Dalradia
05-11-2004, 16:26
People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly.
The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm)
What does this mean for the UK constitution?
My personal opinion, and that of many of my peers, is that a new arrangement must be established at Westminster.
With immediate effect, MPs representing regions with devolved government should be excluded from debate on devolved matters, and legislation should enshrine this. In the longer term a clearer legal framework must be produced to ensure that devolved matters are dealt with in the correct place by the correct people.
I think it would be expedient if overlap is reduced- Why do the people of Scotland need both an MSP and an MP? Can't the MSP's travel to London to debate British issues? Why employ another fifty MP's to debate only the reserved matters?
A serious problem to consider however is the chance that two governments could be in power simultaneously, see the following example:
At present:
Britain England Scotlnd Wales Northern Ireland
Labour 413 323 56 34 0
Conservative 166 165 1 0 0
Lib Dem 52 40 10 2 0
Nationalist 27 0 5 4 18*
Other 1 1 0 0 0
Total 659 529 72 40 18
Majority 330 265
So there is no problem. Labour have a majority in both a British and English parliament. It can be seen however, that as a percentage of the seats the conservatives are far more significant in England than in the other regions.
The Tories control only a quarter of the British parliament but a third of the hypothetical English. Consider then that the Labour party lose 80 of their seats in England to the conservatives, nothing changing in the regions; the new chart looks like this:
Britain England Scotlnd Wales Northern Ireland
Labour 333 243 56 34 0
Conservative 246 245 1 0 0
Lib Dem 52 40 10 2 0
Nationalist 27 0 5 4 18*
Other 1 1 0 0 0
Total 659 529 72 40 18
Majority 330 265
It can be seen now that Labour could win a General election, but not have a majority in the in the parliament for English matters. (Indeed, it is not even the largest party. Of course this is a hypothetical situation and in practice it may be that the Lib Dems win some other share of the seats.)
My question is: is this a problem? Could there be a single party who appoints the Prime Minister and a coalition who select a First Minister of England? Who would appoint the cabinet?
(*Northern Ireland has several unique parties, manj of whom may support a marginal government. Traditionally UUP=Cons SDLP=Lab etc. This is not the case with the Scottish and Welsh MPs who have little or no history of cooperation.)
The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm)
What does this mean for the UK constitution?
My personal opinion, and that of many of my peers, is that a new arrangement must be established at Westminster.
With immediate effect, MPs representing regions with devolved government should be excluded from debate on devolved matters, and legislation should enshrine this. In the longer term a clearer legal framework must be produced to ensure that devolved matters are dealt with in the correct place by the correct people.
I think it would be expedient if overlap is reduced- Why do the people of Scotland need both an MSP and an MP? Can't the MSP's travel to London to debate British issues? Why employ another fifty MP's to debate only the reserved matters?
A serious problem to consider however is the chance that two governments could be in power simultaneously, see the following example:
At present:
Britain England Scotlnd Wales Northern Ireland
Labour 413 323 56 34 0
Conservative 166 165 1 0 0
Lib Dem 52 40 10 2 0
Nationalist 27 0 5 4 18*
Other 1 1 0 0 0
Total 659 529 72 40 18
Majority 330 265
So there is no problem. Labour have a majority in both a British and English parliament. It can be seen however, that as a percentage of the seats the conservatives are far more significant in England than in the other regions.
The Tories control only a quarter of the British parliament but a third of the hypothetical English. Consider then that the Labour party lose 80 of their seats in England to the conservatives, nothing changing in the regions; the new chart looks like this:
Britain England Scotlnd Wales Northern Ireland
Labour 333 243 56 34 0
Conservative 246 245 1 0 0
Lib Dem 52 40 10 2 0
Nationalist 27 0 5 4 18*
Other 1 1 0 0 0
Total 659 529 72 40 18
Majority 330 265
It can be seen now that Labour could win a General election, but not have a majority in the in the parliament for English matters. (Indeed, it is not even the largest party. Of course this is a hypothetical situation and in practice it may be that the Lib Dems win some other share of the seats.)
My question is: is this a problem? Could there be a single party who appoints the Prime Minister and a coalition who select a First Minister of England? Who would appoint the cabinet?
(*Northern Ireland has several unique parties, manj of whom may support a marginal government. Traditionally UUP=Cons SDLP=Lab etc. This is not the case with the Scottish and Welsh MPs who have little or no history of cooperation.)