Germans do things and ask if that isn't better than how we do it in the UK. Starting with the administration of professional football.
Tschuss!
Obviously it's no secret that Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse but the theory of comparative advantage (see here for example: http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php) implies that it would be as silly for say the UK to try to compete with Germany in cars or household appliances as it would for Germany to try to compete with the UK in hedge funds or insurance.
To use a more topical example, Apple is a $750bn company created from nothing in just a few decades. Most of that wealth generation has accrued to the US (also indirectly via its workers' wages etc.) yet virtually none of the manufacturing process occurs in the US. Why? Because the US has an edge in technology, design, marketing, finance (for capital-raising) etc. but not in large scale manufacturing - most importantly all of the 'margin' is in the former not the latter! (if you want to make a teenager cry, put an HTC phone under their Christmas tree!).
It's also not true to suggest that the UK does not have a manufacturing base - a quick look at the largest companies in the FTSE100 shows GlaxoSmithKline, BAT, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce etc. However I would agree we don't have the network of small businesses that Germany (or even Italy) has but I don't see that it matters a great deal.
I think it matters because of what it tells us about the two countries, and what we have lost in the UK. All those things the Germans make well - we used to make them well too. Why did we lose out to the German? It wasn't the cost base, was it?? It was the commitment to quality and the long term that allowed the Germans to push ahead. The German State supported all those industries and SMEs by ensuring a superb infrastructure to get those goods around, and a balanced regional economy. We had that once too, and let it all slide away, and now belatedly Osborne is going on about a "Northern Powerhouse".
Your UK manufacturing base list is interesting. Pharma, yes, I concede that's a bright spot. BAT, makes products which ensures that people need pharma - great synergy. But we used to have the products which competed with BMW, VW, Miele, Bosch etc. All gone. Easier quicker money for the best young graduates in "financial services" or the pseudo-markets of the privatised utilities. I'm not convinced that we are that much better at "services" than any other European country. Away from the other world of the City, what do we do better, and why are we better at it? Genuine question. I've heard it said our insurance industry is more efficient than in other European countries . But we don't seem much good at exporting that expertise, and there's only so much insurance a domestic market needs.
We need a plan to rebalance and regenerate the economy, make it less London-centric, and it will need more than vague plans to upgrade a 60 mile railway line which currently would not look out of place in former Communist Europe. Not admittedly that I have heard much better from any other party. Probably because it would involve State investment, which then brings howls of "drowning in debt" and "pushing up the deficit".
Comments
No doesn't matter a jot to me. They are all subject to approval by Brussels anyway.
The Tories are appealing to the floating voters, the people that could vote blue or red.
They are saying, if you vote red, you will also be giving more influence to the SNP.
Whereas if you vote blue you won't, because the Tories will not be doing deals with the SNP.
Yet you say the Tories will be more likely to do a deal with the SNP.
You are the only person I've heard, say it more likely for a centre/right party to be more likely to do a deal with a strong left party, than a centre/left party.
Who knows. You may be right.
It is not confined to a concept of "English laws". There is also a strong case for a separate English parliament since England is the only one of the four countries in the union that has no assembly of its own. There will probably end up having to be a federal system anyway if Scotland remains in the union, due to the devolution that has taken/is taking place.
The issue England is likely going to face is that the Tories will be the largest party in England in terms of MPs and could in fact have an absolute majority in England. However Labour MPs + SNP MPs could and likely will outnumber Tory MPs across the UK. Lets say there is a vote on a bill on a devolved matter, such as university funding or social care or the NHS. Typically, Scottish MPs would not vote on these matters in Westminster as the bill going through Westminster would only affect England. However lets say there is an English NHS bill going through the Commons on an issue that Labour and Tories are divided on. The Tories would normally win it as the Scottish MPs should, by convention, abstain, however with the language Sturgeon has been using over the last few weeks, she would be willing to order her party to vote with Labour and against the Tories, as long as Labour were willing to vote with the SNP on a national matter.
As such, English MPs democratically elected by English voters would be overruled on a purely English matter because of the votes of Scottish MPs, yet English MPs cannot do the same for a bill on the Scottish NHS as no English politicians sit in Holyrood.
Andrew Sachs
Half decent comedy actor though.
What in this is not logical?
