How many convicted murderers and rapists from the EU have come here?
He had done his time.
We wouldn't allow a convicted murderer, even after serving his sentence, come here from any other country. It's insane that we let them in from the EU - a risk to the public.
SeanT, "Yes, but did they continue to call for a referendum, or did they drop it?"
They didn't call for a referendum. But, they didn't sign the Canadian constitution. The issue lost importance, and the PQ then lost the provincial elections in 1985
Matters in fact died down completely , and the constitutional position of Quebec might never have have re-emerged as an issue.
However, instead of leaving matters well alone, Brian Mulroney the Canadian Premier decided that he would try and get Quebec to sign the Canadian constitution in 1987 with the Meech Lake Accord.
That was so catastrophically bungled that it eventually let to the PQ regaining Quebec and the second referendum.
I think Quebec has still not signed the Canadian constitution, but ... sleeping dogs.
How many convicted murderers and rapists from the EU have come here?
He had done his time.
We wouldn't allow a convicted murderer, even after serving his sentence, come here from any other country. It's insane that we let them in from the EU - a risk to the public.
But how many convicted murderers do we get to export to the EU? Are we up or down on murderers overall?
I see Ed Miliband wants a constitutional convention in Autumn 2015, as far from a general election and the public views as he can possibly get it.
I thought his mate Brown set out rather a shorter timetable?
Miliband's position is to rush through the extra powers for Scotland, but kick the issue for England until after the general election.
What could possibly be his motivation for that...
Motivations aside, surely there's no way to sort out a settlement for England within the same timetable as for Scotland as announced? Meaning the Scottish ones will be significantly delayed.
Given maturity on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to at least partially address the issue. Temporary EVEL being a temporary stopgap or permanent fixture, for instance.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
More importanly she is a rampant lefty (former?) member of CND and a lawyer used to arguing a wrongheaded case. I note that in a case of labour-like political incest she is married to the current SNP chief execuitive. The SNP has been a nice little earner all round. I suppose I should be ashamed to be so cynical - but if Sturgeon is the answer to Scotland's problems (like Health, where she is a former Secretary) then somebody is asking the wrong question.
Salmond's genius was to appear like a Tartan Tory to rightwingers but a social democrat to lefties (even if his ideological beginnings were almost Trot).
Sturgeon won't be able to do that, she's obviously of the Left. She will lead the SNP into a Coalition government in Holyrood, I think.
The burning question is what the SNP do with their referendum commitment. They can't call for another within five years at a bare minimum, and probably 10-15 (unless the UK exits the EU). Yet without that commitment in their manifesto they will look a bit pointless.
Can anyone tell me what happened to the PQ after their first referendum defeat?
It's like Boris pretended to be a right-winger to arch-conservatives and a social democrat supporter to lefties when he was elected president of Oxford union. Even now, he pretends to be a eurosceptic to the Tory Right, while he's an arch-EU supporter behind the scenes to the big corporations. Pe
Boris also promised an amnesty to illegal immigrants whilst campaigning to be mayor. He can't just pop pledge that in the recycling - that's toxic waste and he's going to have to go the tip with it strapped to his roof rack. People will be pointing.
How many convicted murderers and rapists from the EU have come here?
He had done his time.
We wouldn't allow a convicted murderer, even after serving his sentence, come here from any other country. It's insane that we let them in from the EU - a risk to the public.
But how many convicted murderers do we get to export to the EU? Are we up or down on murderers overall?
Presumably we have a responsible system where such things are monitored?
Laura Kuensbergh reporting without ambiguity, and absolving Yes campaigners of all blame, that a group of unionists came to George Square determined to seek out trouble and engaged in clashes with the police.
What are chances that the Daily Mail or Telegraph will report the truth of this-very, very low I fear.
How many convicted murderers and rapists from the EU have come here?
He had done his time.
We wouldn't allow a convicted murderer, even after serving his sentence, come here from any other country. It's insane that we let them in from the EU - a risk to the public.
But how many convicted murderers do we get to export to the EU? Are we up or down on murderers overall?
Try saying that to the girls parents,ridiculous answer.
More importanly she is a rampant lefty (former?) member of CND and a lawyer used to arguing a wrongheaded case. I note that in a case of labour-like political incest she is married to the current SNP chief execuitive. The SNP has been a nice little earner all round. I suppose I should be ashamed to be so cynical - but if Sturgeon is the answer to Scotland's problems (like Health, where she is a former Secretary) then somebody is asking the wrong question.
