This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should devolution be reversed?

Recently in the media there has been alot of talk about devolution, and how Scottish MP's can vote on matters which solely effect England, while English MP's cannot vote on matters which effect solely Scottish matters etc...

However would it not be simpler, rather than not allowing Scottish MP's to vote on matters which effect England, to simply reverse devolution? Why is it that as a small country we have to take 5 steps backwards, and split ourselves into smaller states.

So basically is there a reason for this? And should it be reversed so we have a state where every MP has there vote on an issue, and it does not matter where it effects in the UK?

Reply 1

cappucino07

The Scottish Parliament should stay, and personally I believe we should give the Welsh Assembly some real power.

The Scottish Parliament has made a real difference, and while the West Lothian question remains unanswered I feel that there is a lot to be commended.

One example, following Scottish legislation the Scottish health service has no defecit, they have free care for the eldery - look at the situation in England, maybe Westminster can learn something from them?

Reply 2

Cal

3

Reversing devolution wouldn’t just be wrong in democratic principle, as the Scottish people overwhelmingly voted for it, but think of the practicalities of reversing devolution. What would happen to the parliament building that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, what would happen to the MSPs and Scottish Executive employees who would be made redundant and what would happen to the laws created by the Executive? It would quite clearly be hugely impractical to reverse devolution and that should be enough to halt any further discussion without even the need to mention the views of the Scottish people, the state of the Scottish nation and the already evident fruits of devolution.

Reply 3

username30930

reversing evolution would be more interesting

Reply 4

Howard

5

Devolution should be accelerated in my view.

Reply 5

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

They should either do it properly, or not at all. I'd rather it was done properly, and the system we have at the moment is useless.

Reply 6

BovineBeast

Howard

Devolution should be accelerated in my view.

Mine also. A rule functions better when imposed over a smaller area, because there is naturally less diversity within the small area than in the large one, and hence the rule is more appropriate to the area.

This principle has exceptions, of course - for example, foreign policy, trade, etc. should be dealt with on the highest level possible.

Of course, I also believe in self-determination, and, if the majority of Scots or Welsh feel that Devolution has done them ill, it should be reversed after a referendum.

Reply 7

decola

8

BovineBeast

A rule functions better when imposed over a smaller area, because there is naturally less diversity within the small area than in the large one, and hence the rule is more appropriate to the area.

That's a very good description :smile:

Reply 8

L i b

19

the victory james

The Scottish Parliament has made a real difference, and while the West Lothian question remains unanswered I feel that there is a lot to be commended.

My bloody arse.

One example, following Scottish legislation the Scottish health service has no defecit, they have free care for the eldery - look at the situation in England, maybe Westminster can learn something from them?

Might have something to do with the hundreds of pounds per head extra funding that the NHS gets in Scotland due to the unfair distribution of tax revenue across the UK. Do you think they wouldn't do these things in England if they could financially?

Scottish government is the most wasteful in Britain - it's shameful. We've got all the bad bits of socialism. Do you know in some parts of Scotland, government money accounts for more than 70% of all financial activity?

Cal

What would happen to the parliament building that cost hundreds of millions of pounds

I imagine it'd be sold at a substantial loss just like virtually every other half-baked government project up here. Better than having to pay again and again as it is obviously structurally unsound and lacking any building insurance.

Either way, the old Royal High School on Calton Hill still lies empty - that's the building that was planned to be the Scottish Assembly in the 70s. It's probably worth more as a building than the Holyrood Parliament.

Maybe we can use it as a giant piece of abstract art.

what would happen to the MSPs and Scottish Executive employees who would be made redundant

They'd go back to working for the UK government, the Scottish Office or local councils - or indeed go and find a job where they're actually some use to somebody.

and what would happen to the laws created by the Executive?

Laws are created by legislatures, not executives. And I imagine they would either continue to have effect (as the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland Acts still do) or else they'd be repealed by the UK Parliament.

It would quite clearly be hugely impractical to reverse devolution and that should be enough to halt any further discussion without even the need to mention the views of the Scottish people, the state of the Scottish nation and the already evident fruits of devolution.

I think it would be very practical. But you're right - it is against the democratic principle. Oh well, there goes another nice dream.

BovineBeast

Mine also. A rule functions better when imposed over a smaller area, because there is naturally less diversity within the small area than in the large one, and hence the rule is more appropriate to the area.

Organisation perhaps, rule no. And the UK government - despite being a UK body based in London - has countless thousands of local offices and bodies within it with no requirement for devolved power.

Anyway, there is just as much diversity within Scotland as across the UK generally. Not to mention that your point means government tailored to the majority - obviously to the detriment of the minority. While that might be 'democratic' it discourages liberty.

Reply 9

Sire

10

Howard

Devolution should be accelerated in my view.

Why should it be accelerated? To what end would this help? Or is this sarcasm that is just going over my head today?
Edit: If so, please give me a break. I have been freezing all night and morning and must soon go to work in a fridge the size of a football field. It seems to affect a few mental decisions now and then.

Reply 10

Kieny

In the words of a political scientist whose name escapes me for the mo .. Of devolution: "It is a one way motorway with no exits". There's no going back

Should devolution be reversed?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you