« Who will reach the non-voter? | Main | New pressure on Tories to discuss immigration »

Comments

.Its always been a bit of a kettle and pot situation though, hasnt it? Through William Wallace, James 2nd, Highland clearances, we have a lot of previous between us. devolution had made it so much worse. Pointed up all the old grievances, and thats not just their take on Maggie T.
The English now appear to feel badly done to by the Scots. One hears tales of the English being slighted when up in Scotland. Des anyone else get the feeling of a boil forming, a certain reddening of the skin? Swelling? What is going to happen when this Border boil bursts?? Krakatoa or some sort of relief?

Whoops! Apocalypse.

Surely Alan Duncan's point was that having an MP from a Scottish seat created constitutional issues, rather than merely being Scottish. He has a very good point, and it's something that needs to be debated and now, before the Labour coronation of Gordon Brown takes place.

I hope one day Wales becomes more than a bracketed after-thought. I'm not getting at the editor for the above bracketting, it just this whole debate seems to be based around only two nations in the union.

Why does the Mail hold that the break up of the United Kingdom is damaging. Damaging for who? Not for the majority of its citizens living in England i wouldnt have thought.

I am not generally one to be critical of the leadership, but in this instance, I do think that our public position has been poorly conceived and badly presented - particularly Alan Duncan's silly comments to the effect that it is no longer 'possible' that a Scottish MP could become Prime Minister.

This is an incredibly serious issue that goes to the fabric of the country and it is vital that the Conservative Party have something thoughtful to say on it - unfortunately we just do not seem to have reached that point yet. David Cameron should be telling the Democracy task force that much more thought and work are required before this issue is raised in the name of the Conservative Party again.

What is much more damaging are these public disagreements.

I gave Oliver Letwin a low score in the survey because of this and the HRA matter. He is failing to co-ordinate these things properly or he is not assertive enough.

Is it too much to ask that policies are at least discussed internally amongst the cabinet and policy heads before they make the papers?

As to the issue itself, will the Public care about that or the image of a divided party?

Can everyone who thinks the end of the Union would be a good thing for England please explain how we will keep the budget going without oil taxation? As Nice Mr Cameron has ruled out a Laffer Curve solution and we will need to spend at something near Labour levels, there will be a black hole in the finances looming.

This really is the new EU.

Rob D, please excuse my ignorance, but could you explain what a 'Laffer Curve Solution' that DC has apparently rejected is?

The end of the Union wouldn't be a good thing, but the current situation is clearly unsustainable. What is needed is a reversal of devolution, and fair funding to all parts of the UK instead of the current mess.

Can everyone who thinks the end of the Union would be a good thing for England please explain how we will keep the budget going without oil taxation?
I believe its English companies who are actually drilling for the oil, and therefore we'll still receive oil revenues. Besides no one is advocating an end to the union, thats simply what Labour's spin doctors are saying we are advocating. All we are proposing is making the devolution settlement more fair, and democratic, rather than the current mess. EVOEL would simply make the union more of a federal state.

I have not thought this through...but we cannot have a situation where Scotland decides what is best for England...the respective national voters at present have very different views on matters; the Scots seeming to see sense in models like the defunct German Democratic Republic (old Labour) or Serbia (SNP). IF polls are correct and play out that way in a General Election, it will be Scotland deciding that Labour continue making the mess of England despite having less seats in England than the Conservatives.

Of course the Scotts will squeel that that is what happened to them in the early 1990s.....but two wrongs do not make a right.

By the way, I am Scotish (look at the surname- pure NE Scotland- Grampian Region)but live in England because the Conservatives made this place worth living in.

The case could easily be made that not having 'English Votes for English Matters' could lead to the break up of the Union - either through the creation of an English Parliament hastening the process or through not doing anything at all.

PassingThru: it would definitely be bad thing. It would return us to the very situation we were in before England conquered Scotland for good: weakened by a land border with a nation that has a long history of playing for the other side. I could well imagine for example, their sticking to the EU while we pull out and closen our alliance with America.

The outburst of English nationalism is very disheartening to those of us Tories North of the border and I feel a number of points need to be made in response to it, some of which have been made elsewhere.

