Thank god for the good people of Scotland for the no vote . If they had gone the other way england would have been in the grip of the conservatives for a long time !!! Thank you to Scotland and your good people

The Tories are already saying they will link further devolution for Scotland to a settlement for England which basically means on English MP's voting for laws that affect England (they don't go into detail about Wales and NI , not that I have seen anyway). Salmond has already accused [uCameron[/u (not Labour) of lying over promises of further devolution as he has now said he is linking the two. It's Cameron's idea and Labour blocking it will go well in Scotland but not so well in UKIP-marginal constituencies in England where this simple message will go down well.

However English MP's voting for laws that affect England is typical Tory back of fag packet stuff and far more worthy of Farage and UKIP than it is a well thought out policy.

If you implement it you effectively break up the Union. Why? Well if Scottish MP's can't vote on matters that affect England we could never have a Scottish MP as a government minister, PM or chancellor ever again and if we are still supposed to be in a Union with a UK-wide government with MP's from all parts of it sat in Westminster this is clearly unworkable.

If it happened England would dominate the Union politically as there could only ever be an English PM, Chancellor and Home secretary etc. You disenfranchise the Scots from the ultimate seats of UK government, which is basically removing them from the Union.

A fairer settlement for England is one thing but English MP's voting for laws that affect England is populism not a sensible or workable policy. As it may well appeal to UKIPpers as I implied above I can see Cameron going for it to head off backbench revolt in his own party over further powers to Scotland and the UKIP threat. I am sure he'd view those two objectives as far more important than actually sitting down and working something as complex as this issue out properly for the good of country.

So has Salmond unleashed sectarianism? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eases.html

So has Salmond unleashed sectarianism? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eases.html

Quote ="Dally"So has Salmond unleashed sectarianism? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eases.html'" No..... That type of nonsense has been going on for years every time that Celtic and Rangers play each other - You can see by the photos that its just a bunch of bladdered football fans goading one another. There are idiots on both sides, but the Rangers fans especially, with their Union flag waving, are particularly nauseating.... Awful bunch, they make you ashamed to be British and are a reason why it might have been preferable to get shut of them.

Quote ="Dally"So has Salmond unleashed sectarianism? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eases.html'" No..... That type of nonsense has been going on for years every time that Celtic and Rangers play each other - You can see by the photos that its just a bunch of bladdered football fans goading one another. There are idiots on both sides, but the Rangers fans especially, with their Union flag waving, are particularly nauseating.... Awful bunch, they make you ashamed to be British and are a reason why it might have been preferable to get shut of them.

All 3 parties made the vow. Gordon Brown was the one to make all the promises in the days before the vote.

It is impossible on an intellectual or democratic basis to devolve further powers to Scotland without a reduction in the influence they have on matters that do not concern Scotland. Or without a more formal parliamentary set up for the English.

Cameron has rightly thrown the English, Welsh & NI'ers in to mix post result. It's a card no one expected him tp play & really does leave Labour & the Lib Dems in an awkward position. He can now push to get more powers drawn up for Scotland & really play on any delays by Labour & the Lib Dems in agreeing. Each of the three are not in agreement about what powers should be handed over.

This will play into the hands of the pro-independence & SNP.

With just 1 MP in Scotland, he has nothing to lose from being even more unpopular. If the other two don't go along with him, they have plenty of seats to lose in 2015 & MSP's in 2016.

Cameron does have to be seen to give something away to the English & address the West Lothian question. He has a real double pronged threat from UKIP to blunt & has to be very careful.

Other than what is in the 2012 Scotland Act, there is nothing to say what will be drawn up for future devolution, and it is a massive job to get anything done before purdah.

Fascinating times.

It can't be repealed until the review & a vote. The HoL wanted an amendment whereby the Act did not have to be accepted by a new parliament following an election. This was knocked back, with the trade off being the 2020 review.

In June this year Lord Grocott sponsored a private members bill to repeal the Act. Won't get anywhere until the review.

Yes it can, and it has. That's because the HoL amendment to the Bill to include a clause where a new parliament could drop the Act was rejected. Instead, this is where the 2020 review was introduced to the Bill. There will be 2 fixed 5 year terms before the Act can be repealed or amended.

Once the 2020 election has been held the Act can be amended repealed in readiness for the 2025 election.

Parliament can repeal any Act at any time.

All that part of the Act does is say there must be a committee setup at the specified time to make recommendations on the Act.

Parliament can still repeal the Act if it wished to.

dweeb doesn't seem to understand basic politics/government.

Or the law

yup

but, other than that, got it covered

I'm not really up on politics, but I've heard talk of a Federal State, not just the home nations but regions of England also (as they're all effectively the same size or bigger than the rest of the home nations anyway).

Again, not really being a follower of what happens politically, what would this mean? If (as an example) the 9 regions of England plus the 3 remaining home nations were to comprise of the first 12 states of the UK, would they all have their own governments and laws, similar to USA? Would that be a good thing?

No, stupid idea

It probably is, like I say I don't really get politics. But maybe you could be a bit more co structure here...

The sheer size of the US demands the way they operate, similarily Australia, we just dont need it

I don't see what size has to do with it? There are some tiny States in USA. Not to mention there are Federal States in Europe, such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium.

Do you really believe the politicians in Westminster will do what's best for us Northerners?

I believe all politicians do what is best for themselves, and that would include ' Federal ' ones

How would you split England? ,and what responsibility would you devole?

Of the 22 Cabinet Ministers. 2 are Scottish. Danny Alexander and the minister for Scotland. There's no rule or law that says you have to pick a Scot. A majority government could easily function without a Scot in cabinet. The problem for you is a majority Labour government couldn't, which is what yet another of your "WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH....Tories" posts is really about.

I wonder if they've labelled Danny Alexander "Token" yet.

Like I say, I'd need to know more about what the other models operate like before even coming up with an answer to the latter.
The former is an interesting one. I used the current regions of England as an example, but I probably wouldn't use them exactly. I think there'd need to be some form of identity and culture behind each state, but accept that would be fairly difficult to achieve!

I'll give it a stab though!...
So the Federal States of the UK:
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
London State (current London region)
Cumbria & Northumbria (North East region plus Cumbria)
Yorkshire (current Yorkshire & Humber region minus the North Lincolnshire counties)
Lancashire (North West region minus Cumbria)
West Midlands (current region)
East Midlands (current region plus North Lincolnshire counties)
Anglia (East of England region)
South East England (current region)
West Country (South West minus Cornwall)
Cornwall (current county)

There's probably something better than the names I've suggested, but I've tried to stick closely with the current regions with a few cultural shifts I'm aware of such as Cornwall, who have an independence movement, and Cumbria being aligned with the lesser-populated North East than Lancashire (who would have a far better local connection to the name than "North West"icon_wink.gif.

And responsibility devolved?

Now that is all sorted can we have another vote to see if the rest of the UK want rid of them ?

Give them a second chance .. Everyone deserves a second chance .

Search out the England fans from the other week on youtube

F*** off Scotland, we're voting yes

Why?

Similar to how it is in the US I suppose. States have the right to set taxes, certain laws, govern schools, etc.

Federal government to sort out national issues such as immigration, broadcasting, postal service, drivers licences, defence, etc.

Like I say, I'm not big on politics so there's probably a load of guff in there. But it would be good to see local laws based on local opinions and not that of people based in London. The death penalty in certain states of the UK would be interesting...!

Driving licences are done by each state.