Why EVEL is not the West Lothian answer?

Being somewhat associated with West Lothian and having stood in the race to replace the poser of the West Lothian Question. Tam Dalyell, I have on occassion written about said question and the potential answers. David Cameron's latest take on this is English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) at Westminster.

Now the problem posed by the West Lothian Question was that devolution would allow certain aspects of law to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and of course the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies) while their MPs were still able to vote on issues at Westminster affecting people in England but that the English MPs would not have the same say on some of these issues in the devolved powers as they legislators there and not the MPs would have the say. The issue was that devolution was bringing up two types of MPs some who could vote on things that wouldn't directly affect their constituents and others who might find they couldn't bring about change for their constituents if the block who didn't have any direct impact in their area voted against was enough with their English colleagues to block it.

Devolution had in effect brought in two tiers of MPs some were backed up by colleagues (occasionally themselves) who would vote on devolved issues, others who were responsible for all decisions. But EVEL does exactly the same in creating two tiers of MPs, only this time the cut off is less well defined. What exactly is an English Law. In truth as things currently stand only a cost neutral law is truly only English as anything with spending or tax ramifications has because of the Barnett formula got a knock on effect to budgets in the devolved powers.

The result of trying to introduce EVEL in the fall out from the Scottish referendum is a knee jerk reaction to the ;promise of more powers for Scotland (and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland). It ignores however the fundamental difference that devolution has brought to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that is denied to the people of England. Certain aspects of their governance are now decided as a local level below that of Westminster and above that of local authorities. The demands of the North East would not be the same as those in the South West. Yet only London and some other cities with elected mayors seem to have any more control over their own affairs than previously.

Having a elected Mayority is not the sole model for greater devolution, but this appears to be the only one that the Conservatives want to contemplate alongside EVEL, but of course it is not the position used in the three nations with devolution. The First Minister in all three of them is not a directly elected President (the possible exception may have been the 2007 SNP list description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" without mentioning the party name) but are the leader of the largest party. Somehow the conservatives have decided that the American style Mayor led system is better than the European model of Federal Government for the regions.

The only true answer to the West Lothian Question is a more Federal Model of governance as the difference in roles would therefore not exist in the National Government. So until those in Westminster realise that we'll be stuck with the evil of difference that plans like evil or directly elected mayors can inflict unto voters.

Dave's West Lothian Answer Fail

So the prime way that David Cameron sees as giving greater power to the voters in England in a small "f" federal UK is English votes for English laws in Westminster. He is therefore short changing the people of England do not be fooled by him.

In Scotland the Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish laws in a chamber that is elected via a proportional voting system. Admittedly for the last 3 and a bit years that has been an SNP majority that the majority of voters didn't want but has in the past led to consensus politics.

In Wales the AMs can vote on Welsh laws also in a chamber that is elected via a proportional system, at times Labour have run the administration on its own but it has also often led to consensus politics.

In Northern Ireland while the MLAs are elected on a wholly constituency basis, it is a proportional system so unlike Scotland and Wales it does not have regional top up lists to ensure that people's views are represented as this is done in the six member seats.

If only the 533 English MPs could vote on whatever ends up being deemed to be an English only matter (something that there is actually very little of due to funding impacts for the devolved nations), it would mean that 39.6% of the electorate would end up with 55.9% of the MPs making their decisions. With boundary changes that were brought in since 2010 many of the 92 gains that the Conservatives made are supposedly harder to take away from them. But Labour with 28.1% of the vote and Lib Dems with 24.2% in England last time would have 35.8% and 8.1% of the MPs making such decisions respectively.

It is not proportionate as the other three member states have.

It is as Nick Clegg so rightly pointed out really a case of Tory votes for English laws.

What David Cameron is actually proposing is selling the people of England short and not giving them a true reflection of what the rest of the UK has experienced since devolution. He doesn't get what it is that makes the powers that true devolution can bring, he is seeing it as a way of regaining some control in some part of the UK, but to do so absolutely as only when the SNP had a majority from 2007-11 did they have any real say in any of the devolved powers.

In the cold light of a post referendum day

When it comes to matters of self determination I am what I would call an economic realist. You may well ask what do I mean by that? Well let me explain.

My degree is in economics so I know to look at the bigger picture for the nation, how that affects individuals and how the ability of a nation to look after its individual is best served. Therefore it does not make be either a nationalist nor a unionist when such matters are discussed.

Therefore in the 80s, 90s and early in the 2000s if there had of been a border poll in Northern Ireland I would likely have voted for a united Ireland. Especially during the 80s and 90s Northern Ireland seemed to be overlooked by Westminster and the economies of scale that being one quarter of a booming Ireland as opposed to one fiftieth or so of the United Kingdom meant that we probably would have had a better deal.

The situation with the Scottish Referendum is that I as an internationalist who studied European Economics for two years as a part of my degree did not only believe that the question were not being answered, but that the Yes side didn't fully understand the questions. Yes there was currency, there was Scotland's place in Europe, there was financial institutions that cross borders. I know how these things work in Ireland, but they are compartmentalised. There were too many grey areas and to be honest there wasn't honesty on the part of Alex Salmond a fellow economist in how to deal with many, many such questions.

However, to be called a fool who has been taken in is something I find insulting. Just because I did not come to the same conclusion as someone else does not make me a fool, that would lead to a very insulting image of our political system where there are so many parties not any of which I agree with 100% of the time. I am a member of the party that most closely reflects what I believe. As decisions within that party are mostly decided by as democratic vote I will be able to back those to the hilt, where some decisions are made that ignores the will of conference then I will continue to speak up and speak out. Indeed up until March of this year I was still on the register to vote in Scotland (due to 6 month residency requirement to transfer back unto the Northern Ireland register of electors)

The constant complaints about a fixed ballot when I have seen tweets from Yes groups, and blog posts from them and people who were there either as count agents of staff is beyond disrespectful to fellow Scots (and yes as I have spent more than 10 years there in the white paper I'd qualify for a passport). I have been to many, many counts across Scotland, I know that the election staff both in polling stations and at the count are second to none. That those of us who on a regular basis spend a long day getting out the vote following by long hours at the count are always impressed by how they handle themselves and we know that if there is something that we think has not been done right it will be investigated when we raise that.

The fact that on my 45th birthday many people started to put the 45 image on their profile pics is a cause for concern. That 45 is diverse, that 45 comes from all the main political parties and on many issues that 45 disagree. They are not homogenous. The same applies to the other 55% we are not all the same.

I'm proud that many people wanted to get involved in politics many for the first time, I know that many of them have joined one of the parties of the Yes side, that is loud and clear as they are all shouting about it. I also know that Scottish people have over the past two years joined the parties on the side of No as well. Is it good that they want to carry on the political conversation it is just that they need to know that the conversation in politics often moves on. Yes there are times that all of us in politics miss out on getting something and have to regroup,but they we have to make the best of what we can do.

That is where we are now. I've seen some say that the No side of the debate were triumphant. If I were an alien looking in I would be hard pressed to see that. Most of my friends who had No banners on their pages had taken them down within  24 hours of the result, the same is not true of my friends from Yes and yes they are still friends.

We need political leaders on both sides to speak sanely and calmly, change always takes time. It cannot be achieved in a weekend, a week, or even a month it will take time to make a change and make it correctly. There was a timetable laid out for presenting the additional powers, just as the SNP has laid out a timetable for delivering the referendum.

We know that the SNP took 7 years from first entering Government to bring about the referendum they had promised all their political lives, so a few extra months and a shorter timescale to make further changes isn't too great a time to wait, but everyone needs to take ownership of the process, get behind it and now that not all your dreams will come true, but you can make it the best package that you can.

Robinson takes "Them and Us" on Tour

Oh dear! What can the matter be?
Peter Robinson might be starting a calamity.

At the weekend Peter Robinson called for an end of "them and us" in Northern Ireland politics only it didn't seem present from his party in the chamber of Education Training Colleges yesterday. Now it seems he wants to step into Scottish Politics, or does he?

Of course the big question for Northern Irish Unionists over the SNP's call for separation is that once the Union starts to break up in one part what is to stop it happening elsewhere. Look at recent history.

The USSR  in 1990 the Russian Federation started to pass laws that superseded the USSR declaring sovereignty over its territory the largest of the Soviet Republics. In March of 1991 a referendum on the preservation of the Union only carried a majority in 9 of the 15 Republics though passed overwhlemingly as a whole. The seeds of separatism were watered as a result. The coup d'état against the USSR President Gorbachev that August further strengthened the position of the Russian President Yeltsin. On 8 December the three largest republics Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had signed Belavezha Accords which declared the Soviet Union dissolved and the Commonwealth in Independent States in its place. On 21st all the Republics but Georgia had signed the Alma-Ata Protocol confirming the accords. It led to the Christmas Day announcement that Gorbachev was declaring his position extinct and the following day the Supreme Soviet followed suit.
Yugoslavia coming out of the first world war the Kingdom of Serbia, and the States of Croatia and Slovenes were united. They became known as Yugoslavia in 1928. The ethnic tension of the various groups started to grow after the death of Tito in 1980. In 1986 Slobodan Milošević tried to restored the sovereignty of the Serb majority, the Croatians and Slovenes objected. In January 1990 an extraordinary congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was convened. Milošević insisted on one person, one vote to ensure the plurality of the Serb voice was dominant. The Slovenes backed by the Croats wanted more power devolved to the republics, they were voted down. Their delegations then left the congress effectively dissolving the all-Yugoslavia Communist Party. In 1990 the Republics decided to hold multi-party elections following the collapse of communism elsewhere. However, there was ethnic unrest in a number of the republics throughout 1990 and eventually on 25 June 1991 to the declaration of Independence of Slovenia and Croatia  but due to communication in Slovenia the transition of power from the Yugoslav led to some light skirmishes. Of course that wasn't the case with Croatia or later with Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In both the above cases there was a domino effect as each of the constitute parts wanted independence from the Union. Is what Peter Robinson fears that a Scottish secession going to lead to a Welsh pursuit of the same and then a why are we united to just England from Northern Ireland leading either to independence or a united Ireland?