Firstly, we must acknowledge that in the 1980's English Tory Mp's did exactly that which is now causing such umbrage to those South of the Border - voted through legislation specifically for Scotland, for which their was no Scottish majority in Parliament. On issues like foreign affairs, defence etc which affect all the UK equally this is uncontentious. But there were Scotland-specific laws passed at Westminster during the 1980's on issues such as Scotland's distinct legal abnd education systems and these were passed on the basis of the votes of English Tory MP's. Irrespective of the changed constitutional arrangements of late there is absolutely no logical difference between these events in the 1980's and what is now occurring in the other dirtection.

Secondly, why is this matter always solely aimed against the Scots. The Welsh have their own Assembly, which albeit exercising only executive powers, means there is a degree to which issues discussed at Westminster will affect England but not Wales. I do not recall the likes of Mr. Duncan drawing attention to this instance of asymmetry. The same will apply to Northern Ireland if and when devoltion is restored. I believe (not entirely positive here i must confess) it also applies to matters currently dealt with by the London Assembly, such that some issues discussed at Westminster will affect say Shropshire but not Sutton. As was pointed out on another thread this produces not just a West Lothian question but a West London question.

Thirdly, the very thing which Mr. Duncan is irritated is inflicted upon England is still currently practised upon Northern Ireland by English MP's. It is a frequent occurence for MP's from English seats to outvote Northern Irish MP's on purely Northern Irish legislation, much to the ire of the Unionists. Mr. Duncan conveniently forgets this also.

Fourthly, it should be borne in mind the way in which the block grant is claculated under the Barnett formula. The size of the block grant is determined solely by reference to the level of expenditure in England. It is a formula afterall. Thus the level of funding in Scotland is merely a side-effect of the level of English expenditure.

Therefore a Bill which otherwise applies only to England will contain a financial memorandum which will then automatically determine the level of the Scottish block grant. Irrespective of peoples views on the Barnett formula (though it should be noted tyhat the Party is committed publicly to its retention) it must surely be conceded that Scottish MP's must be allowed to vote on the level of the Scottish block grant.

So if Scottish MP's are no longer allowed to vote on English only legislation (which is prima facie a fair proposal) then some other means will have to be found to allow a vote on the financial provisions of the Bill. Say a separate vote was to be held on the financial memorandum to the Bill we could have the farcical and unsustainable position where the Bill was passed but the financial memorandum upon which it was based was not. The only other alternative is that there be separate votes on the financial provisions amongst Scottish and English MP's. This would be tantamount to giving Scottish Labour Mp's a veto over the size of the block grant when a Tory government next appears as they would have a majotiy in Scotland and thus be able to block it. I cannot see how there could be both a Tory government and the retention of the Union in this situation.

These are difficult issues (as Peter Riddell does well to point out in The Times) and I would kindly suggests that Mr. Duncan's infamous vanity has rather got the better of him on this occassion.

Jon, would you mind explaining the logic for your 'easy' case, as I can't see how EVfEL will leas to anything but more frustration.

Surely the only two fair and equal solutions for all countries in the union (ie no bias either way) are to have one single uk parliament or each country having its own.

There's no chance of achieving the former, so only the latter will create real equality.

Just devolve power properly, letting each country get on with its own affairs, and have an elected life-term HoL to act as both a checking function for the four national parliaments and for uk issues.

I'm sure you'll find that far from hastening the break-up of the union, the contentment brought by equality will leave people ticking along quite happily as they are.

Some will always want to break up the union, but creating parliamentary balance, far from assisting this will actually, imho, weaken any support for doing so.

No new MP's, no new building, no new layers, no forcing MP's the length of the country to attend the westminster parliament, and an elected HoL (life-term regionally allocated) free from the short-term whims and pressure of the current government.

It's simple, cheap and effective. No wonder it hasn't been proposed by the big 3!

Despite what politicians might think, they are not the centre of our lives, and they are not the glue holding the uk together.

I suspect that the fact that this solution reduces the amount of power in any one pair of hands may well be the source of its unpopularity with our power-hungry politicians.

Considering the Tories are jam packed full of die-hard dinosaur Unionists, this latest stunt was a huge own goal.

Not only was the wording inappropriate (It is Scotland's MPs, NOT Scottish MPs), but the whole issue of EVoEL is totally unworkable. The cost of the extra civil servants that would be needed to rake over each policy to see if Scotland is affected by the England only policy is totally unecessary. The Speaker can hardly qualify as unbias, considering he only got the job because he's a Scottish buddy of the Scottish ruler. There will be constant arguing over this issue and if you can't see that, then you don't deserve to run our country.