Salmond's genius was to appear like a Tartan Tory to rightwingers but a social democrat to lefties (even if his ideological beginnings were almost Trot).
Sturgeon won't be able to do that, she's obviously of the Left. She will lead the SNP into a Coalition government in Holyrood, I think.
The burning question is what the SNP do with their referendum commitment. They can't call for another within five years at a bare minimum, and probably 10-15 (unless the UK exits the EU). Yet without that commitment in their manifesto they will look a bit pointless.
Can anyone tell me what happened to the PQ after their first referendum defeat?
It's like Boris pretended to be a right-winger to arch-conservatives and a social democrat supporter to lefties when he was elected president of Oxford union. Even now, he pretends to be a eurosceptic to the Tory Right, while he's an arch-EU supporter behind the scenes to the big corporations. Pe
Boris also promised an amnesty to illegal immigrants whilst campaigning to be mayor. He can't just pop pledge that in the recycling - that's toxic waste and he's going to have to go the tip with it strapped to his roof rack. People will be pointing.
It sounds like a good idea. Why would he want to drop it?
I see Ed Miliband wants a constitutional convention in Autumn 2015, as far from a general election and the public views as he can possibly get it.
I thought his mate Brown set out rather a shorter timetable?
Miliband's position is to rush through the extra powers for Scotland, but kick the issue for England until after the general election.
What could possibly be his motivation for that...
Motivations aside, surely there's no way to sort out a settlement for England within the same timetable as for Scotland as announced? Meaning the Scottish ones will be significantly delayed.
Given maturity on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to at least partially address the issue. Temporary EVEL being a temporary stopgap or permanent fixture, for instance.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
I'm sorry but there's no question in my mind that HoL reform is all part of the solution, at least in the long term.
I see Ed Miliband wants a constitutional convention in Autumn 2015, as far from a general election and the public views as he can possibly get it.
I thought his mate Brown set out rather a shorter timetable?
Miliband's position is to rush through the extra powers for Scotland, but kick the issue for England until after the general election.
What could possibly be his motivation for that...
Motivations aside, surely there's no way to sort out a settlement for England within the same timetable as for Scotland as announced? Meaning the Scottish ones will be significantly delayed.
Given maturity on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to at least partially address the issue. Temporary EVEL being a temporary stopgap or permanent fixture, for instance.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
I'm sorry but there's no question in my mind that HoL reform is all part of the solution, at least in the long term.
It may be. But HoL reform has proved intractable for years now, and the odds of getting it and all the other changes through at the same time are virtually non-existent. Just look at the farcical Lib Dem proposals for an example of why that is the case.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver, and that means the English question also needs answering. Although not perfect. EVEL is easily agreeable and implementable.
Miliband's just kicking this into the long grass, for the obvious reasons.
Laura Kuensbergh reporting without ambiguity, and absolving Yes campaigners of all blame, that a group of unionists came to George Square determined to seek out trouble and engaged in clashes with the police.
What are chances that the Daily Mail or Telegraph will report the truth of this-very, very low I fear.
More importanly she is a rampant lefty (former?) member of CND and a lawyer used to arguing a wrongheaded case. I note that in a case of labour-like political incest she is married to the current SNP chief execuitive. The SNP has been a nice little earner all round. I suppose I should be ashamed to be so cynical - but if Sturgeon is the answer to Scotland's problems (like Health, where she is a former Secretary) then somebody is asking the wrong question.
Salmond's genius was to appear like a Tartan Tory to rightwingers but a social democrat to lefties (even if his ideological beginnings were almost Trot).
Sturgeon won't be able to do that, she's obviously of the Left. She will lead the SNP into a Coalition government in Holyrood, I think.
The burning question is what the SNP do with their referendum commitment. They can't call for another within five years at a bare minimum, and probably 10-15 (unless the UK exits the EU). Yet without that commitment in their manifesto they will look a bit pointless.
Can anyone tell me what happened to the PQ after their first referendum defeat?
It's like Boris pretended to be a right-winger to arch-conservatives and a social democrat supporter to lefties when he was elected president of Oxford union. Even now, he pretends to be a eurosceptic to the Tory Right, while he's an arch-EU supporter behind the scenes to the big corporations. Pe
Boris also promised an amnesty to illegal immigrants whilst campaigning to be mayor. He can't just pop pledge that in the recycling - that's toxic waste and he's going to have to go the tip with it strapped to his roof rack. People will be pointing.
It sounds like a good idea. Why would he want to drop it?
