welshbairn Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I'm pretty sure he's always said he doesn't support full independence. I think he's turned into a pretty decent poster, personally. Maybe so, but he has to be on the wind up here: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/222070-the-snp-should-not-back-an-labour-government/?p=9355993 If the SNP went back on their word and kept Cameron in power it would be an act of political suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Why? In my opinion the two are not comparable. EVEL is about accountability whereas Trident is a strategic decision made for the UK by the UK. Cannot see how the linking of these two issues makes a modicum of sense. Very few issues will affect Scottish funding. Also this would be down to the designation of what are English issues. The principle stands, the SNP cannot be against EVEL at the same time as seeking more devolved powers. This is an un-tenable position. As Sturgeon explained a few months back. Some of the English issues have a direct effect on Scotland. SNP would be more than happy to have EVEL, as long as they get something in return. That's why horse trading is an important skill in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 As Sturgeon explained a few months back. Some of the English issues have a direct effect on Scotland. SNP would be more than happy to have EVEL, as long as they get something in return. That's why horse trading is an important skill in politics. Yep but they aint getting trident removed whilst we are part of the UK and certainly not for something as trivial as EVEL. So are you suggesting that the SNP would vote against EVEL unless we see the trident replacement scrapped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Of course there is a point in discussing it, if the Tories manage to get an amendment to a bill then Labour would have to address the issue. My point is that the SNP would have a major say in this either by supporting labour (and therefore weakening the case for further devolution) or supporting the principles of EVEL and indirectly supporting the tories. Nothing wrong with EVEL imo. It would completely end labour party. The problem with EVEL is it'll create a hodge-podge. The SNP could quite justifiably argue that it won't work, would cause stalemates in England to nobodies benefit, and should be a proper Federal structure, or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 The problem with EVEL is it'll create a hodge-podge. The SNP could quite justifiably argue that it won't work, would cause stalemates in England to nobodies benefit, and should be a proper Federal structure, or not at all. I'm afraid you are going to have to expand on the factless statements posted What justification could the SNP make? Why would it be hodge-podge? As for the stalements in England, it would be rather hypocritical of a party seeking additional powers for one part of the union to try to assert their views over another. Yet again we see the mention of a federal structure with no justification on why we should have this or why it would be beneficial for Scotland. For example, the continued mention of the SNP desire to see the trident replacement scrapped would not be affected by a federal structure. In such a scenario, the scots would actively have to contribute to it. At least at the moment, the party can point to the fact that they have no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Yep but they aint getting trident removed whilst we are part of the UK and certainly not for something as trivial as EVEL. So are you suggesting that the SNP would vote against EVEL unless we see the trident replacement scrapped? No way will England give up it's nuclear deterrent, although the argument I would make against that is we have nuclear armed allies. Even if we were to get trident moved away from Scotland tomorrow. The process of doing so would likely take 10-20 years. Trident isn't really that much of deal breaker to me, but if we agree to EVEL, then we should demand more autonomy for Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 The problem with EVEL is that it's not actually that easy to determine what constitutes an English only law. You need federal delineation of taxation or at least a non-spending related replacement for the Barnett formula to make even apparently English only laws immune from devolved effects. EVEL is a Trojan horse to avoid having to confront the reality that England either needs a Parliament of its own or regional Parliaments with at least as many powers as the Welsh Assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I don't think that's the case at all actually. EVEL is simply a device to f**k Labour at WM for the rest of time. That's all it is, nothing to do with anything other than making it impossible for Labour to pass legislation. England doesn't need or even want a parliament, and has one anyway, called Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Maybe so, but he has to be on the wind up here: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/222070-the-snp-should-not-back-an-labour-government/?p=9355993 If the SNP went back on their word and kept Cameron in power it would be an act of political suicide. To clarify, I dont think they should support a Tory government either. I just think the independence movement would benefit from the SNP being in opposition at WM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 The problem with EVEL is that it's not actually that easy to determine what constitutes an English only law. You need federal delineation of taxation or at least a non-spending related replacement for the Barnett formula to make even apparently English only laws immune from devolved effects. EVEL is a Trojan horse to avoid having to confront the reality that England either needs a Parliament of its own or regional Parliaments with at least as many powers as the Welsh Assembly. In some cases this is true. In others it is clearly English only or is there some point I am missing in regards to laws such as: Assisted Dying Bill Buses (Audio Announcements) Bill Pavement Parking Bill School Govenors (Appointment) Bill Licensing Act 2003 (Amendment) Bill Confiscation Orders (Sentencing and Offence) Bill to name but 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 When you think about it EVEL is effectively devolution but instead of having members elected to a separate devolved body you just have the English MPs dual mandating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 When you think about it EVEL is effectively devolution but instead of having members elected to a separate devolved body you just have the English MPs dual mandating. Which is exactly why it wouldn't work effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Which is exactly why it wouldn't work effectively. Correct. Ad Lib is spot on in that England needs a parliament of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I don't get the impression there is much desire for an English parliament down here. I've brought it up a few times and people look bemused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Maybe so, but he has to be on the wind up here: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/222070-the-snp-should-not-back-an-labour-government/?p=9355993 If the SNP went back on their word and kept Cameron in power it would be an act of political suicide. I don't doubt he still tries to introduce a bit of mischief, but as far as i know, he's never claimed to be a nationalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I don't get the impression there is much desire for an English parliament down here. I've brought it up a few times and people look bemused. There isn't any at all, as ever Ad Lib is full of shit. Apart from right-wing Daily Mail types, nobody in England cares about an English parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I'm afraid you are going to have to expand on the factless statements posted What justification could the SNP make? Why would it be hodge-podge? As for the stalements in England, it would be rather hypocritical of a party seeking additional powers for one part of the union to try to assert their views over another. Yet again we see the mention of a federal structure with no justification on why we should have this or why it would be beneficial for Scotland. For example, the continued mention of the SNP desire to see the trident replacement scrapped would not be affected by a federal structure. In such a scenario, the scots would actively have to contribute to it. At least at the moment, the party can point to the fact that they have no choice. Trident is a red herring, why aren't more people getting this. The SNP will say they want rid of trident (knowing that it's incredibly unlikely). They'll then compromise, forcing Labour to compromise on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Correct. Ad Lib is spot on in that England needs a parliament of its own. Why? What problem is this need going to solve? In truth England neither needs nor wants an English parliament, and basically has one currently anyway. Its not for us to tell England what it should want or have, let them decide that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 There isn't any at all, as ever Ad Lib is full of shit. Apart from right-wing Daily Mail types, nobody in England cares about an English parliament. The impression i get from speaking to people down here is that they don't want another layer of government but they do want something done to stop scottish MPs voting on devolved matters. I think a large part of that is still because a lot of people still (incorrectly) think they subsidise us and (incorrectly) see Scottish MPs as some kind of interlopers in their parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 EVEL would be fine with me if Scotland's finances were completely independent of Westminster but each of the UK party's entries in the pre-Smith command paper made it abundantly clear that certain revenues would not be devolved to Scotland. It strikes me as funny that the prominence of the SNP provokes the seething "fine, where's our parliament then, time they Jocks stopped interfering!!!111" response, when it's the SNP who actually want Scotland to be in control of only its own laws and resources. EVEL would be just dandy in combination with genuine devo-max/fiscal autonomy but all the Westminster parties are demonstrably not interested in this, so they can get to f**k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.