Those of us who have been following the consequences of devolution pn England since 1997, have also listened to the excuses given, that 'England only' policy cannot be England only, because they affect the neighbouring countries in some way or another - funding on England affects Scotland, two tiers of MPs, nothing has been devolved to Scotland, We Scottish MPs must vote on English issues in the way we think will benefit Scotland, Scots travel into England, My constituents have relatives in England (that was Ming) and even the delightful. "Scottish foxes cross the border into England."

There is only one solution for the current undemocratic position of England, in post devolution Britain. England must have its own Parliament.

Even though Wales got a National Assembly, that country did not get the best deal for its citizens, either. The Welsh Assembly must be upgraded to a Welsh Parliament. Anything less would be an insult to Wales.

You cannot have one country in Britian favoured with its own Parliament and in Wales' case, a mini Parliement with few powers and England with no national assembly or Parliament of its own, at all.

Get it right. You'll be respected all the more for it in England, Scotland and Wales. It would even raise your dismal profile in those countries and goodness knows, you certainly need to do that.

And please - Say Scotland's MPs, NOT Scottish MPs. You make it sound like nationality is the issue and it isn't. Constituency is the only issue.

We have had nearly ten years of Labour's incompetence which has seen immigration spiral out of control along with violent crime; a stuffed NHS and an increasingly dumbed down education system; stealth taxes
galore that are now affecting our world competitive position; increasing subservience to the EU; our contribution to the EU increased; our Armed Forces short of proper kit; a government accused of so much slease, the like of which we have never seen before, plus Brown buying votes and Blair probably importing them; Brown sold off half our gold reserves at half price for euros; our pensions debased; we will have to work longer; the stock exchange beginning to wilt
under Brown helping himself to dividends. Sooner or later I will be getting to the real bad news (England is out of the World Cup and many Scots have been said to support our opponents). To put it bluntly, under Labour, Britain has been trashed - especially, I feel, England. However, I am confident that the Scots, knowing pairrrfectly well that Labour is not and never has worked, will vote overwhelming Conservative at the next GE to help English voters win the day (I am certain that all who read the above will agree that the Scots will all vote Tory next time - well, you all do, don't you? Ah well, perhaps not!)
I don't know if it will be worth my while voting Tory - I don't think Cameron will be nasty enough to be of any use, just another Blair. God save us all!

One idea...Mon and Tues Scots MPs sit in Holyrood, Welsh in cardiff, English in Westminster and they legislate on devolved matters, Weds and Thurs they sit in Westminster and legislate on UK matters. There would be one PM and each of the home nations would have its own first Minister (who may or may not be of the same party as the PM) based on the local number of MPs.

James, that's far too logical to have a chance of getting implemented.

What a shame.

"It would return us to the very situation we were in before England conquered Scotland for good..."

Posted by: Julian Morrison | July 04, 2006 at 21:12

This is the attitude that inflames the situation either through deliberate insult, or ignorance of what the Union is.

If England has conquered Scotland what is all the fuss about?

As for Scots playing the other side, well that is merely a matter of perspective - maybe it was England that was playing the other side?

I don't know why the Mail thinks that the government has an overall majority in the UK, but a minority in England. It could happen, but in fact at present out of 529 MPs elected in England 284 are Labour MPs, which is a majority.

I also don't know why anybody thinks that the Scots are ruling the English. There are 646 MPs, of whom 529 (82%) are elected in England, 59 (9%) are elected in Scotland, 40 (6%) in Wales, and 18 (3%) in Northern Ireland. If the Scots really are getting a better deal, or imposing their will on the English, that can only be because the Labour MPs elected in England are allowing it to happen.

Nor am I sure that England really is subsidising Scotland. I honestly don't know, and I suspect that nobody does and it may be impossible to find out with any accuracy. Only today the SNP has published a detailed study called "Scotland in Surplus", concluding that the reverse is true and that the subsidy from Scotland to England works out at £853 pa for each man, woman and child in Scotland.

Their calculated absolute surplus of revenue over expenditure is at the 2% level, and there are uncertainties and probably omissions on both sides of the equation.

