Scottish Independence

[Admiral Yi]

What is the significance of West Lothian?

[Warspite]

What is the significance of West Lothian?

It's the constituency of Tam Dalyell, who was the MP who raised the issue in 1972.

[Warspite]

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

I shouldn't have to explain that voters in primarily agrarian constituencies, industrial strongholds, former industrial and mining strongholds, the South East commuter belt and inner-city populations might have strongly different preferences.

There is a very real urban/rural and regional split in British politics. This means that splitting up England into different bits could have a real political impact.

[Warspite]

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

Yeah, this is my question as well. With the "first past the post" voting system, I fail to see how there is any difference whatsoever.

And again, look at the US which is a federation - you don't have Teaxs forming coalitions with California or Rhode Island. You have Democrats forming coalition with Democrats, and Republicans with Republicans. Why would that be any different no matter how many local parliaments there are in England - I assume the elections to the national parliament would still be direct, no?

But the delegates from California cannot impose their preference over the whole union, which can happen with England in a federal UK.

[Warspite]

I differ from Arkie as to where the problem lies. I don't think there is any issue with the English being able to outvote other countries in a UK Parliament. Any UK Parliament woudl be primarily dealing with federal issues - foreign policy, defence and a few otehr matters that don't split on party lines in the way that tax and spend issues do.

Trident renewal? Immigration? EU membership? Pensions? Financial regulation? Infrastructure investment? Hot button issues...

[garbon]

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

Yeah, this is my question as well. With the "first past the post" voting system, I fail to see how there is any difference whatsoever.

And again, look at the US which is a federation - you don't have Teaxs forming coalitions with California or Rhode Island. You have Democrats forming coalition with Democrats, and Republicans with Republicans. Why would that be any different no matter how many local parliaments there are in England - I assume the elections to the national parliament would still be direct, no?

But the delegates from California cannot impose their preference over the whole union, which can happen with England in a federal UK.

But that's also because the delegates aren't generally of one mind either. Both in the Senate and House different states will often have a mix of political parties with their delegates.  So even if California were to have the lion share of delegates I'm not sure how much power it would have to impose "California's preference" as it doesn't really have one unified vision.

[Viking]

Yeah, I don't like it much either. I wouldl have thought that one of the issues coudl be resolved by representation from the devolved assemblies being propotional to party representation.  I think a UK Parliament would have significantly fewer powers than the US Congress. The UK Parliament would not, for example, be able to introduce Obamacare or have supervision over a federal police force.

It's a mess and a choice between bad options.

The UK Parliament would almost certainly run the NHS and MI5

[Gups]

Yeah, I don't like it much either. I wouldl have thought that one of the issues coudl be resolved by representation from the devolved assemblies being propotional to party representation.  I think a UK Parliament would have significantly fewer powers than the US Congress. The UK Parliament would not, for example, be able to introduce Obamacare or have supervision over a federal police force.

It's a mess and a choice between bad options.

The UK Parliament would almost certainly run the NHS and MI5

Why? It doesn't currently run the NHS in Scotland, Wales or NI.  Parliament's role in MI5 operations is pretty limited.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

I shouldn't have to explain that voters in primarily agrarian constituencies, industrial strongholds, former industrial and mining strongholds, the South East commuter belt and inner-city populations might have strongly different preferences.

There is a very real urban/rural and regional split in British politics. This means that splitting up England into different bits could have a real political impact.

Is this a yes, you would expect voting patterns to change?

[Gups]

I differ from Arkie as to where the problem lies. I don't think there is any issue with the English being able to outvote other countries in a UK Parliament. Any UK Parliament woudl be primarily dealing with federal issues - foreign policy, defence and a few otehr matters that don't split on party lines in the way that tax and spend issues do.

Trident renewal? Immigration? EU membership? Pensions? Financial regulation? Infrastructure investment? Hot button issues...

Trident: Yes, it's defence
Immigration: Yes
EU Membership: C'mon. Any decision to pull out will be made at a referendum. When was the last time Parl had a vote on EU membership.
Pensions: No reason why they won't be devolved
Financial Rfgulation: Oversight of the BofE at best
Infrastructure: Already largely devolved to bodies like TfL. Almost certian that teh biggest projects will be devolved to national parliaments.

[alfred russel]

Why? It doesn't currently run the NHS in Scotland, Wales or NI.  Parliament's role in MI5 operations is pretty limited.

As long as parliament can tax and spend it can get involved in any issue it wants. It is the US model. Ostensibly considerable power is with the states. For example, most things involving roads. But Congress long ago figured out that it can simply give money to the states on a conditional basis, with the conditions being the states do what Congress wants.

A state wants to exercise its perogative to make the rules governing its own roads and ignore Congress? Great, and it can explain to voters why its taxes are twice as high as the neighboring state as it is turning down billions in federal money.

[Viking]

Yeah, I don't like it much either. I wouldl have thought that one of the issues coudl be resolved by representation from the devolved assemblies being propotional to party representation.  I think a UK Parliament would have significantly fewer powers than the US Congress. The UK Parliament would not, for example, be able to introduce Obamacare or have supervision over a federal police force.

It's a mess and a choice between bad options.

The UK Parliament would almost certainly run the NHS and MI5

Why? It doesn't currently run the NHS in Scotland, Wales or NI.  Parliament's role in MI5 operations is pretty limited.

The "N" in NHS is National. Some duties have been devolved, but those are the ones which resided with the secretary of state for scotland before. On the NHS Scotland wikipedia site recent developments include an orthodontics research program, limiting the scope of cooperation with private companies, the only example of which is free parking at hospitals. Not exactly any core issues at stake here.

[Gups]

The "N" in NHS is National. Some duties have been devolved, but those are the ones which resided with the secretary of state for scotland before. On the NHS Scotland wikipedia site recent developments include an orthodontics research program, limiting the scope of cooperation with private companies, the only example of which is free parking at hospitals. Not exactly any core issues at stake here.

There's no such body as the NHS. There is the NHS (England), NHS (Scotland), NHS (Wales) and Health and Social Care in Norther Ireland.

All policy, including funding, is set by the devolved assemblies, except for the English NHS where it is set by the UK Parliament.

[Gups]

Why? It doesn't currently run the NHS in Scotland, Wales or NI.  Parliament's role in MI5 operations is pretty limited.

As long as parliament can tax and spend it can get involved in any issue it wants. It is the US model. Ostensibly considerable power is with the states. For example, most things involving roads. But Congress long ago figured out that it can simply give money to the states on a conditional basis, with the conditions being the states do what Congress wants.

A state wants to exercise its perogative to make the rules governing its own roads and ignore Congress? Great, and it can explain to voters why its taxes are twice as high as the neighboring state as it is turning down billions in federal money.

Sure, but I don't think we will follow that model. We will have four states, not 50 and most taxation will be at national rather than federal level.

[Valmy]

Having the NHS done at a national rather than UK level seems wasteful and inefficient to me.  What is the thinking behind that?  Isn't the idea that standardization and an economy of scale will keep costs down?  What if you live and work in Wales and the nearest Hospital is in England?  It just seems so illogical to do it that way.