DaveO wrote:You have this completely the wrong way around.
We have just had a No campaign that argued that Britain was an inherently cohesive structure. If you seek to limit the real power of Scotland by excluding them from a democratic process you have just argued they belong to, what was the point of arguing "No" for?
In any case there are very few English only issues that don't affect Scotland as part of the UK. For example large infrastructure projects such as HS2 or Crossrail that occur entirely in England affect how much money is available to be spent elsewhere in the UK including Scotland. So anything that uses money from the UK treasury is by definition a UK wide issue. If we privatise the NHS in England which if it meant it costs more to run thus also reducing the money available elsewhere is an English issue that would have a direct effect on Scotland also impacting on the funds available to it.
The only way this can work is if we go for a federal option whereby each country is given a budget and it can do what it likes within that budget without affecting the others ability to do what they want and central government has very little power. That is not what Cameron is offering.
What will play into the hands of the SNP is attaching conditions to a promise that when made didn't have any. Or have you missed Salmond making hay with this already saying the "No" voters had been lied to?
The idea you can work out how to address the issue of what further devolution for Scotland means for England and address the issue before the election is crazy. Even if Cameron said the answer is English votes/English MP's I wouldn't actually expect that to happen. I would not put it past him to suggest this in his manifesto but I think he'd be lying if he did. Or fundamentally stupid. It is as I said earlier a sure fire way to break up the Union. Exclude the Scots from the UK democratic process and you are telling them to push for another referendum.
The Barnett formula is not affected in any way by infrasrtructure investments outside of Scotland. The Queensferry bridge is a £1bn project that was voted on by Scottish MSP's only.
Scotland voted no to independence. Scotland has a Parliament that has just been promised more powers on top of those included in the 2012 Scotland Act.
There is no democratic deficit by removing Scottish MP's from voting on matters that only affect England or Wales. It is totally undemocratic to allow this anomaly to continue.
The offer made to the Scots was what was on offer to them. The timetable is to get a draft Bill on what further powers are to be devolved to Scotland on the table by the end of January 2015. If that can be done, why is it not fair & democratic to resolve the undemocratic West Lothian situation at the same time?
Cameron was very clever to leave any mention of this until after the Scottish vote. It caught his opponents off guard. It puts Labour in a position where if they oppose it, they are seen as being totally undemocratic & continuing the unfair, self interested practice that gives them and extra 40 votes in England.
Of course the independence movement would seize on any failure to deliver. The independence movement, through the election of the SNP as the Scottish government, secured a referendum which it lost due to in part the promise of further self determination.
Salmond would be absolutely right to seize on any failure to deliver. Cameron knows this & has taken the opportunity to try & close down a platform for UKIP & showing Labour to be totally anti democracy by tieing in the two issues.
Why would anyone have a problem with that anomaly being closed off? My MP can't vote on matters that only affect Scotland.
Scottish MP's would not be prevented from voting on UK matters.