But what's a billion a year between friends, one way or the other, when being in the EU is costing the UK between fifty billion and two hundred and fifty billion a year, and they're trying to divide us so we can be ruled in a Europe of Regions?

In addition to closing the bold-face tag, ;-) I've heard what James suggests for dual-mandate MP's before, but only rarely. It strikes me as by far the most sensible, practical, efficient, equitable and legitimate of all possible solutions. It's a shame one doesn't hear the idea mentioned more. Of course, as an American, the idea of federalism doesn't seem remotely so alien to me as it does to most people in the UK, so whether it's with dual-mandate MP's or seperately-elected ones, I honestly can't begin to understand the logic of people supporting the continuation of this current constitutional assymetry. It seems readily apparent to me at least that the UK MUST choose whether it is to be a unitary state or a federal state, or it will invariably come apart at the seams from the blatant unfairness of the status quo.

James - thats a nice idea in pure merit terms but not realistic politically. Indeed, it was mooted by Michael Forsyth and went down like a lead balloon. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were both established following Yes results in referenda and thus could realistically only be abolished following a referendum result reversing these deicsions. There is less than zero chance of that happening, whatever the Gerald Warner's of this world like to think. Thats before you even consider the fact that the politicians are all there, the infrastructure and hangers on all in place, the Parliaments built (and falling down!!) etc. etc.

And I'd be curious for those who advocate EVfEL as an amendment to the existing Westminster model, would there be Welsh votes for Welsh laws, Northern Irish vbotes for Northern Laws, Scottish votes for scottish laws, or are we to have symmetrical devolution with an English Parliament etc? I think thats a bit unrealistic, indeed its a bit too neat and tidy and completely out of kilter with the general way our constitution evolves. Take a hypothetical - say, as in Scotland, policing is one thing devolved to our respective "Laander". Say then the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorated as has happened in the past and it was felt the Assembly in NI could no longer handle this issue and it policing should be restored to direct rule - the tidiness becomes a bit more messy then. There would need to be provision for the federal parliament to deal with an issue specific to one area.

Or say for example it was decided to transfer tax powers to the various assemblys/whatevers. What happened if say Scotland decided to drastically reduce tobacco tax. Its government realised the rate of tobacco smugglong was very high so decided there was a case for lower taxes to reduce smuggling and increase revenue. Then people simply smuggled cigarettes into EWngalnd from Scotland and Englands tobacco tax revenues plummeted. Would that make for happier relations between Scotland and England?

Or even if you decided that was a negative form of tax competition so you kept that for the federal parliament at Westminster, the consequence would be that the assemblies in the constituent states would not be fully fiscally autonomuos. Thus you would need a new mechanism for distributing federal funds to the various different nations. Scotland is more rural, so its schools, transport services need to be replkicated without the same returns so it asks for more money - yes or no? so do we then distribute on the basis of population rather than need? is this only extended to Scotland or is the withdrawal of funds extended to northern england too? im sure that would play well in north tyneside, cleveland, westmorland and lonsdale etc.

then there are disagreements over oil boundaries. these boundaries are not the same as the proposed boundaries for fishing grounds which would kick in if we withdrew from the CFP and returned to national fishibng grounds. We really havent though this all through - EVfEL and ditching Barnett are an absolute hornets nest.

Della, provided that when laws are made just for England only the representatives elected in England make the decisions, it doesn't matter that much whether they go to deliberate and vote in a separate building, or do it in the present building at Westminster having sent the other representatives off to do something else.

It only needs the Speaker to say "Order, the Commons of England are now in session" and that is an English Parliament. (Or at least, one chamber of it.)

AM(or MSP or NI equivilant) & MP dual roles will work on paper but in reality the amount of travelling involved and constituency days makes it unrealistic, although not impossible.

The step that would make it possible would be to utalise technology and have the members sitting in Cardiff etc. but in a 'federal debate' with the speaker and computer system in a non-capital, maybe Birmingham or Manchester. While possible I can't see that the country is ready for technology to be that involved with politics yet. shame.

Its unbelievable that the consequences were not properly considered before devolution and even more unbelievable that the undemocratic situation for England and its remedies has still not been thought through fully.
Did Cameron genuinely expect the task master he chose for this specific inquiry, to come to any other conclusion than EVoEL? Does he know the background of this dinosaur and where his (EU) loyalties lie?

