Devolution bollocks

[mistermack]

How come there is a complete consensus in the chattering classes in the UK that devolution is good, and more devolution is always better?

Haven't they heard that you can have too much of a good thing?

If there had never been a Scottish Parliament, or a Welsh Assembly, who would be worse off?
Just add up the cost of building all that shit, and all the salaries feeding them. It's a complete waste of time and money.

If you were needing a heart operation, would you want it devolved locally to your GP, or would you like it done at a centre of national excellence?

During WW2, would it have been a good idea for all the local little HItlers to be squabbling about what was ''fair'' for their local area, or better to have someone at the top making decisions, with expert advice, and the absolute power to bang heads together?

We used to have a government in London, local MPs, and local councils. That's about the right amount of devolution, as far as I'm concerned.

[Strontium Dog]

Because heart operations are like parliaments.

Perhaps we should hand the running of your household over to the state, as it shouldn't be devolved to you.

[mistermack]

Because heart operations are like parliaments.

Perhaps we should hand the running of your household over to the state, as it shouldn't be devolved to you.

I think you missed the point.
I didn't say that NO devolution is best. I'm saying that you can have too much.
I thought that I made that pretty clear, but I hope this helps.

[Hermit]

Perhaps we should hand the running of your household over to the state, as it shouldn't be devolved to you.

Conversely, do away with governments altogether, and leave each family to govern itself autonomously. But why stop there? Let's have a planet full of John Galts. In the words of Thatcher, after all, "There's no such thing as society."

[mistermack]

Wherever you have too much devolution, you have ridiculous situations.

In the US, what the fuck is the point of different laws in New York and California?
All of those states date from a time when it took years to travel from one to another.
Now it takes hours.

Similar with Scotland. The border was drawn when they had different absolute rulers, different languages and big differences in religious beliefs.
It just doesn't apply today. What the fuck is the point of Scottish laws and a Scottish parliament?
There are Scottish MPs. They can meet together in Westminster, knock on the door of the prime minister, or any ministry they choose, and say what needs saying.

Everybody thinks it's a good idea, to have a Scottish Parliament, or a state government in California.
Why? Because they don't have to get the money out of their pockets to pay for it.
The cost is hidden from you in various taxes, so you end up with the impression that someone else is paying for all that shit.

[klr]

Wherever you have too much devolution, you have ridiculous situations.

In the US, what the fuck is the point of different laws in New York and California?
All of those states date from a time when it took years to travel from one to another.
Now it takes hours.

Similar with Scotland. The border was drawn when they had different absolute rulers, different languages and big differences in religious beliefs.
It just doesn't apply today. What the fuck is the point of Scottish laws and a Scottish parliament?
There are Scottish MPs. They can meet together in Westminster, knock on the door of the prime minister, or any ministry they choose, and say what needs saying.

Everybody thinks it's a good idea, to have a Scottish Parliament, or a state government in California.
Why? Because they don't have to get the money out of their pockets to pay for it.
The cost is hidden from you in various taxes, so you end up with the impression that someone else is paying for all that shit.

Based on the above rant logic, what's the point in having all these different countries in the first place?

You may as well argue that local councils should have no powers ... or that they shouldn't even exist at all.

[mistermack]

Oh dear.
I thought it would be easier to understand what I'm saying than that.

I'm saying that we are getting to the point where more devolution is ALWAYS considered good, without any questioning. I'm saying that you can have too much. Why is that a difficult concept to grasp?
Not one of the parties in this Scottish fiasco ever dared to say that the devolution might be enough, or that more would be too much. But it's complete bollocks. Nobody has said WHY more Scottish devolution is a good thing. Apart from the vague bullshit that apparently living closer to something automatically means you will make better decisions. That is the most moronic crap.

Like I said, you wouldn't choose your heart surgeon on the basis of how far away he lived.
When it's something that actually matters, you want the best, not the nearest.

It's this PRINCIPLE that devolution is automatically better, that I'm pointing to. It's bollocks.

What you need is devolution where it makes sense, where it's better. Not just for it's own sake, because it ''must be better if it's local''.

[klr]

In a nutshell: More recognition of local "identity" seems to be the way of things these days, and control seems to be linked with identity. It goes by many names and comes in many forms depending on the context: decentralisation, devolution, autonomy, federalism, etc. And it can operate at multiple levels simultaneously. Think of some of the Scottish island groups that consider themselves to be something other than pure Scottish - whatever that means.

In large countries, you've got to have some sort of federal/devolved structure. You just cannot manage things centrally, not even with modern communications.

As for the UK: It is actually a long way behind other large European countries. France might be an exception, but even the French are making a concerted effort towards decentralisation. I think it's high time the UK became more decentralised, and for once I agree with the Tories: It's as much to do with the rights of English people (those not in London) as the rights of the Scots, or anyone else. The referendum has triggered a long-overdue debate.