Is he saying there is an end of them and us, but  we don't want us to become them by stealth `because the United Kingdom ends up breaking up. There are many good federalist arguments to be put forward for a high level of devolution across the UK as reasons to safe the Union but give power to the local people (not just disproportionately to Scotland). Having Peter Robinson using such overtly Northern Ireland needs this without addressing issues across the UK as a whole is not the way to do it. Peter really needs to get out the us mentality himself on this one, realise that his small world's eye outlook needs to see what can be of a benefit to all in the UK if he wants to keep the Union not just what he can keep for himself.

When No Doesn't Quite Mean No

Hardly surprising I see that SNP Tactical Voting is getting all Steamie about what has been reported about yesterday's end of day consultation session at the Lib Dem conference. I see the BBC, along with other media is giving only part of the story on the debate that went on earlier today.

I guess it is easy journalistic shorthand to simply write that the Lib Dems are opposed to a referendum on the subject of independence. Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum. Let's look at the specifics.

The SNP plans was to introduce the Referendum Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 25th January 2010, to provide for a on 30th November that year. For anyone not familiar with the Scottish calender this is Burn's Night and St. Andrew's Day respectively, so there was talk about using emotive dates to try and swing this a certain way, or indeed to hijack even more of Scotland for their means.

There was also the fact of the referendum themselves. Up until 2007 a referendum on independence didn't even feature as a means for the SNP to determine the will of the Scottish people. They aim to get to the goal of indepedence was to have the majority of Scottish MPs or MSPs. They have clearly failed in what has been the aim for 73 years of their existence.

Then there is the question itself:

"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK so that Scotland become an independent state."

Now the last time I took place in a referendum there was a document setting out what we were voting on, it was called The Agreement it had been signed on Good Friday. It wasn't a call to enter negotiations into something, it had come after a lot of wrangling, disputes and negotiation to come up with something. So Salmond's Bill isn't a referendum on Independence but a referendum to whether or not to enter negotiations with Westminster. Alex Salmond isn't prepared to enter those negotiations himself, because he knows he isn't ready, isn't in a position of enough power to do so. He wants to take a gradualist approach towards independence from his position of 33% of the vote and 25% in favour of Independence.

Which leads to one thing that was discussed and did come out yesterday. The Lib Dems would back a referendum. A referendum that was clear in its intent Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate. It also shouldn't wrapped in the Saltire, wearing a kilt and printed on a shortbread tin. Well it may as well with the programme for introduction and implementation suggested. Multiple options is a no-go area it should be a yes know.

The press had also foretold it was going to be a spilt. Whilst in a party that is used to discussing hot topics in a grown up fashion, and indeed had seen some very strong debates, very many points of order and points of information to get it through the numerous votes yesterday. What came out was a listening to each others points of views, I'm know that many of the 30+ people who got called to speak were redrafting up to the point that they got called, as many referred back to previous contributions, some even the one who had just taken their seat.

Jeff also seems to suggest in his Steamie article that the Greens have given their backing to the SNPs Bill on Independence. Poor them for being misled, actually if you look at some of the example above it looks more like the SNP is actually a party of Gradualism or maybe even leaning towards Federalism than Nationalism. So maybe the Lib Dems should be encouraging the SNP to join us nationally across the UK to achieve a Federalist Scotland in a Federalist UK. It appears that Alex is prepared to go for strong Scottish Home Rule within some of the confines of the UK. You know something us Lib Dems and the Liberals before us have wanted that for over 100 years.

One thing that the SNP have to learn about Federalism though is that powers are devolved down to the appropriate level. Therefore they have to stop grabbing powers from council level and taking them hostage, like some poor unsuspecting ship anywhere near Somalian water, and hole those powers up in Holyrood. Yes I'm talking about the powers to set their own local taxation at a rate that is appropriate, even if that is a fairer system of local taxation like LIT. Yes that means giving them some leniency in how they should spend what they are given. The SNP are actually exercising more central control than Labour ever dared to take, even in the bad old days of the late 70s.