Amnesty's off the agenda at the moment. Somehow I don't think it'll be a vote winner if Boris wants to lead the Tories. Amnesty is an example of Boris' Achilles heal: he dislikes displeasing his audiences. He made the pledge to a lively inner London crowd because he didn't have teh bottle to make the wider-audience-vote-winning argument against.
I see Ed Miliband wants a constitutional convention in Autumn 2015, as far from a general election and the public views as he can possibly get it.
I thought his mate Brown set out rather a shorter timetable?
Miliband's position is to rush through the extra powers for Scotland, but kick the issue for England until after the general election.
What could possibly be his motivation for that...
Motivations aside, surely there's no way to sort out a settlement for England within the same timetable as for Scotland as announced? Meaning the Scottish ones will be significantly delayed.
Given maturity on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to at least partially address the issue. Temporary EVEL being a temporary stopgap or permanent fixture, for instance.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
I'm sorry but there's no question in my mind that HoL reform is all part of the solution, at least in the long term.
It may be. But HoL reform has proved intractable for years now, and the odds of getting it and all the other changes through at the same time are virtually non-existent. Just look at the farcical Lib Dem proposals for an example of why that is the case.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver, and that means the English question also needs answering. Although not perfect. EVEL is easily agreeable and implementable.
Miliband's just kicking this into the long grass, for the obvious reasons.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush. It's clear from a number of signals that we need fundamental constitutional reform in England, and it can't and shouldn't be done in a few weeks, and to the advantage of the incumbent Government, the same people who basically hid from the Scottish referendum.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush.
I was disappointed to find out I knew more SLAB shadow front bench members than him but he dealt with it well. He didnt pretend he knew and he showed the question the contempt it probably deserved.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush.
Newsnight will become unwatchable if Andrew Neil is allowed to present it more often. Please spare us.
I found it unbelieveable that Andrew Neil expected the Shadow Business Secretary to announce how Labour would devolve power to England on Newsnight. On the day the idea was mooted.
Consultation anyone ? Heard of democracy ? No. Andrew must be answered on the spot. Never mind what the country thinks. We have got another rude Tory Newsnight interviewer.. One has gone, another has come. The BBC are so full of f***ing rude Tories.
On topic: There is a problem here that many people do not, or want to, understand the make up of the SNP.
Sturgeon is almost odds on going to be the leader of the SNP, however, within the organisation, there are many different facets. There are many who believe that Salmond is the second coming and detest Sturgeon. In her own particular way she has made many enemies in the SNP.
As an outsider, who met up with her by accident, I can assure you dear reader, that She is someone you do not want to get on the wrong side of.
She is clever, where Salmond resorted to cunning and guile (too clever for his own good), Sturgeon plays the game on Her terms and rules. God help anyone who gets in Her way, She won't.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush.
17 years not long enough for you?
... starting with 16 and a half years of inaction
.. for most of which they had huge majorities.
Who had huge majorities and in what way is that relevant?
I found it unbelieveable that Andrew Neil expected the Shadow Business Secretary to announce how Labour would devolve power to England on Newsnight. On the day the idea was mooted.
He didn't. He asked Chuka to concede the principle, which he singularly failed to do
Newsnight will become unwatchable if Andrew Neil is allowed to present it more often. Please spare us.
I found it unbelieveable that Andrew Neil expected the Shadow Business Secretary to announce how Labour would devolve power to England on Newsnight. On the day the idea was mooted.
Consultation anyone ? Heard of democracy ? No. Andrew must be answered on the spot. Never mind what the country thinks. We have got another rude Tory Newsnight interviewer.. One has gone, another has come. The BBC are so full of f***ing rude Tories.
Maybe he was hoping the SBS would float an idea. As there is no settled Labour policy yet, it seems reasonable to kick a few ideas around.
I see Ed Miliband wants a constitutional convention in Autumn 2015, as far from a general election and the public views as he can possibly get it.
I thought his mate Brown set out rather a shorter timetable?
Miliband's position is to rush through the extra powers for Scotland, but kick the issue for England until after the general election.
What could possibly be his motivation for that...
Motivations aside, surely there's no way to sort out a settlement for England within the same timetable as for Scotland as announced? Meaning the Scottish ones will be significantly delayed.
Given maturity on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to at least partially address the issue. Temporary EVEL being a temporary stopgap or permanent fixture, for instance.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
I'm sorry but there's no question in my mind that HoL reform is all part of the solution, at least in the long term.
It may be. But HoL reform has proved intractable for years now, and the odds of getting it and all the other changes through at the same time are virtually non-existent. Just look at the farcical Lib Dem proposals for an example of why that is the case.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver, and that means the English question also needs answering. Although not perfect. EVEL is easily agreeable and implementable.
