Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What about all the other countries in the world that are ‘divided’. Eg Germany or India, the USA or Switzerland, Belgium or Canada, Australia or United Arab Emirates. It doesn’t ‘divide’ them or make them any less a country.
Isnt there loads of division and friction between states in Belgium, Germany, India, and the US?!
The US written constitution seems to cause more problems than it solves - our way seems much more flexible to move with society’s changes.
Having a constitution that requires more than a 50% majority to change it is surely undemocratic - a tyranny of the old and the minority.
As with many British issues history and tradition is a problem with regional/local government. Really we need a complete remapping, but the loyal cultural attachment (at least by the noisy and influential) to shire borders created by invaders around 1500 years ago frustrates that. That and snobbishness.
For example areas of Surrey inside the M25 that should be part of London Boroughs, and the irrelevance of Surrey as a unit (west and east Surrey have little to do with each other). Or the East Midlands boundaries that bear little relationship to modern life (ie Chesterfield should be in Sheffield-shire)
Also the negotiations and decisions are taken by self interested authority politicians. Things might be different if well informed votes were held and the results considered at ward level.
There should also be more strong-arming - if you don’t want your town to be part of the nearest big town/city ‘shire’ then that shire can start charging you more for using services there.
I’m not a big fan of big unitary authorities - I prefer the Combined Authority model of districts and cities sharing services and larger scale powers (though would prefer a bigger and more representative voting committee than just one leader from each council)
The English Parliament should just be the existing English MPs.
This may be a stupid question but why is there a need for a separate set of Scottish MSPs - could the Scottish MPs not just do it? Ditto for Wales and NI (I know Sinn Fein doesn't go to Westminster or something like that but I mean in theory).
So on non-devolved matters all MPs get together in the UK parliament (doesn't necessarily have to be in London but there is another thread on moving the capital already).
On devolved matters the MPs split up into the 4 countries and carry on.
Are the devolved matters different for each nation?
Almost every parliamentary decision that involves spending money, that looks superficially like it relates to England only, is a UK matter because of the way that the Barnett formula works. Money can't be spent in England without affecting the amounts given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An English parliament could only be established by abandoning the Barnett formula, which would have to be voted by the UK parliament.
Because a separate Scottish Parliament was established in the devolution legislation. On devolved matters, Scottish ministers are answerable to the Scottish parliament not the UK parliament.
I don't see the advantage of mayors, most of the time they have to have support of the council to get anything done. You could give the existing local authorities more power and money without creating new elections and a more complicated structure
I think there's quite a lot of sense in areas where you have smaller unitary authorities. For instance around here we now have the Tees Valley Combined Authority which sits above five unitary authorities (Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, Hartlepool, Darlington and Stockton) and as a result has more heft than any of the five alone do and makes it easier to pull in one direction than trying to herd the five of them in the same direction if they didn't have someone sat above them. Now, I have serious issues with how the Mayor is running things (see past issues of Private Eye ad infinitum), but they certainly seem better able to make stuff happen than when it was just five sperate authorities. Where there is an existing County Council sitting above districts, especially when that covers a large geographic area, then perhaps it is less logical to create a Mayor and Combined Authority on top of that or alongside.
In reality though local government in England (and I suspect the UK at large to be fair!) is an utter mess and really needs quite fundamental reform from the bottom up rather than just continuing to fiddle around the edges or inserting new layers on top of existing layers because fixing the existing layers is too difficult/complex/expensive/etc.
Almost every parliamentary decision that involves spending money, that looks superficially like it relates to England only, is a UK matter because of the way that the Barnett formula works. Money can't be spent in England without affecting the amounts given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An English parliament could only be established by abandoning the Barnett formula, which would have to be voted by the UK parliament.
England gets everything its own way already, and already gets the lions share of all funding, not to mention some of Scotland and Wales abundant resources to boot.
The fact is, England should be extremely grateful for the position its in, it would be a lot poorer without the significant charity of the Welsh and Scottish.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
England deserves a single parliament just like any other nation. The regions were voted on, and were opposed, they don't match up well with cultural or historical areas (such as counties).
We were promised English votes for English laws, but that's been ignored, about time we gave up on the United Kingdom, which clearly has four entirely seperate futures.
England does not need to be divided, no one wants 9 different top level governments all diverging from each other.
