Tuesday 16 December 2014

See No EVEL

"English Votes for English Laws" would be a judgement call by the Speaker on each occasion. It would never happen in practice. Not once.

England is so dominant within the Union that anything applicable here, except perhaps some purely ecclesiastical legislation, could always be argued to have some kind of effect on one or more of the other parts.

The devolution of benefits would be the denial of equal citizenship within the United Kingdom, and that it had already happened in Northern Ireland would not make that any better or any less true.

However, if income tax is going to be devolved, then there is no remaining case, such as there ever was, for the Barnett Formula. Simply none.

The powers are coming back to the English cities and counties, and must come back to them all equally. As, strictly on the basis of need, must the money.

4 comments:

  1. Poppycock.

    Funny, I didn't notice tuition fee rises in England having any "effect" North of the border where they don't exist. So they can't be allowed to vote on issues that don't affect them. And you think another Scotland-only freebie (like free eye tests) won't have any effect elsewhere in Britain considering the UK-wide taxes that pay for it? Any argument you make here is an argument against devolution itself. But it's too late for that now.

    If Scotland can bar English MPs from deciding what fees its students pay (and indeed what VAT, income tax, health and school policy they have) then there's no remaining justification for them being allowed to vote on English-only laws.

    Any tax or law affecting only England should require a majority of English MPs to pass.

    Gordon Brown always admitted this was the necessary quid pro quo for devolution.

    Brown wrote in his seminal book "The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution":

    "“It is scandalous for the British Treasury to deny that it is capable of devolving any powers to levy tax when so many other countries do it. Most of all, a revised Scotland Act could embody some form of the ‘in-and-out’ principle... Under such a principle the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating England or Welsh domestic matters. The ‘in-and-out’ principle ought to be attractive to Conservatives since it would ensure them a semi-permanent majority on most social issues at Westminster – no small prize. Labour remains formally committed to devolution and may be expected to consider a plan along these lines in the future.”

    Indeed.

    Mr Brown had the foresight to see this was always the necessary quid pro quo for devolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'll never work.

      No Speaker will ever allow an EVEL vote on anything in particular, except perhaps something purely internal to the Church of England.

      Let the provision be made, if you must, It will never, ever be used.

      Having it promoted by a highly intelligent man who is nevertheless determined to present himself as a howling loony ("Speak for ING-G-LAND!") has pretty much done for it, anyway.

      Delete
  2. As Gordon Brown wrote in his 1988 book "The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution":

    "“It is scandalous for the British Treasury to deny that it is capable of devolving any powers to levy tax when so many other countries do it. Most of all, a revised Scotland Act could embody some form of the ‘in-and-out’ principle... Under such a principle the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating England or Welsh domestic matters. The ‘in-and-out’ principle ought to be attractive to Conservatives since it would ensure them a semi-permanent majority on most social issues at Westminster – no small prize. Labour remains formally committed to devolution and may be expected to consider a plan along these lines in the future.”

    ReplyDelete