Miliband's just kicking this into the long grass, for the obvious reasons.
That's as may be so, but as an English voter that agrees the need for EVEL and resolution of WLQ, I also don't want it to be done in a headlong partisan rush. It's clear from a number of signals that we need fundamental constitutional reform in England, and it can't and shouldn't be done in a few weeks, and to the advantage of the incumbent Government, the same people who basically hid from the Scottish referendum.
This has been an issue since September 1997 and the devolution votes. Labour did sod all about it for 13 years because it didn't want to. The "headlong rush " has been 17 years in the making.
Utterly pathetic from Labour. Of course we need a constitutional convention, but we need it now, not after the next GE. Delaying is just totally transparent.
A wise leader would be advocating we start discussions about major reform now and accepting EV4EL - a blocking mechanism, nothing more, and one that precludes no MP from serving as a minister - as a stop gap until the convention finalises its work. And if that means a Labour government having to work with MPs of other parties to get legislation through Parliament, so be it: that's democracy.
It is hard to describe just how abysmal a leader EdM is. Today is merely the latest example of his unsuitability. Labour could have seized the initiative today; it could have made a significant gesture that would have played very well and been the right thing to do, and may actually have rendered EV4EL irrelevant by making Labour more popular in England. But instead Miliband flailed and Labour f'ed up, so handing a gift to the Tories whose own self-interested approach will now reap huge rewards.
Who had huge majorities and in what way is that relevant?
Labour, who are now trying to pretend this is a new problem which has only just come up and which could not have been sorted out before.
Agreed. But no-one else did much about it. Having said that, there hasn't been much interest in English devolution and the three obvious options (EV4EL, English parliament, regional assemblies) are all fairly unpalatable for one reason or another.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
Salmond and the SNP really thought they had won. Victory speech planned. Helicopter flight to Stirling Castle, etc
Well, I guess that is consistent with their other fantasies. Perhaps he wasn't lying after all, just deluded.
Yes. I think he was honestly deluded, as well as being quite a liar. Wilfully blinded to the horrible economic realities by the dream of nation-making.
Within SNP circles they must have supposed that their 'ace'; their band of SNP-registered working class voters would dutifully troop to the polls and get them home.
As for the economic realities I think he totally knew. After a nasty argument with England over the currency he would have signed Scotland straight up to the euro. As for the rest of the economic misery, England would always have presented an easy target for blame.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
I agree an assembly would be better, but I couldn't care less about second class MP's because at present we have second class voters - the English. It's plain unjust.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
How many convicted murderers and rapists from the EU have come here?
He had done his time.
We wouldn't allow a convicted murderer, even after serving his sentence, come here from any other country. It's insane that we let them in from the EU - a risk to the public.
But how many convicted murderers do we get to export to the EU? Are we up or down on murderers overall?
Not relevant. It's no better for us to be flooding Europe with our murderers than it is for the opposite to occur.
Newsnight will become unwatchable if Andrew Neil is allowed to present it more often. Please spare us.
I found it unbelieveable that Andrew Neil expected the Shadow Business Secretary to announce how Labour would devolve power to England on Newsnight. On the day the idea was mooted.
Consultation anyone ? Heard of democracy ? No. Andrew must be answered on the spot. Never mind what the country thinks. We have got another rude Tory Newsnight interviewer.. One has gone, another has come. The BBC are so full of f***ing rude Tories.
Given the general leftyness of the BBC seems to be conceded even by lefties, perhaps the obvious Tories among the great and good have to be more combative and in-your-face in order to make sure they are noticed and rise up through the ranks, and therefore being definitive examples of Toryness in a sea of leftyness, which is handy to be anle to point out.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
Our representatives are empowered to make decisions on our behalf without referring back everything. Now as it happens this is the sort of thing I think they should, but I don't think they actually lack the authority to do it if they decide, in their wisdom, it is in our best interests. That's why we have representatives after all. If they make the wrong decisions, or don't give us a heads up when they probably should, we punish them for it or switch to a more directly democratic system, with clear rules on what can and cannot be done without consultation back to the electorate.
I was disappointed to find out I knew more SLAB shadow front bench members than him but he dealt with it well. He didnt pretend he knew and he showed the question the contempt it probably deserved.
