Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The simple solution to the question of Scottish MPs: Do wh
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The simple solution to the question of Scottish MPs: Do what was done in Northern Ireland in 1920
“We have been here before. Until 1972 the former Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont enjoyed full devo max powers. What was the messy, rough and ready, probably anomalous but characteristically ‘British’ answer to compensate the rest of the country? Simple. Just make the NI constituencies at Westminster far larger than their counterparts on the mainland.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's about time we got rid of the hodge-podge as it just breeds resentment. We need a symmetrical system with the same powers for the four home nations.
It would have been far healthier for democracy if that inherent tension had been reflected in the institutions that we were able to vote for.
1) Scotland now has North Korean levels of voter registration.
2) Voter registration in rest of the UK will be dropping thanks to individual registration and similar new hurdles.
3) The law has been changed so that the next boundary review will have to closely mirror voter registration rather than having a bit of latitude like they used to, in the name of making everybody's vote equal.
Doesn't that mean Scotland will end up with shedloads more MPs, and the votes of Scots who vote in general elections will be worth loads more than everyone else?
If I was Ed Miliband I'd use this as an opportunity to switch to boundaries based on actual population regardless of voter registration, like in the US.
It's a bit late now, particularly as Scotland is getting even more powers.
Quite interesting discussions here but one thing I am opposed to are "regional" assemblies simply because I don't think the English and maybe this applies to the other 3 nations as well identify with regional bodies. Here in in the South East excluding London we had the unlamented SEEDA which was abolished by the coalition in 2012 partly because the interests of rural Oxfordshire were quite different say from East Kent, Others have highlighted how Devon and Cornwall don't get on etc. We do identify with our local towns and also maybe to a slightly lesser degree our counties. Therefore if you are devolving more powers locally keep it really local.
As for the national situation I too like the federal solution as the best way to put the 4 nations on an equal footing. One thing I heard mentioned by ordinary Scots was they simply felt dominated by the sheer size of England in population terms and 4 parliaments with a federal government seems the logical way to avoid this in future.
Easier than setting up a separate English parliament.
I think this has been corrected now.
So the precedent is even more recent.
It's simple, but too simple to actually solve the problems.
England is so outsized compared with N.Ireland, Wales and Scotland that it has an outsized say in any case.
When Scottish MPs are reduced in number, they would still have a say, but their collective heft would be so reduced that they would next to irrelevant.
Make JohnO Secretary of State for Constituional Affairs
I've not seen a single argument as to why giving Scotland a status similar to a crown dependancy wouldn't be workable, fair, and a logical product of devomax+.
As far as I know, nobody in Jersey, Isle of Man etc. complains about their constitutional position. Just do something similar with Scotland.
*^&%^*^( BBC ...
- bit under a third for indy
- bit more than a third for devomax i th semse of FFA or a proper federal solution (not the thing on offer/promise, at least just now anyway)
- about a third for the status quo of the devolution settlement of 1999
Minimal support for the Tam Dalyell solution of abolition of the Parliament - which would have caused another mess because of the distinct Scottish legal and educational systems for a start (e.g. consider Tory control of Scottish laws, mitigated only partly by LD alliance).
The Scottish Pmt is very popular, partly because it gives most Scots an airing which they would not get under Tory or even Tory + LD rule, and partly because of its obvious (if stil too gerrymandered) democratic legitimacy. And even the Tories (rightly) get a fair share.
Mind you it is rapidly becoming clear that there is no ideal answer to this problem (and it's older than the WLQ or devolution to Northern Ireland, Gladstone was grappling with it in the 19th century) so maybe it deserves consideration as one of the least bad solutions.
My suggestion is not perfect, it has certain unfairnesses but like democracy itself, the alternatives being advanced here, including from David Herdson, are rather worse, more complex, more disruptive and frankly the voters out there really don't give a toss.
As for the quantity question, either it makes no difference, in which case it wouldn't be missed, or it does, in which case it's unjust.
Scotland is currently (ie pre the voter registration surge) over-represented - ie if the 2015 boundary review had gone ahead it would have lost proportionately more seats than England.
The increase in voter registration in Scotland is under 10% - it would only give Scotland approx 4 more seats but as it is starting with too many in the first place the effect is only going to be to cancel out the reduction which would otherwise have happened.