I hate that England does not have it's own elected government, the current system is corrupt and unfair, we deserve the same as Scotland gets, not any second rate fudge
I agree, its a formula that entrenches the inequalities of Whitehall funding mechanisms, and it would be much better for Scotland if it kept all of its own money, instead of sending half its tax base to London every year.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes. For example police and justice are devolved in Scotland but not in Wales.
Almost every parliamentary decision that involves spending money, that looks superficially like it relates to England only, is a UK matter because of the way that the Barnett formula works. Money can't be spent in England without affecting the amounts given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An English parliament could only be established by abandoning the Barnett formula, which would have to be voted by the UK parliament.
Because a separate Scottish Parliament was established in the devolution legislation. On devolved matters, Scottish ministers are answerable to the Scottish parliament not the UK parliament.
Yes, and they underlying reasons for this are simple. Scotland hands over half its tax revenue every year to prop up Westminsters credibility on money markets and pay large chunks of the debt interest bill.
Further, Scottish exports, oil among them, significantly increase demand for Sterling in markets, and support the currency.
Don't want to kick back fractions of the borrowing to us, fine, don't expect us to send you money to pay the credit card debt interest even year. Deal.
Whist we are at it, anyone thinking Scotland is getting a fair deal is dreaming. £400B of Covid borrowing and Scotland gets less than its 9.8% Tax contribution based share.
The UK Economy gets $200B smaller over night without Scotland. Then there are the vast electricity flows from North to South, for which Scotland doesn't get much benefit.
Some of you need to read your numbers a bit more, and be significantly more grateful. The Daily mail has badly led far to many of the good people of England astray on this subject. Just like Brexit, or immigrants.
Never blame the aristocracy who get away with pilfering the UK, blame Europe, or people of colour, or the Scots...
This whole Scotland subsides England with their oil money narrative would make sense A: if North sea oil wasn't past it's peak, B: The SNP didn't become anti oil extraction. It's not 2011 anymore
England gets everything its own way already, and already gets the lions share of all funding, not to mention some of Scotland and Wales abundant resources to boot.
The fact is, England should be extremely grateful for the position its in, it would be a lot poorer without the significant charity of the Welsh and Scottish.
This whole Scotland subsides England with their oil money narrative would make sense A: if North sea oil wasn't past it's peak, B: The SNP didn't become anti oil extraction. It's not 2011 anymore
In most years Scotland’s fiscal and budget balance is lower than the UK average with or without North Sea oil (which is going to be increasing irrelevant going forward). I’m not saying this is a perfect reflection of the entire budgetary arrangement between England/Wales/Scotland but given that England will make up by far and away the largest proportion of the UK whole I cannot see how in any meaningful way it supports your statement. I have provided evidence and a source to support this statement, perhaps you could do the courtesy of providing one to support yours.
Based on the history of voting patterns, an English Parliament would become an almost permanent Tory monopoly.
More power to the English regions would be desirable, but regional parliaments would be a step too far (and too expensive).
As for defining "regions", that should be performed by "the people" - not the local politicians , and definitely not by Whitehall. It should reflect local traditions and affinities, not some crazy model defined by "convenient" authority sizes .
So, the 1974 (and subsequent) boundary revisions should be reversed, and the cobbled-together so-called "boroughs" revert back to individual towns.
One additional provision - if central government imposes tasks and duties on local authorities, the central government should pay in full for all those duties. That would include schools, social provisions, etc.
Local taxation should be kept low, just to fund low cost additional tasks wanted by local people.
Correct, it does not paint the whole picture. That has to be pieced together using many data sources. Have a look at the share of debt, net fiscal flows over the last 50 years, GVA per part of the Uk, FDI, there is a lot you need to trawl through.
Bottom line here is that the UK gets poorer sans Scotland, and that Scotlands significant exports dramatically improve what would be a truly shocking balance of payments deficit without Scotland. Not politics, just an appraisal of the figures.
Im not against the principle of an English parliament, its just that what exists today is to all intents and purposes, that already. Boundary and seat changes only reinforce that.
Correct, it does not paint the whole picture. That has to be pieced together using many data sources. Have a look at the share of debt, net fiscal flows over the last 50 years, GVA per part of the Uk, FDI, there is a lot you need to trawl through.