His loyalties are to the EU, Della, we can agree on that, and I suspect that we'd also agree on the correct treatment which should be meted out to him. I notice that while Alan Duncan got most of the publicity for mooting that an MP elected in Scotland should not be allowed to become PM, the idea was first mentioned by K Clarke in the Observer. I'm sure he'd love to see the Scots and the English split, which would make it much easier for the EU to then detach Wales and Northern Ireland, coming back later to have another go at breaking up England itself, maybe first stirring up the Cornish, then the Northumbrians etc.

Duncan betrayed his own confusion on the matter when he said " Scottish MP's " and not " MP's for Scottish constituencies ".

There is one easy way out of the potentially ghastly tangled mess of EVOEM and that is to have country parliaments within the United Kingdom . This implies an English Parliament . It will work quite well and will preserve the Union. It will draw the sting of the unfairness of the present situation and be popular . Any member of parliament for the British Parliament would still be eligible to be British PM .
When an English Parliament is in place and has become " part of the scenery " of the United Kingdom people will look back and be amazed that anything so complicated and unfair and strewn with procedural roadblocks as EVOEM was ever even considered by supposedly sensible and at least moderately intelligent politicians .

i dont think an english parliament would preserve the Union as the disagreements over the distribution of funding would remain an issue as it does now for some English people regarding Barnett.

Many here seem to be arguing that we should each have our own parliament alongside a federal parliament. Presumably this federal parliament would still have to finance matters such as defence, foreign affairs etc. will each nation be expected to contribute on the basis of its share of the population or on its ability to pay? Say on defence one of the states has a higher proprtion of the military bases in its territory than its share of the UK population - should that country pay more for their upkeep. How will money be distributed to each of the countries in the Union to pay for their devolved responsibilities - need or population? If we're having full fiscal autonomy the distribution of the national debt would be a major source of disagreement.

To me the West Lothian question is best left as it is unless something more workable than EVfEL is produced as a solution.

There is no realistic prospect that we will win more than a handful of seats in Scotland or Wales in 2009 (and by definition none in NI). The most likely result will thus be us with a majority in England but Labour as largest Party in the HoC. Labour may then quite easily do a deal with the Lib Dems for proportional representaion and we will be out of office for our lifetimes.
Our only defence against this it to say that Labour is not constitutionally able to make this law for England as England's MPs won't have it. Our only prospect of us being able to say that without it looking like sour grapes is if we have repeatedly aired EVfEL, well in advance of the election.
English nationalism is on the rise. The genie is already out of the bottle and we would be daft not to harness it to our cause. Brown and the Labour government are most vulnerable on their Scottishness. Unfairness perceived or real is the one thing that really riles Englishmen. Alan Duncan is to be congratulated on saying that Brown cant be PM and Cameron is a fool for slapping him down so quickly. It's obviously nonsense under the existing Constitution but we are (at least some of us are trying to prod our Leaders out of their torpor into) proposing to rebalance the Constitution after Labour's gerrymandering. A few more remarks like Alan's will keep the pot boiling nicely and give Labour MPs some thought in passing Brown on the nod, when Blair is finally pushed out.
Its not nice, its not according to Dicey and Bagehot but this is high politics for the future of our nation and our Party not an Oxford tute. And it begins to look like Opposition for the first time in 9 years.

As to how we bring off EVfEL - we should abolish the HoL (cutting that Gordian knot)and bring in a federal Parliament with English MPs, elected as now, sitting in the current HoC chamber as an English parliament Monday to Wednesday and then decamping to the HoL chamber Th-F to be joined by representatives of Scottish Welsh and NI parliaments on a population basis and forming a unicameral UK parliament to discuss non deloved issues of defence and foreign policy
If we want to be really clever we give each national Parliament tax raising powers and pay for the UK parliament by a per capita levy on the national parliaments. Brown can be PM and run our embassies abroad, whilst Cameron governs England. Abolishing the Barnet formula is worth about 8billion or 2p off income tax and if Scotland wants to retain its current public spending then that means 6-8p on income tax (allowing for oil revenue, although we would of course keep stamp duty on the City to ourselves). That's 8-10p difference in the basic rate between Tory England and Labour Scotland.
Cutting out the Lords and all the current celtic MPs will be popular for saving money and culling politicians and more importantly beheads the Labour Party by sentencing them to perpetual seclusion in Edinburgh and Cardiff. Finally, making a change on the Constitution especially abolishing the old high Tory HoL offers us the elusive Clause 4 moment.
es this threatens the Union but its time we considered what an English Tory gets out of the Union these days - apart from the bill.