So it's no big deal.
Plus, voter registration was previously almost certainly already much higher in much of England so it is only bringing Scotland into line with where it should be.
The other solution is to simply have an English Grand Committee to agree English Laws. The fact that labour are running scared is quite significant. They say its hardly needed - if so why do they complain. Its only the obvious end result of their own half baked devolution.
Mr. Herdson, then give us a Parliament! It's not hard.
Mr. Jessop, aye, happened to me a few times.
In effect you are saying its independence with a currency union.
59 was the "correct" number of MPs for Scotland at that point - ie for equal representation (plus allowing the two separate small island seats).
Yes 50.6 : No 49.4
Apparently, it was according to the Lost & Nowhere Model !
So have you made any progress on the special council tax band exclusively for Andy Murray?
I do think all this wittering on about English devolution is a waste of time and space and misses the point. The anomaly is Scottish MPS voting on english matters which are denied them in their own constituencies.
For the most part they have nothing to do. It is quite disgraceful that all they do is vote on English matters.
AND did you see that he's now urging people to vote Tory.
it's an ill-wind, young Neil.....
That's a remarkable statement. We all know about the two (in separate years) tuition fees votes and the NHS one, and i will give you those very happily. But that's three in a decade or so. Now, apart from that, is your statement really the case?
1. SNP and (sometimes at least) the Tory and some LDs don't vote on English matters, so they don't fall under your condemnation.
2. There are other votes which do pertain to the UK as a whole. Syrian crisis, for instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7PpdYil-7Y
Look out for a Putin cameo riding on a laser equipped bear.
Or have I missed something?
A better argument would be that Scots and Irish form disproportionate numbers of the armed forces and thus would be vastly underrepresented in any decision to go to war.
As for the EU, the part of the UK most affected by joining was indeed N.Ireland, but they were underrepresented at that time. A bit late to think of the principle now.
A theme is starting to emerge in my posts: Ted Heath.
No National Parties in N.Ireland: Ted Heath
Referendum on secession: Ted Heath.
N.Ireland under-represented on EU matters: Ted Heath.
Disastrous re-organisation of counties: Ted Heath.
Is David Cameron the re-incarnation of Ted Heath?
If memory serves, the Ulster Unionists withdrew from the Conservative whip, although they continued to sit on the government benches, when Heath closed down Stormont in the 1970s. They finally broke officially with the Conservatives over the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, resigning their seats (a la Douglas Carswell) to demonstrate their change of allegiance and get the electorate's view on it.
So there is a comparison. It's just unfortunate that this solution can't work for all sorts of reasons. First of all, Northern Ireland had never been a power-broker in UK politics, nor had its seats ever been crucial in an election outcome. So nobody cared much about their MPs either way. Second, Northern Ireland was (is) tiny compared to Scotland, and the solution was only supposed to be temporary in any case. A dozen MPs split between two parties would swing few elections, but it's hard to see Scotland having fewer than 35, around 30 of which would be Labour: that certainly could be crucial in many elections over the next 20-25 years. Third, Labour will never, ever in a million years allow it.
But the most important reason why it won't work is because it won't address the problem - that Scottish MPs will still be able to vote on English laws but not on Scottish ones, which is not only unfair, it is absurd. Any solution has to address *that* problem, not the one of who might swing general elections.
It would be interesting to see what the raw data was in each case.
I know the British Burkean approach is evolution not revolution, but this is an opportunity for the British to do something really special - a constitutional conference - to come up with something far more sensible and equitable, and hence more durable. Doing so would also strengthen our hands in dealing with the EU on repatriation of powers and in any future European constitutional debates.
It won't be easy or quick, and not living in the UK, I have no feel whether the British (English) public has the appetite or stomach for it. But it would be a real waste to go for the Elastoplast fix.
here's what Wikipedia says about the changes in Scotland in advance of 2005. Really, it's along the same lines but JohnO is pragmatically suggesting just go a bit further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005
Several years after the Scottish Parliament had been established by the Scotland Act 1998, the target electorate (population) size of Westminster Parliamentary seats in Scotland was adjusted to bring it in line with England's constituencies. Before this reform Scotland had a smaller target electoral size per constituency resulting in more seats per head of population, which had been intended to compensate Scotland for its status as a nation, its lower population density (which causes larger constituencies geographically), its distance from
the seat of Parliament in Westminster and finally, because prior to 1999 Scottish law had been wholly determined by the Westminster Parliament. These problems were perceived to have been addressed with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.