Bottom line here is that the UK gets poorer sans Scotland, and that Scotlands significant exports dramatically improve what would be a truly shocking balance of payments deficit without Scotland. Not politics, just an appraisal of the figures.
Im not against the principle of an English parliament, its just that what exists today is to all intents and purposes, that already. Boundary and seat changes only reinforce that.
Don't be giving me that straw man patter, you are as free to go and read any of the UK economic publications as I am. Scotland contributes more than its fair shares nd that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts, once you choose to read them. There is a wealth of info out there, its not my job to spoon feed it to anyone.
As I said, look at the balance of trade account, and Scotlands contribution.
Look at the energy flows.
Look at FDI takedown.
Read GERS for Debt interest payments, tax base, pension coverage.
Have a look at GVA per region and nation, Scotland is not at the bottom of the pile.
Read these things, genuinely look at them in an objective manner, appraise the facts, and come to your own conclusions.
To try and drag this back on topic, its clear to see that an English parliament, particularly one in say York, or Newcastle, could only result in some better outcomes for the north of England. It cannot be the case that Westminster is simultaneously the best system, yet huge swathes of England are falling behind on some of the metrics I point to above. Perhaps devolution is the way to do this.
Don't be giving me that straw man patter, you are as free to go and read any of the UK economic publications as I am. Scotland contributes more than its fair shares nd that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts, once you choose to read them. There is a wealth of info out there, its not my job to spoon feed it to anyone.
Again I don’t see how England, which presumably makes up the majority of the UK baseline, is being charitably (your word) supported by Scotland when Scotland’s figure never goes above 100?
Where the first row of figures represents the average per head, and the third is the UK whole baseline of 100. These are 2015 figures (the latest I could see that provide this sort of comparison on the ONS) so perhaps you have some more up to date figures you could reference? Scotland is absolutely contributing a decent share (and I didn’t say it ‘was bottom of the pile’-you are being the strawman here) but I don’t see how it and Wales are charitably (your word) supporting England which you claim they are.
Even if England was supported by Scotland financially, do we really care about money more than democracy? I certainly don't, Scottish MPs should be banned on voting on English matters, especially since the reverse situation is largely impossible due to their nation having a parliament, but not mine. It's a terrible system at the moment, it can be fixed easily by removing MPs from votes that do not concern them or their nations, simple.
It would also allow England to have it's own completely "undistracted" leadership for bodies like Public Health, and Transport, without any external influences from Scotland and Wales MPs.
It's free to achieve, it's better for democracy, there's no need for some expensive regional local government reorganization and it sets England up ready as a functional country again.
We all know Scotland usually votes for the SNP because they don't like England, even though they get bus passes when younger, free tuition and prescriptions etc when England doesn't, from a citizen's point of view, they get a better deal. The UK needs to break up, it's has not been working well for ages.
Even if England was supported by Scotland financially, do we really care about money more than democracy? I certainly don't, Scottish MPs should be banned on voting on English matters, especially since the reverse situation is largely impossible due to their nation having a parliament, but not mine. It's a terrible system at the moment, it can be fixed easily by removing MPs from votes that do not concern them or their nations, simple.
It would also allow England to have it's own completely "undistracted" leadership for bodies like Public Health, and Transport, without any external influences from Scotland and Wales MPs.
It's free to achieve, it's better for democracy, there's no need for some expensive regional local government reorganization and it sets England up ready as a functional country again.
We all know Scotland usually votes for the SNP because they don't like England, even though they get bus passes when younger, free tuition and prescriptions etc when England doesn't, from a citizen's point of view, they get a better deal. The UK needs to break up, it's has not been working well for ages.
So called ‘English votes for English Laws’ was enacted in 2015 and removed in 2021 because it created two tiers of MPs. As I said in post 21 even Rees Mogg said it ‘undermined’ parliament because of this and all MPs should be treated equally.
…even though they get bus passes when younger, free tuition and prescriptions etc when England doesn't, from a citizen's point of view, they get a better deal.
Not necessarily, for example you start paying tax in England on lower wages for the basic amount than in Scotland. There's 2% more for those earning £125k plus, but those people are not typical bus pass users are they.
But the Barnett formula has survived for more than 40 years. No UK parliament can bind its successors and it could have been scrapped at any time, if there had been a majority of MPs to vote for it.
Yes, and they underlying reasons for this are simple. Scotland hands over half its tax revenue every year to prop up Westminsters credibility on money markets and pay large chunks of the debt interest bill.