Chad,

"Jon, would you mind explaining the logic for your 'easy' case, as I can't see how EVfEL will leas to anything but more frustration."

A bit late (i should check back more often), but if you're still there :)

1) EVOEL resolves the fundamental unfairness of the West Lothian Question, and after the Labour lies about "2nd class MPs" has died down there is no reason for resentment on either side of the border (particularly since most Scots also support EVOEL).

2) Political bodies, especially national parliaments, always gain more power and legitimacy to themselves. You have only to look at how Canada and Australia has drifted away from the mother country, or the increasing powers of Quebec or Catalonia, or how the Irish Free State lead to the Republic of Ireland, or the way it is now impossible to undo scottish devolution, or how people are thinking of upgrading the Welsh Assembly to a Parliament.

If you have separate Scottish and English and Weslsh Parliaments it wont be long before people start wondering why they need the Union at all - especially when the UK govt. does something the devolved parliaments dont like. How tempting for a left-wing parliament to defy right-wing Westminster (and stir up a bit of nationalism to reinforce its authority).

I was against Scottish devolution for same reason: It will be a stepping stone to Scottish independence from England(the reason the SNP have wanted devolution for decades), and an English Parliament will lead to calls for English independence from Scotland.

Thanks John, like a bad smell, I always hang around. :-)

"If you have separate Scottish and English and Weslsh Parliaments it wont be long before people start wondering why they need the Union at all "

This is pretty much where we disagree. I don't think that will happen at all because I believe that it is not our political structures but our history, mixed breeding etc that holds us together.

I think if we give each country their own parliaments, that is simply consistent with decentralisation aims, and will actually leave most people happy enough to tick along with a transparent local solution that will quell all but the most extreme nationalism.

I don't see why we should force an MP for a Scottish constituency all the way down to London to resolve issues for his constituents. It smacks of a political power trip to me.

Even if the parliaments and not a reformed HoL are used for uk-wide issues, why not let the MP's debate in their national forum then vote closer to home?

I can't see how you can support localism and decentralisation but not support a parliament for each country.

Chad, the Tories don't know what they support. No wonder they won't publicise their policies, because each one is easily taken apart and shows Cameron for what he is - an empty poseur.
This is from the SNP -

Tories Drop Debate on West Lothian Question
westminster
The Tories are in disarray and running away from debating the West Lothian Question says SNP Shadow Constitution spokesperson, Pete Wishart MP, after they dropped a widely expected House of Commons debate on the West Lothian Question in favour of an issue affecting England.
Commenting on this volte-face by the Tories Mr Wishart said:

"The Tories are in disarray on the West Lothian Question. After taking a pummelling for their unworkable "English votes for English laws" policy – notably from the Daily Mail – they are running for cover.

"It was widely expected that they would choose a debate on the West Lothian Question but have switched to an issue affecting England.

"But they have made their bed and have to lie in it; however unworkable their policy is.

"With Labour in an equal fankle, since a majority of their MPs on the Scottish Affairs Committee say the West Lothian Question has to be addressed, then only independence is looking like the clear solution.

"With independence we would have a relationship of two self-governing nations regarding each other with mutual self respect, rather than this current situation of continual argument and acrimony."

ENDS

http://www.snp.org/snpnews/2005/snp_press_release.2006-07-06.3794134334

They have been told all along that the only answer is an English Parliament. Instead, they take the half road and make fools of themselves.

You wouldn't think that this was Tory policy at the last two elections would you?

The Daily Mail hysterics seem to imply a belief that somehow devolution hasn't happened. It has - and the consequences have to be dealt with.

There is nothing wrong with Scottish constituency MPs voting on English only matters, as long as English constituency MPs were able to vote on Scottish only matters. That equality has now disappeared, and the fact has to be recognised.

Just because an issue has an effect on Scotland is not justification enough for Scottish MPs to get involved. Scotland's funding arrangements for HE have an effect on the English and Welsh HE sectors - did English and Welsh MPs get a say? Did they hell.

The UK can either go down the route of taking away some voting rights from MPs in places with devolved government (as appropriate) or do devolution properly and symmetrically across the UK.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker