The United Kingdom

Here's an interesting thing. Now, I have stated that England should have it's own parliament, but it would seem that there's a slight issue with setting one up.

Quoted from another forum I frequent:

The problem is the Treaty of Union - the English Act states that the English parliament was to be dissolved and Westminster was to pop into existence. Varying the Treaty would require the agreement of the other party to it, namely, the political entity known as the Scots. I don't think that would be a problem, but Westminster would have to admit the supremacy of the Claim of Right (1989 and 1689) and Arbroath (1320), of course. They really don't want to do that I suspect, which is leading to all the nonsense about EVEL and the like. Most people don't really understand the nature of the Union and the Treaty - if you do, much becomes clearer (for instance, the result of the indyref didn't really matter - the definition of who could vote in it, and hence the definition of 'Scot', in 2012, was the really important thing).

So, for a devolved English parliament to come into being, the United Kingdom would need to dissolved and a new power structure negotiated. The extra spanner being those negotiations would then have to recognise the Scottish concept of "The People are Sovereign", which clashes with the English concept of "Parliament is Sovereign".

Hence the fudge of English Votes for English Laws.

I wonder if Tony Blair's "New Labour" really understood what sort of constitutional Pandora's Box they opened up when they set up the devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh and rebuilt the one in Stormont?

Probably not.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:
I wonder if Tony Blair's "New Labour" really understood what sort of constitutional Pandora's Box they opened up when they set up the devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh and rebuilt the one in Stormont?

Probably not.

Mike.

The "Law of Unintended Consequences" seems to escape politicians worldwide. They never seem learn. Admittedly some consequences are unpredictable but things like this aren't among them.

Michael Riddell wrote:
I wonder if Tony Blair's "New Labour" really understood what sort of constitutional Pandora's Box they opened up when they set up the devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh and rebuilt the one in Stormont?

Probably not.

Mike.

Well, depending what we believe, they didn't have a choice in the matter. I've seen claims that a combination of UN and EU pressure was working on the Conservative governments preceding Blair and essentially forced some reform, with an ultimatium arriving in 1996, to balance perceived unequalities in the UK that weren't being tolerated in the new ex-USSR democracies joining the EU. This was followed by an election in 1997 and the whole problem landed in their lap.

What New Labour did was opt for devolution rather than a root-and-branch reform of the entire Westminister system. Oops?!

It may also have spoken to a lack of confidence - they were back in power for the first time after 13 years and felt that they might not sustain their majority for as long as they got to - and they were essentially setting up devolved legislatures in which they expected to be the controlling and governing party even if a UK-wide Tory majority did return.

biochem wrote:The "Law of Unintended Consequences" seems to escape politicians worldwide. They never seem learn. Admittedly some consequences are unpredictable but things like this aren't among them.

It does make me wonder if the Act of Union of 1707 is actually taught in English schools, both state and private. Certainly from what I've seen so far from the likes of Cameron et al makes me somewhat dubious. The SNP are in the process of introducing the "Curriculum for Excellence" in the Scottish educational system and the history syllabus does include study of the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

munroburton wrote:I've seen claims that a combination of UN and EU pressure was working on the Conservative governments preceding Blair and essentially forced some reform, with an ultimatium arriving in 1996, to balance perceived unequalities in the UK that weren't being tolerated in the new ex-USSR democracies joining the EU. This was followed by an election in 1997 and the whole problem landed in their lap.

Uhhh, great.

More grist for the mill for UKIP and the Tory Eurosceptics. That's if they remember about it.

munroburton wrote:What New Labour did was opt for devolution rather than a root-and-branch reform of the entire Westminister system. Oops?!

Definitely an oops. However, considering the influence of Scottish Labour and it's undoubted desire to maintain it's chokehold on Scotland.....

That and regional devolution in England was proposed and then rejected by the first area asked, the North East.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:

munroburton wrote:I've seen claims that a combination of UN and EU pressure was working on the Conservative governments preceding Blair and essentially forced some reform, with an ultimatium arriving in 1996, to balance perceived unequalities in the UK that weren't being tolerated in the new ex-USSR democracies joining the EU. This was followed by an election in 1997 and the whole problem landed in their lap.

Uhhh, great.

More grist for the mill for UKIP and the Tory Eurosceptics. That's if they remember about it.

Much of the details are still secret due to diplomatic privilege.

Definitely an oops. However, considering the influence of Scottish Labour and it's undoubted desire to maintain it's chokehold on Scotland.....

That and regional devolution in England was proposed and then rejected by the first area asked, the North East.

Mike.

The other option was to do something about the House of Lords - which the Labour Government otensibly did by shifting it from aristocratic principles to nepotism. I think it really is a shame Labour didn't have the moral willpower to replace the Lords entirely, perhaps with a chamber of simiar setup to Holyrood's AMS section.

But hey ho. Tony Blair's a multi-millionaire, so it's all right.

munroburton wrote:The other option was to do something about the House of Lords - which the Labour Government otensibly did by shifting it from aristocratic principles to nepotism. I think it really is a shame Labour didn't have the moral willpower to replace the Lords entirely, perhaps with a chamber of simiar setup to Holyrood's AMS section.

But hey ho. Tony Blair's a multi-millionaire, so it's all right.

Power corrupts and all that....

Mike.

Aristocratic principles are just very old established nepotism. As an example, did William the Conqueror divide up Britain between feudal lords selected on merit from an inclusive process, or did he just give the posts to his friends and relatives? Then let it stew for a millennia and see why the House of Lords has some very strange members.

Michael Riddell wrote:

munroburton wrote:The other option was to do something about the House of Lords - which the Labour Government otensibly did by shifting it from aristocratic principles to nepotism. I think it really is a shame Labour didn't have the moral willpower to replace the Lords entirely, perhaps with a chamber of simiar setup to Holyrood's AMS section.

But hey ho. Tony Blair's a multi-millionaire, so it's all right.

Power corrupts and all that....

Mike.

Daryl wrote:Aristocratic principles are just very old established nepotism. As an example, did William the Conqueror divide up Britain between feudal lords selected on merit from an inclusive process, or did he just give the posts to his friends and relatives? Then let it stew for a millennia and see why the House of Lords has some very strange members.

True in a way, but there's a crucial distinction between merely having a seat for life(usually in exchange for £100,000 donated to a political party) and a family ruling over an estate in perpetuity.

The only upside to the whole thing is, Lords aren't allowed to vote in Westminister general elections. So every time a party successfully nominates one of its own for Lordship, it technically loses a voter.

Tomorrow, the polls open (postal votes etc are already being counted) and we'll finally see which of the two main parties gets into power.
Given Labour's previous financial record ("There's no money left") and Ed Milliband trying to do a Moses impression with his giant rock (fun fact, Moses died before he could reach the Promised Land... interesting analogy, hmmm?), the UK is teetering on the edge of a precipice...
Except for Scotland which is leaping off and flapping its arms thinking that the SNP will let it fly...

Oh well, that's England and Scotland giving each other the finger, then.

Must be a bit of a bad taste in the mouth for the SNP, though. They sweep the board in Scotland, but still end up with a Tory majority government.

I hope a lesson has been learned by people in Scotland. No matter what we do, England has more constituencies than Scotland. England can therefore do as it wishes and there is bugger-all Scotland can do about it.

'Nuff said!

Mike.