Any country that uses sterling benefits from sterling's credibility on the money markets, and needs to pay a share of the costs of maintaining that credibility. One of the biggest issues of the 2014 referendum was Scotland wanting all of the benefits of sterling but none of the costs. And any independent Scotland would have to negotiate to take on its share if UK government debt, and pay interest on that debt. An independent Scotland would not start debt free.
Where the first row of figures represents the average per head, and the third is the UK whole baseline of 100. These are 2015 figures (the latest I could see that provide this sort of comparison on the ONS) so perhaps you have some more up to date figures you could reference? Scotland is absolutely contributing a decent share (and I didn’t say it ‘was bottom of the pile’-you are being the strawman here) but I don’t see how it and Wales are charitably (your word) supporting England which you claim they are.
Again, for the 3rd time, you need to look at the whole picture. Its not somethign you are going to glean by cherry picking a few data points for an online debate. You have hours of reading ahead of you if you genuinely want to understand this.
Incredible to think that there are still people ouit there who refuse point blank to even try and understnad peoples attitudes. Even more surprising post brexit.
Some are, but even then, lower Council Tax, tuitition, Prescriptions..... the list of kickbakcs for your higher taxes is the best deal going in the UK at present.
But the Barnett formula has survived for more than 40 years. No UK parliament can bind its successors and it could have been scrapped at any time, if there had been a majority of MPs to vote for it.
Any country that uses sterling benefits from sterling's credibility on the money markets, and needs to pay a share of the costs of maintaining that credibility. One of the biggest issues of the 2014 referendum was Scotland wanting all of the benefits of sterling but none of the costs. And any independent Scotland would have to negotiate to take on its share if UK government debt, and pay interest on that debt. An independent Scotland would not start debt free.
Negotiations would be a key feature, and the outcome of it is up for debate, but we cant say to a certianty what the result would look like. Per above, its really interesting to look at the fiscal flows over a 50 year time horizon or even longer. Even now, Scotland is net contributing through energy recipts, but is still taking on debt. As an independent state, that could be a different equation, and those kind of discussions will come up in negitiation. That being said, there will be a level of debt apportioned id imagine, but there will be tradeoffs too.
Again, to get back on topic, the recent fiscal framework offers us a good insight as to how English devolution could work. I see no reason that Yorkshire become a fedeerated part of the whole with access to Sterling debt markets. Let the good people of Yorkshire decide what to invest in, how to set their tax base, and what parts of their economy they wish to grow. Tax them a portion for Defence. At a stroke, you begin to solve all manner of problems.
But no, Whitehall, and the Aristiocracy want to keep the power in the centre, so they can continue to skim from the top.
Again, for the 3rd time, you need to look at the whole picture. Its not somethign you are going to glean by cherry picking a few data points for an online debate. You have hours of reading ahead of you if you genuinely want to understand this.
All I asked for is for some sort of evidence to support what you claim. You said to look at the GERS figures. I looked up the figures, they don’t support what you claim and I have produced evidence and source for this. You said to look at the GVA figures. I trawled the ONS website for them and those I found don’t support what you claim and I have produced evidence and source for this. All I politely ask for is a source for your claim.
In reality though local government in England (and I suspect the UK at large to be fair!) is an utter mess and really needs quite fundamental reform from the bottom up rather than just continuing to fiddle around the edges or inserting new layers on top of existing layers because fixing the existing layers is too difficult/complex/expensive/etc.
Whenever I have idly got my crayons out and redrawn our admin boundaries it always goes swimmingly with really obvious stuff……..and then i get left with some awkward bits that don’t fit anywhere…..
The bigger problems is tradition, politics, and snobbery. Those in the outer suburbs might use a city in loads of ways….but they don’t want to join it, pay for it, or be run by it.
‘I only like democracy when I get the result I want’
The parties would change if that was true. Labour would move to the centre, and if there was no likely Labour government to fear then the Tory party would probably split.
England gets everything its own way already, and already gets the lions share of all funding, not to mention some of Scotland and Wales abundant resources to boot.
The fact is, England should be extremely grateful for the position its in, it would be a lot poorer without the significant charity of the Welsh and Scottish.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It has the balance of power. What more do you want?