I don't think it's that unreasonable a question. Top MPs are presumably pretty bright, one hopes, is it asking too much for them to memorize a few names of prominent colleagues, even if they do not mix with them that often? So if they wanted to work with them about something at short notice, which for someone who is or wants to be a minister is surely a possible scenario, they wouldn't have to get an assistant to look it up on google. It's not exactly a major problem if he doesn't know, and better to not pretend you do if you do not, but it's not a question worthy of contempt given his position.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. Ministers are part of the executive. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with framing and arguing for legislation that others then vote on.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Labour started it, so they deserve it. They thought that by dividing the country into fiefdoms they would retain power in some parts of the country while not being elected in the whole country, as a result they will permanently lose power over the biggest part of it. Labour will be stuck in governing just Wales and perhaps Scotland, and nothing else.
@MrHarryCole: It took 4 months to write the US Constitution. Ed wants a year to work out how to save Labour's Scottish advantage: http://t.co/jfZ4pLkKtb
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. If Tories are so worried about numbers, then have an English assembly with 300 members and HoC with 350. Make HoL democratic.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
It is important now that any devolution for england occurs before the election, because after the electon Labour will fudge it or try to break up england. Perhaps a referendum on election day will do.
We had a pretty good idea that Alex Salmond was going to resign, because he postponed his 10am press conference at Bute House without explanation; his aides were evasive, until finally confirming that he'd face the media six hours later. Well, not all the media.
Journalists from the Telegraph, the Mail and the Express were officially excluded.
I would hate to think the First Minister excluded us because he deemed our coverage of his work to be insufficiently adulatory. That, after all, would be comically petty, not to mention mildly despotic.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
Our representatives are empowered to make decisions on our behalf without referring back everything. Now as it happens this is the sort of thing I think they should, but I don't think they actually lack the authority to do it if they decide, in their wisdom, it is in our best interests. That's why we have representatives after all. If they make the wrong decisions, or don't give us a heads up when they probably should, we punish them for it or switch to a more directly democratic system, with clear rules on what can and cannot be done without consultation back to the electorate.My comment was based on the fact that we live in a (supposed) democracy. No politician has the authority to promise anything that requires primary legislation. All they can promise is to put it before Parliament.
Salmond and the SNP really thought they had won. Victory speech planned. Helicopter flight to Stirling Castle, etc
Well, I guess that is consistent with their other fantasies. Perhaps he wasn't lying after all, just deluded.
Yes. I think he was honestly deluded, as well as being quite a liar. Wilfully blinded to the horrible economic realities by the dream of nation-making.
Within SNP circles they must have supposed that their 'ace'; their band of SNP-registered working class voters would dutifully troop to the polls and get them home.
As for the economic realities I think he totally knew. After a nasty argument with England over the currency he would have signed Scotland straight up to the euro. As for the rest of the economic misery, England would always have presented an easy target for blame.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
It is important now that any devolution for england occurs before the election, because after the electon Labour will fudge it or try to break up england. Perhaps a referendum on election day will do.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. If Tories are so worried about numbers, then have an English assembly with 300 members and HoC with 350. Make HoL democratic.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
You broke it, you own it. Ed Miliband not been able to vote on his own legislation sounds appropiate for any Labour PM, after they destroyed everything with their scottish devolution ideas.
Maria Antonova @mashant 7m Russian military drills resonate off Kamchatka coast RT @AFP #BREAKING Six Russian fighters intercepted by US aircraft near Alaska: official
Another lie that has gained currency is that English MPs cannot vote on Scottish Health matters since devolution.
They NEVER could.
Prior to devolution, the budget allocated funds to the Scottish Office. THe SoS for Scotland ran the fiefdom. Scottish MPs sat on a committee.
Surely any legislation would have been voted on by the whole House, mostly English MPs (although the Committee stage would probably have been before the Scottish Grand Committee).
You seem to be confusing Executive "running the fiefdom" and Legislative "passing laws" aspects of the constitution.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. If Tories are so worried about numbers, then have an English assembly with 300 members and HoC with 350. Make HoL democratic.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
You broke it, you own it. Ed Miliband not been able to vote on his own legislation sounds appropiate for any Labour PM, after they destroyed everything with their scottish devolution ideas.
Are you thick or something ? Even under your cherished EV4EL, Ed as PM can vote. He is an English MP.
We had a pretty good idea that Alex Salmond was going to resign, because he postponed his 10am press conference at Bute House without explanation; his aides were evasive, until finally confirming that he'd face the media six hours later. Well, not all the media.
Journalists from the Telegraph, the Mail and the Express were officially excluded.
I would hate to think the First Minister excluded us because he deemed our coverage of his work to be insufficiently adulatory. That, after all, would be comically petty, not to mention mildly despotic.
The FT was also excluded and the Guardian refused to attend because the SNP would only let it in if it could choose which of its journalists would go - seriously.
It is important now that any devolution for england occurs before the election, because after the electon Labour will fudge it or try to break up england. Perhaps a referendum on election day will do.
Speedy, what kind of speed are you on ?
Any speed necessary to prevent Labour breaking up england.
I admire Ed Miliband, because despite his lack of good looks and proper speech he rose to the rank of PM in waiting, but I won't have anyone mess up with the country geographically for party gain.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. If Tories are so worried about numbers, then have an English assembly with 300 members and HoC with 350. Make HoL democratic.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
You broke it, you own it. Ed Miliband not been able to vote on his own legislation sounds appropiate for any Labour PM, after they destroyed everything with their scottish devolution ideas.
Exactly. Labour introduced this logic void 17 years ago to create this mess. It's no surprise it's not neat trying to sort it out. It was bleedin obvious to anyone with half a brain in 1997 that the current settlement would not last, and so it looks like proving. Labour in England could stick its head in the sand and enjoy Tony Blair's majorities but some of us affected by it could see the glaring holes in the legislation as it is currently constituted.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Exactly. If Tories are so worried about numbers, then have an English assembly with 300 members and HoC with 350. Make HoL democratic.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
You broke it, you own it. Ed Miliband not been able to vote on his own legislation sounds appropiate for any Labour PM, after they destroyed everything with their scottish devolution ideas.
Are you thick or something ? Even under your cherished EV4EL, Ed as PM can vote. He is an English MP.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
The government decides what legislation gets introduced, so that would not happen.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them, b) it is the right and proper thing to do, and c) if that's all we have to do it's cheap at twice the price.
No-one is saying that EVFEL is a perfect solution, they are saying that until such time as that perfect solution may be put in place, the current utterly indefensible arrangements must be stopped. Not after the next election, not after a 'Constitutional convention' (EU federalisation in drag -does Ed think we're stupid?), not next year, not next week, NOW.
You are probably right in this @surbiton. Sturgeon is now as much tarnished by failure as Salmond.
Want to bet against the SNP winning more seats in 2015 than UKIP?
I had the SNP electing 12 MP's in 2015, however since they moved to the left that number might be closer to 10 now. In essence I believe UKIP and the SNP will end up with almost the same number of MP's.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
And in doing so, they would be representing the democratic wishes of the constituents that education policy was aimed at.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
No it's not. You could (technically, if unlikely) have a PM who isn't in Parliament as long as he commands the confidence of the House. He obviously couldn't vote on any legislation. Being PM is an Executive role. It isn't a legislative role. The PM's job is to put legislation before Parliament. It isn't to vote on it. As we allow the PM to be an MP, he gets to vote on it. But that isn't in his capacity as PM, it's in his personal capacity of MP for Upper Fuckwitshire.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
I had, indeed, noticed that the Americans combine the offices of Head of State and Head of Government in a person called the President. But apart from that, their system of government is not dissimilar to ours. They have cabinet government and if the Government wants to pass legislation they have to pass it through their parliament, which they call a Congress. Strangely enough, when they rebelled against their true masters they set up a surprisingly similar system of government, but decided they ought to have separation of powers.
I don't think the fact that the President is directly elected is relevant to the argument, for reasons I outlined above: when the PM votes in parliament he does so not because he is PM, but because he is also a constituency MP.
I am surprised that anyone who posts on here seems to be unaware of the difference between the Executive and Legislative functions, or of the doctrine of separation of powers.
No-one is saying that EVFEL is a perfect solution, they are saying that until such time as that perfect solution may be put in place, the current utterly indefensible arrangements must be stopped. Not after the next election, not after a 'Constitutional convention' (EU federalisation in drag -does Ed think we're stupid?), not next year, not next week, NOW.
We do need a constitutional convention because we need a settled constitution. It should be convened now and be given as wide a remit as possible. It can sit through the GE into the next Parliament. Until its work is done EV4EL is the only sensible option. Labour should have recognised this today and focused on making it as workable as possible, because they'll be forced to recognise it further down the line.
"Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament."
My view is that EV4EL is, in a sense, imperfect and messy, but that is what our constitution is like and I think it is generally stronger for that feature. EV4EL gives us an opportunity to address an unfairness and then, in time after, we can determine if it suffices for England or if they want an actual separate Parliament building, executive and so forth. But this would be led by the English.
Ultimately I can accept the UK government serving as the English executive at the moment because I accept that the UK government ultimately relies on the support of English MPs to survive with them making up 85% of the legislature on which it rises or falls. EV4EL also accepts England is a huge part of the UK without leading to a top-down Westminster sub-division of England in to small parts that have not more organically emerged.
Finally, I am not 100% comfortable about how we got to the timetable we have preferring slower change generally. But the promises have been made to Scotland and must be adhered to and England cannot be ignored any more. As others have pointed out this issue has been known about for at least 15 years, if not since Tam Dalyell raised it. A constitutional convention may have a role in due course, but waiting a year, filling it with academics talking about ideal models (I critique this as an academic!) which may drag on and then clouding a solution of the WLQ with other challenges such as Lords reform; is unacceptable in the context we find ourselves in.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
And in doing so, they would be representing the democratic wishes of the constituents that education policy was aimed at.
Would it be OK for a party that got 35% of the vote in England to block legislation proposed by parties that got, say, 50% of the vote in England. Under EV4EL that's a perfectly feasible scenario.
It strikes me as odd that it is pro Union supporters attacking people in George Square, and now the Herald. No won? So the only ones who would gain from disturbances and riots would be the SNP. These could be the most dense "No" supporters in history.
The US is already a federation, the myth of the all powerfull federal government is just a myth. Plus, it's just some old confederates that don't like having a black president.
Looking at Kansas is more important. The republican party is collapsing there after being dominant for decades, they are behind for the senate, behind for the governorship and Hillary is close in the polls there.
Too much establishment and too little renewal have cost them dearly, they even bring 91 year old Bob Dole to try to save them instead of a young tea partier.
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
And in doing so, they would be representing the democratic wishes of the constituents that education policy was aimed at.
Would it be OK for a party that got 35% of the vote in England to block legislation proposed by parties that got, say, 50% of the vote in England. Under EV4EL that's a perfectly feasible scenario.
It would be no less ok than any other anomalies that happen under FPTP. I don't think the two things have any bearing on each other.
A British Prime Minister these days might have an amazing idea to revolutionise the NHS. In Scotland, nothing doing. Although he was elected by a process that included Scotland. That's the reality of devolution. I don't see why England should be any different.
Comments
More to the point; why was this not picked up when he was arrested for indecent assault in London a few years ago by our London plod?
They didn't call for a referendum. But, they didn't sign the Canadian constitution. The issue lost importance, and the PQ then lost the provincial elections in 1985
Matters in fact died down completely , and the constitutional position of Quebec might never have have re-emerged as an issue.
However, instead of leaving matters well alone, Brian Mulroney the Canadian Premier decided that he would try and get Quebec to sign the Canadian constitution in 1987 with the Meech Lake Accord.
That was so catastrophically bungled that it eventually let to the PQ regaining Quebec and the second referendum.
I think Quebec has still not signed the Canadian constitution, but ... sleeping dogs.
Sadly, the insane politicking over HoL reform shows the maturity is not there.
And Miliband's plan to include HoL reform and the kitchen sink in the 'constitutional convention' shows that he is not serious. It will just get mired down in the same old mud.
As is often the case, it's a case of politicians defining the problem according to a solution they want.
What are chances that the Daily Mail or Telegraph will report the truth of this-very, very low I fear.
In the meantime the Scots have been promised changes we should deliver, and that means the English question also needs answering. Although not perfect. EVEL is easily agreeable and implementable.
Miliband's just kicking this into the long grass, for the obvious reasons.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/glasgow-scotland-independence-referendum-indyref/8337
In contrast, a nats march, complete with balloons (but so far no facepaint)
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/scotland-referendum-indyref/8319
Consultation anyone ? Heard of democracy ? No. Andrew must be answered on the spot. Never mind what the country thinks. We have got another rude Tory Newsnight interviewer.. One has gone, another has come. The BBC are so full of f***ing rude Tories.
Sturgeon is almost odds on going to be the leader of the SNP, however, within the organisation, there are many different facets. There are many who believe that Salmond is the second coming and detest Sturgeon. In her own particular way she has made many enemies in the SNP.
As an outsider, who met up with her by accident, I can assure you dear reader, that She is someone you do not want to get on the wrong side of.
She is clever, where Salmond resorted to cunning and guile (too clever for his own good), Sturgeon plays the game on Her terms and rules. God help anyone who gets in Her way, She won't.
And Andrea knows more so I'm not the worst. In fact I'd trust Andrea to name them before Johann could.
A wise leader would be advocating we start discussions about major reform now and accepting EV4EL - a blocking mechanism, nothing more, and one that precludes no MP from serving as a minister - as a stop gap until the convention finalises its work. And if that means a Labour government having to work with MPs of other parties to get legislation through Parliament, so be it: that's democracy.