[mistermack]

Well, you have the right to believe in more devolution. But I think you're just buying into the ''devolution is better'' message that's being pushed at every turn, without questioning it.
I wan't to know WHY it's better. Not, ''it's better because it is''.

Everybody knows that if there was a war, you have to do away with most of it, because you NEED to get things done. Because it's important.
You need things to happen quickly, without too much argument.
So you need a central power that can overrule local squabbles, for the good of the nation.

In peace time, I agree that we can relax a bit, and have a bit more local devolution. But when you go too far, everybody starts moaning about other people getting a better deal. Exactly what's happening now. The focus is on dividing the cake, not making the cake.

I say we've now got far too much. All this devolution was to solve a problem that didn't exist.
Scotland was getting treated perfectly well before they built that parliament. It's a fucking great white elephant, and you have a whole layer of politicians that nobody needs.

Local councils were fine for local matters, and MPs were fine for representing Scotland at Westminster. Nobody was oppressing Scotland, or holding it back.

Scrap the fucking lot, it's too much.

[klr]

Well, you have the right to believe in more devolution. But I think you're just buying into the ''devolution is better'' message that's being pushed at every turn, without questioning it.
I wan't to know WHY it's better. Not, ''it's better because it is''.

Everybody knows that if there was a war, you have to do away with most of it, because you NEED to get things done. Because it's important.
You need things to happen quickly, without too much argument.
So you need a central power that can overrule local squabbles, for the good of the nation.

In peace time, I agree that we can relax a bit, and have a bit more local devolution. But when you go too far, everybody starts moaning about other people getting a better deal. Exactly what's happening now. The focus is on dividing the cake, not making the cake.

The UK is not on a serious war footing. And I don't "believe" in "more" devolution. Some level of decentralization - possibly multiple layers of it - is required in any large society. One of the practical reasons is that a heavily centralized system can become grossly inefficient, unresponsive and unaccountable. On the flip-side, excessive decentralization can lead to needless duplication and inconsistencies. Neither of these apply just to government BTW.

I say we've now got far too much. All this devolution was to solve a problem that didn't exist.
Scotland was getting treated perfectly well before they built that parliament. It's a fucking great white elephant, and you have a whole layer of politicians that nobody needs.

Why not just get rid of the House of Lords then? Or - again - get rid of local councils and suchlike? There's no absolute answer to how many layers of government is right for any given situation. I'd certainly never want Ireland to have any heavily devolved or federal structure. Unlike other countries - even small ones like Belgium - it has no need for it IMHO. But it belongs to a federal structure - the EU. There's another layer of government for you. Some English are currently getting very uppity about their relationship with the EU, and would like to rid themselves of it completely. Does that sound familiar?

Local councils were fine for local matters, and MPs were fine for representing Scotland at Westminster. Nobody was oppressing Scotland, or holding it back.

Scrap the fucking lot, it's too much.

The Scots - or at least a substantial proportion of then - would argue otherwise. They wouldn't be alone. England-EU is just one of many examples. You've either got to convince them that they're wrong, accommodate them in some ways or other, or ignore them. The last option does not work well in the long run.

[mistermack]

The Scots - or at least a substantial proportion of then - would argue otherwise. They wouldn't be alone. England-EU is just one of many examples. You've either got to convince them that they're wrong, accommodate them in some ways or other, or ignore them. The last option does not work well in the long run.

There's not a single politician out there that has the balls to say, ''enough it enough''.
Nobody's going to convince them by agreeing with them. I refuse to believe that every British politician thinks all this devolution is a good thing. They just don't want any adverse comment aimed at them.
But the facts show that it's just not necessary. London has twice the population of Scotland. It doesn't need a parliament of it's own. With London laws, different to the rest of the UK and tax-raising powers different to the UK.
Birmingham and Manchester together have more people than Scotland. Do they need their own parliament? No, they struggle along without one.

It's just pure bollocks, just because someone drew an imaginary line hundreds of years ago.
I would get rid of the HIGHER rungs of devolution, and keep the councils.
Councillors can talk to their MPs who can talk to the government departments. That's all you need.

[MrJonno]

As for the UK: It is actually a long way behind other large European countries. France might be an exception, but even the French are making a concerted effort towards decentralisation. I think it's high time the UK became more decentralised, and for once I agree with the Tories: It's as much to do with the rights of English people (those not in London) as the rights of the Scots, or anyone else. The referendum has triggered a long-overdue debate.

The UK is a smaller physically than France, devolving power in the UK is like dividing up Texas into 10 parts and give each its own parliament its just a waste of money.