Not saying this is likely as a deal with SNP would damage Conservatives too. But neither is Labour doing a deal with them and by not, Labour has less of a problem in all probability. And any deal would be around a vote of confidence- the SNP and Tories could not work together in Government. But If they are needed to bring Labour down, promises could be made under the table if the Conservatives are desperate for power.
MPs are elected to represent the views and issues of their constituents; *and* to influence the UK government. The so-called West Lothian question is fundamentally flawed. If you are an MP, you represent *your* constituents and you vote to support *your* country, the UK.
Most laws are placed on the statute to cover the whole of the UK. Some of them are then ameliorated locally in Edinburgh, Cardiff, etc. I can't think of any law that has been introduced that impacts only people living in England.
To put it in context, can you suggest what might be introduced ads a "purely English matter"?
I don't have a strong opinion on this. But, if there is something tangible that *only* impacts people in England and has no impact whatsoever in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, I'd like to know what it is. Especially as it might change my opinion.
We can't complain if a party takes a mandate and maximises it.
I expect Labour to cut a deal with the SNP (contrary to everything Miliband has said).
Lib Dems could go either way.
UKIP is an irrelevence as it won't get more than 2 seats.
It's all to play for.
Not sure everyone is complaining about how democracy works, just expressing reasons why there is a preference for one outcome over another and the different implications for a Labour/SNP marriage of convenience that can influence voting intentions.
Sturgeon has been making a lot of noises like in this story where she feels patient charging in England will affect the Scottish NHS, except this is simply not true - patient charging (for prescriptions and other chargeable NHS services) doesn't change the amount of funding the English NHS gets, and will therefore have no knock-on effect on the Scottish NHS. However she gets to make the decision about whether to mobilise her SNP MPs on the issue and there is no mechanism to block Scottish MPs from voting on a devolved matter that will have no effect on them.
Let me put it another way: there are no Scottish MPs. And by that, I mean there is no MP whose constituency is "Scotland"; there is no group of MPs whose constituency is Scotland; and there are no voters who select a group of MPs to represent Scotland. And for "Scotland", also read England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
If an MP for Aberdeen has a constituent who runs a printing business, which has won a contract to print car park tickets for NHS hospitals in England, that MP has every right (in fact, duty) to vote on a bill containing NHS car park charges, whether or not that bill extends beyond England to Scotland. Who else is there to represent that constituent's views?
To use a more topical example, Apple is a $750bn company created from nothing in just a few decades. Most of that wealth generation has accrued to the US (also indirectly via its workers' wages etc.) yet virtually none of the manufacturing process occurs in the US. Why? Because the US has an edge in technology, design, marketing, finance (for capital-raising) etc. but not in large scale manufacturing - most importantly all of the 'margin' is in the former not the latter! (if you want to make a teenager cry, put an HTC phone under their Christmas tree!).
It's also not true to suggest that the UK does not have a manufacturing base - a quick look at the largest companies in the FTSE100 shows GlaxoSmithKline, BAT, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce etc. However I would agree we don't have the network of small businesses that Germany (or even Italy) has but I don't see that it matters a great deal.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
The area in Belgium in which the printer is located is not in a constituency which elects an MP sitting in the UK Parliament.
That's one of the things I have always been very clear about: Aberdeen is in the UK; whereas Belgium is very definitely not.
I can't think of any. But there must be some really important ones, otherwise the Tories wouldn't have been banging on about it since the last century. Surely?
it would have prevented any SNP issues
It's just constant bitching at one another!
Live, Love, Laugh and Be Happy -
Isn't that right, Rob?
:-)
Your UK manufacturing base list is interesting. Pharma, yes, I concede that's a bright spot. BAT, makes products which ensures that people need pharma - great synergy. But we used to have the products which competed with BMW, VW, Miele, Bosch etc. All gone. Easier quicker money for the best young graduates in "financial services" or the pseudo-markets of the privatised utilities. I'm not convinced that we are that much better at "services" than any other European country. Away from the other world of the City, what do we do better, and why are we better at it? Genuine question. I've heard it said our insurance industry is more efficient than in other European countries . But we don't seem much good at exporting that expertise, and there's only so much insurance a domestic market needs.
We need a plan to rebalance and regenerate the economy, make it less London-centric, and it will need more than vague plans to upgrade a 60 mile railway line which currently would not look out of place in former Communist Europe. Not admittedly that I have heard much better from any other party. Probably because it would involve State investment, which then brings howls of "drowning in debt" and "pushing up the deficit".