It is hard to describe just how abysmal a leader EdM is. Today is merely the latest example of his unsuitability. Labour could have seized the initiative today; it could have made a significant gesture that would have played very well and been the right thing to do, and may actually have rendered EV4EL irrelevant by making Labour more popular in England. But instead Miliband flailed and Labour f'ed up, so handing a gift to the Tories whose own self-interested approach will now reap huge rewards.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
As for the economic realities I think he totally knew. After a nasty argument with England over the currency he would have signed Scotland straight up to the euro. As for the rest of the economic misery, England would always have presented an easy target for blame.
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Anyway, time for sleep. Good night all.
They thought that by dividing the country into fiefdoms they would retain power in some parts of the country while not being elected in the whole country, as a result they will permanently lose power over the biggest part of it.
Labour will be stuck in governing just Wales and perhaps Scotland, and nothing else.
But the idea that you have a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system of government who couldn't vote on legislation that went through in his cabinet is the most bizarre I have ever heard.
The US President is a President in a Presidential form of government. I hope you have noted the difference.
Perhaps a referendum on election day will do.
They NEVER could.
Prior to devolution, the budget allocated funds to the Scottish Office. THe SoS for Scotland ran the fiefdom. Scottish MPs sat on a committee.
Ed Miliband not been able to vote on his own legislation sounds appropiate for any Labour PM, after they destroyed everything with their scottish devolution ideas.
Russian military drills resonate off Kamchatka coast RT @AFP
#BREAKING Six Russian fighters intercepted by US aircraft near Alaska: official
You seem to be confusing Executive "running the fiefdom" and Legislative "passing laws" aspects of the constitution.
'No' voters attack the offices of the 'Yes' Scottish Herald newspaper in Glasgow tonight.
@27khv pic.twitter.com/izn7ZX2tWH
Embedded image permalink
View photo
The FT was also excluded and the Guardian refused to attend because the SNP would only let it in if it could choose which of its journalists would go - seriously.
I admire Ed Miliband, because despite his lack of good looks and proper speech he rose to the rank of PM in waiting, but I won't have anyone mess up with the country geographically for party gain.
In essence I believe UKIP and the SNP will end up with almost the same number of MP's.
But it was all predictable after the abuse by YES all this time.
I don't think the fact that the President is directly elected is relevant to the argument, for reasons I outlined above: when the PM votes in parliament he does so not because he is PM, but because he is also a constituency MP.
I am surprised that anyone who posts on here seems to be unaware of the difference between the Executive and Legislative functions, or of the doctrine of separation of powers.
"Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament."
My view is that EV4EL is, in a sense, imperfect and messy, but that is what our constitution is like and I think it is generally stronger for that feature. EV4EL gives us an opportunity to address an unfairness and then, in time after, we can determine if it suffices for England or if they want an actual separate Parliament building, executive and so forth. But this would be led by the English.
Ultimately I can accept the UK government serving as the English executive at the moment because I accept that the UK government ultimately relies on the support of English MPs to survive with them making up 85% of the legislature on which it rises or falls. EV4EL also accepts England is a huge part of the UK without leading to a top-down Westminster sub-division of England in to small parts that have not more organically emerged.
Finally, I am not 100% comfortable about how we got to the timetable we have preferring slower change generally. But the promises have been made to Scotland and must be adhered to and England cannot be ignored any more. As others have pointed out this issue has been known about for at least 15 years, if not since Tam Dalyell raised it. A constitutional convention may have a role in due course, but waiting a year, filling it with academics talking about ideal models (I critique this as an academic!) which may drag on and then clouding a solution of the WLQ with other challenges such as Lords reform; is unacceptable in the context we find ourselves in.
No won? So the only ones who would gain from disturbances and riots would be the SNP.
These could be the most dense "No" supporters in history.
Plus, it's just some old confederates that don't like having a black president.
Looking at Kansas is more important.
The republican party is collapsing there after being dominant for decades, they are behind for the senate, behind for the governorship and Hillary is close in the polls there.
Too much establishment and too little renewal have cost them dearly, they even bring 91 year old Bob Dole to try to save them instead of a young tea partier.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-dole-returns-save-kansas-jittery-gop/story?id=25619862
A British Prime Minister these days might have an amazing idea to revolutionise the NHS. In Scotland, nothing doing. Although he was elected by a process that included Scotland. That's the reality of devolution. I don't see why England should be any different.