The effect of the Boundary Commission's reform and the 2005 general election upon Scottish seats
The Boundary Commission for Scotland therefore produced a plan in 2003 in which there would be 59 constituencies, reduced from 72. In 2004, Parliament passed the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004which instituted these changes and broke the link between Britishand Scottish Parliamentary constituencies.
Three constituencies were left unchanged — the island seats of Orkneyand Shetland, the Western Isles, though the latter changed its official name to the Gaelic "Na h-Eileanan an Iar", and Eastwood, which changed its name to "East Renfrewshire". Several other new
constituency names were also implemented; in all these cases the new seats had altered boundaries.
It has its merits, but I would not stop there. We should annex Gascony!
OT: Has anyone else noticed that the odd discussion of devolution in the music video of the 1978 video of the song "Jocko Homo"
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=7GcdVPgwo__KA7iiguAD&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JdS-sSKsBc&cd=5&ved=0CCkQtwIwBA&usg=AFQjCNHUoyShOLSzpS7iHvNDSZzUR-fPNA
"To take just one example: some of the current public service reforms imposed on England alone had funding implications for Scotland. On that basis, would Scottish MPs have got a vote or not if Cameron’s proposals had been in place?"
For reasons I know not.
They simply should not be there in the first place.That's the position afforded to the Welsh, Scots and NI. Treat England equally.
It's also true that English Labour MPs might be a little more likely to behave and vote differently if the Welsh/Scottish bloc vote within wasn't feather-bedding any UK vote, or bringing so much influence to bear.
Labour have 256 MPs.
67 - more than a quarter - represent Scotland and Wales.
An English Labour Party is likely to behave differently, and probably would not have bled support in the way that it has done across the Southern half of the country.
Tory Vote In Scotland: 16.7% - 1 MP (of 59) : 2.5 million votes
Labour Vote in SE Eng: 16.2 % - 4 MP (of 84) : 4.3 million votes
Labour Vote in SW Eng: 15.4 % - 4 MP (of 55) : 2.8 million votes
Labour Vote in East Eng: 19.6% - 2 MP (of 58): 2.9 million votes
I keep reading that a Tory revival up in Scotland would change things. It looks to me that a reduced dependence of Labour in the same area would do likewise.
There's an argument that the only matters which are completely devolved would be social/legal issues (gay marriage being a good example - although I think even this might not have been in the power of the Welsh Assembly?). Virtually everything else has funding implications for Scotland & Wales, even if they have control in terms of policy and how they give out the funds they're given.
“The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones?”
to
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to cull their 59 MPs?”
And this is an improvement?
Scots have always seen themselves as victims.
At least 55% have recently looked up and seen a wider world.
"... mass-murdering invading warlord."
I say, steady on, Carnyx. That is a bit strong. He was hardly a warlord, being the rightfully and lawfully crowned King of England and his policies were hardly extreme in the context of the time. Just because your lot got thumped is no reason for revisionist abuse.
"Now is the time to follow the logic of these commitments. More powers for Scotland, certainly, and on the timetable promised. But it is surely also time to set out more clearly and explicitly that the UK now has a territorial constitution, and what that is. And the principles which have been articulated for Scotland, as much devolution as is consistent with the union we have defined it, apply in the different circumstances of Wales, Northern Ireland and – in a radically different way – for England too."
http://constitution-unit.com/2014/09/19/scotland-has-voted-decisively-to-stay-now-devolution-must-be-delivered/#more-3398
Well I said I did not think it would be agreeable.
As for the seats - The Unionists were not Tories but yes of course they did take the whip. Mainland parties were not really involved though in NI and that is one reason I suggest why the situation was acceptable.
As you say 12 seats were not important but the point was there should have been more. But it was really happy on all sides to keep NI at arms length - until it was too late.
The other question to ask is... just what do Scottish MPs do? They have virtually no justifiable constituency work and very little justifiable voting to do. They may well speak to a constituent on a Welfare matter but if they do they are totally wasting the public purse because that role is already paid for in the wages of the local MSP. Lets face it that's the whole point of devolution.