It's not really about devolution its basically class war (like all politics). People who are right wing want right wing governments those who are left left wing ones and everyone is trying to fix these elections to their own advantage.

There is no English or Scottish people, there are middle class and working class people. The Scottish referendum was basically the middle classes versus the working/under classes ,yes there were people who voted outside their class but they were the exception

[mistermack]

Now the tories are trying to pull a scam by not allowing the Scottish MPs to vote on English matters.

They try to portray it as the English getting equal rights to the Scots. And the media are all over it.
The media in this country have an incredible Tory bias, and the constantly get away with it.

There is nothing equal about the Scots and the English. England sends 533 MPs to parliament. Scotland sends 59. So England has a HUGE inbuilt majority in Parliament. There is no way in the world that the Scots could get anything through parliament, without the consent of hundreds of English MPs.
That's why there is no reason whatsoever for Scottish MPs to lose voting rights on English matters.
In any case, MPs are not Scottish or English, they are UK MPs, and as such, they should all have the same voting rights.
Yes, Scotland has a Parliament. (big mistake, in my opinion) but that is slightly justified because they are such a tiny minority in Westminster, and have no chance at all of having a say in Scottish affairs without it.
England is in a totally different position, with it's huge inbuilt majority.
English MPs can outvote the Welsh, Scottish and Irish MPs by five to one, with their inbuilt majority.
So they don't need their own parliament. They've already got it.
It was the English Dominated parliament that gave Scotland the right to have a Scottish Parliament.
And the Welsh a Welsh assmembly. Nothing was said then about taking away voting rights.

Like I said, it's a Cameron scam, to rig the numbers in his favour.
If Ed Milliband falls for any of it, he's an even bigger tit than I thought.

[klr]

Now the tories are trying to pull a scam by not allowing the Scottish MPs to vote on English matters.

They try to portray it as the English getting equal rights to the Scots. And the media are all over it.
The media in this country have an incredible Tory bias, and the constantly get away with it.

There is nothing equal about the Scots and the English. England sends 533 MPs to parliament. Scotland sends 59. So England has a HUGE inbuilt majority in Parliament. There is no way in the world that the Scots could get anything through parliament, without the consent of hundreds of English MPs.

Which is why the Scots, Welsh and NI want their own say in running some of their own affairs.

That's why there is no reason whatsoever for Scottish MPs to lose voting rights on English matters.

So, what happens when the votes of Scottish MPs determine the outcome of a vote on something that might have no relevance to Scotland whatsoever? Just because there are a lot less Scottish MPs doesn't mean that they are irrelevant. They could very easily hold the balance of power, exercising a disproportionate amount of influence. Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs have in fact done this in the past. It's a quite common state of affairs in multi-party politics, especially if there is an effective PR voting system.

In any case, MPs are not Scottish or English, they are UK MPs, and as such, they should all have the same voting rights.

Based on that sort of logic, Ireland would never have been granted independence.

Yes, Scotland has a Parliament. (big mistake, in my opinion) but that is slightly justified because they are such a tiny minority in Westminster, and have no chance at all of having a say in Scottish affairs without it.
England is in a totally different position, with it's huge inbuilt majority.
English MPs can outvote the Welsh, Scottish and Irish MPs by five to one, with their inbuilt majority.
So they don't need their own parliament. They've already got it.

Again, this is fatally flawed - see above. The English MPs are not usually trying to outvote everyone else in the UK, they are split down the middle. It would be very rare for such a large number of English MPs to vote in in the same way that they could carry a proposal on their own, even if every last Scottish, Welsh or NI MP voted against them, along with some English MPs.

It was the English Dominated parliament that gave Scotland the right to have a Scottish Parliament.
And the Welsh a Welsh assmembly. Nothing was said then about taking away voting rights.

That is of course not true. The "West Lothian" question was identified as such during debates on Scottish and Welsh devolution back in the late 1970s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothi ... Background

... so the fundamental problem was certainly acknowledged back then, but nothing was done to address it, and it has festered ever since.

[mistermack]

Nothing was said about taking away the voting rights of the Scottish MPs.
People may have raised the WLQ as a theoretical problem, but the removal of voting rights was never proposed till now.
As far as I'm concerned, that's far too late. It should have been done at the start, or not at all.

And your point about the balance of power is fallacious.
This question is about Scottish vs English powers. If hundreds of English MPs vote with a few Scots, then it's the ENGLISH ones who have the power, not the Scots. People are trying to say that just because the English are split, the Scots have the power. Not at all. It's the English votes that are decisive. The maths of the English split GAVE the power to a few Scots. The Scots don't have any power, unless they are given it by the English.

Like I said, the English HAVE their own parliament. It's a completely unequal situation, so it's complete crap to claim that Scots have an advantage that the English don't have.