I agree, its a formula that entrenches the inequalities of Whitehall funding mechanisms, and it would be much better for Scotland if it kept all of its own money, instead of sending half its tax base to London every year.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, and they underlying reasons for this are simple. Scotland hands over half its tax revenue every year to prop up Westminsters credibility on money markets and pay large chunks of the debt interest bill.
Further, Scottish exports, oil among them, significantly increase demand for Sterling in markets, and support the currency.
Don't want to kick back fractions of the borrowing to us, fine, don't expect us to send you money to pay the credit card debt interest even year. Deal.
Whist we are at it, anyone thinking Scotland is getting a fair deal is dreaming. £400B of Covid borrowing and Scotland gets less than its 9.8% Tax contribution based share.
The UK Economy gets $200B smaller over night without Scotland. Then there are the vast electricity flows from North to South, for which Scotland doesn't get much benefit.
Some of you need to read your numbers a bit more, and be significantly more grateful. The Daily mail has badly led far to many of the good people of England astray on this subject. Just like Brexit, or immigrants.
Never blame the aristocracy who get away with pilfering the UK, blame Europe, or people of colour, or the Scots...
While I broadly favour regional devolution, and see this as preferable to County Councils, in some areas this would provide too many layers of government. For example, in Greater Manchester we would have the Metropolitan Boroughs, the Mayor and the North West Regional Assembly.
A solution could be an increase in semi-regional Mayors, and regional devolution to cover the rest of the country. So, the North West for example would have the Mayors of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and the North West Regional Assembly to cover Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. Lancashire County Council would thus be abolished.
No, but mostly due to where I live (a Tory-leaning region of a Tory-leaning home nation) and its politics, rather than on point of principle.
England is by far the most Tory-leaning of the home nations and an English parliament would be dominated by the Tories. We'd get more Tory influence, and because I personally generally dislike Tory politics, this would personally not be good. Also England doesn't really have a culture of its own distinct from UK culture in general, unlike Wales, Scotland and NI.
Likewise regional devolution. In this case I guess I "ought", morally, to say yes but again will have to say no as I would end up being governed by the South East, which is generally a Tory area, would have the Tories nearly permanently in power, and would produce yet more unwanted Tory influence on things.
I freely admit that my own political preferences have trumped the principle, which is perhaps in theory sound, and if I lived in say Manchester, I would probably be for the regional assembly idea.
While I broadly favour regional devolution, and see this as preferable to County Councils, in some areas this would provide too many layers of government. For example, in Greater Manchester we would have the Metropolitan Boroughs, the Mayor and the North West Regional Assembly.
A solution could be an increase in semi-regional Mayors, and regional devolution to cover the rest of the country. So, the North West for example would have the Mayors of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and the North West Regional Assembly to cover Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. Lancashire County Council would thus be abolished.
I think most of us in favour of regional parliaments would quite happily get rid of the metro mayors and make all councils unitary. Therefore you would have three layers a) local council b) regional assembly/parliament, c) Westminster, which is exactly the same as in the rest of the UK (ie Scotland/Wales/NI). It’s also worth noting that in many areas of England there are currently three tiers of responsibility already (District/County/Westminster or Unitary/Combined Authority/Westminster) and London already has a regional assembly to go with its mayor-the mayor role just needs replacing with a proper first minister.
Based on the history of voting patterns, an English Parliament would become an almost permanent Tory monopoly.
More power to the English regions would be desirable, but regional parliaments would be a step too far (and too expensive).
As for defining "regions", that should be performed by "the people" - not the local politicians , and definitely not by Whitehall. It should reflect local traditions and affinities, not some crazy model defined by "convenient" authority sizes .
I do think the current government regions are a bit arbitrary cf. South East and South West.
I don't agree with regional parliaments in any case, but it seems to me that having say Bournemouth and Southampton in different regions is counter-intuitive, when they (to me, as a resident) seem to be part of the same "Solent and Wessex" region. West Hampshire has very little in common with distant Kent yet the two are in the same government region.
I guess this is a generational thing but the 1974 counties, coming to being in my pre-school years (so I can't remember anything earlier), are what I consider the "natural" ones!
Manchester and Liverpool being secondary towns to Lancaster in the county of Lancashire just seems bizarre to me. Much better to have Greater Manchester and Merseyside, respectively.
Likewise I think I'm the only person in the world who thought Avon was a perfectly logical county.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
