Mandatory death penalty for everyone in Merseyside.

Especially when that "state" was forced to leave the EU

I'm not sure why there would be any issues becoming a federal system, all you need to do is devolve the same things to the regions that Scotland gets and turn the HoL into an elected second chamber to oversea the regions and control the non-devolved issues.

Then we'd be only one step away for getting rid of Liz and her accidents of birth and have an elected head of state.

Where do I sign?

Is it possible to be declined a licence in one state for, say, health reasons rather than an accumulated points ban or drink driving conviction, and then apply for a licence in another state and be granted one ?

Who would set income tax rates in England?

They are, but I don't think it would be necessary in a federal UK, unless each state opted for different road traffic laws (which would be interesting I suppose). 80mph national speed limit changing to 70mph as you cross a state border, and learning to drive at 16 or 18 rather than 17 dependent in youth issues in each state. Curfews.

It certainly used to be possible here.

In 1971 I copped a 12 month ban for being over the limit, I then went and worked the summer season in Guernsey. While there I took one driving lesson and put in for my test. Passed that, got my Guernsey driver's licence and drove on that when I returned to the mainland, until my UK licence was returned

Scotland isn't a region, it's a country. It has it's own Parliament. Wales isn't a region, it's a country. It has it's own Northern Ireland isn't a region, it's a country. It has it's own Parliament. England is a country. It doesn't have it's own Parliament.

That is the answer. An English Parliament with English MP's voting on laws for the English.

Regional devolution is a Labour party tactic to deflect from the West Lothian question & to try & gloss over it's blatant self interest. Miliband talks of the political class & Westminster elite not working for the people, yet he is doing exactly that by denying the English the same as the Scots in order to keep at least 40 Labour MP's in Westminster.

he knows that the domino effect of England & then perhaps the Weslh following Scotland will decimate the Labour party. Self interest before democracy.

I'd happily sign up to there being four countries, each with it's own parliaments, with the West Lothian question cleared up once & for all, & with the Lords swept away.

Regional devolution is a sham to help Labour avoid losing 40+ MP's

What difference would it make to the north of England if there was an English parliament as opposed to a British one?

Maybe it's the English parliament that could repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act? As I'm reliably informed the UK parliament can't.
But then I don't know whether that's a fact or not.

What difference would regional devolution actually make? On what basis do you belive it's either democratically or intellectually acceptable for Scottish MP's to vote on matters that are nothing to do with the Scots?

The Labour activists pushing this are not doing so to benefit anyone but themselves.

As shown with the complete rejection of the suggested North East assembly, there is no appetite anywhere for this.

The No campaign who said Scotland going independent would create a race to the bottom if control of business rates & taxes were handed over are now proposing exactly the same for egions. How would the same thing not happen between the regions?

It's all a sham to try and make sure Labour retain as much control as possible and maintain the anti democratic West Lothian situation. They don't want an English Parliament because it's not goof for them.

The English should have the same democratic representation as anyone else, and if Labour policies aren't popular enough for them to win a majority in an English Parliament, well they will have to create policies that are.

I'm not even going to attempt to pick holes in that pile of barely-coherent [is[/ihite.

It's beyond parody but at least I can handle the Quote function on here

All this talk of people wanting more power at local level is somewhat surprising, considering the idea of regional assemblies was floated as recently as 10 years ago, and no-one was interested.

That was 10 years ago. I think you might find what motivated many Scots to vote Yes was the idea they could rid themselves of the Tory yoke forever.

I think that was naive myself as I am sure a right wing party would rise eventually in Scotland but that is not the point. I don't think people have ever viewed the UK as so London and South East centric as they do now nor do I think people have ever felt more disenfranchised governed in effect by a minority Tory administration they did not give a majority to.

They can also see the effects of devolution in Scotland (and Wales) with some attractive policies that have arisen directly because the devolved administrations have been able to implement them.

Anyone campaigning for devolution in the North West promising not to privatise the NHS, reintroduce free prescriptions and so on would get a lot more support this time than when the country was prosperous and the Westminster government was actually quite popular in my opinion.

How did they feel from 2005-2010 under a Labour government who got more than a million less votes and less % of the vote than the Tories did in 2010? Were they concerned by the disenfranchisement of others?

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.

How does that affect anything I posted? It's a fact the Yes campaign was predicated a great deal on the basis of the Westminster government not representing Scottish views. Back in 2005-10 we didn't have a government introducing things like bedroom taxes or privatising the NHS.

There is nothing like hard times to see Nationalism on the increase and so whether or not the 2005-10 government had a low percentage of the vote is irrelevant to the political landscape today and whether or not people see federalism or regional devolution as a way to escape what Scotland was told it could escape. The fact many in the regions were not bothered about Labour being elected on fewer votes in 2005 as it suited their political views doesn't make any difference to how popular federalism or regional devolution might be now.

What difference would regional devolution actually make? On what basis do you belive it's either democratically or intellectually acceptable for Scottish MP's to vote on matters that are nothing to do with the Scots? '"

No holes in Scottish MP's being prevented from voting on matters that do not concern their constituents. No holes in Labour wanting to retain the status quo in order to avoid losing 40 MP's from it's voting ranks.

An independence vote was the stated aim of the SNP in the 13 years of the last Labour goct.

There is absolutely no conscensus anywhere from anyone other than Labour politicians for regional devolution.

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.

Define what are UK matters and what are English only matters.

Devolved (i.e. English) matters would include:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

Reserved matters (i.e. those that the UK Parliament can pass legislation on) include:
benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution

If the Scottish Parliament is given more devolved powers over taxation and public spending, then the same will apply for the equivalent English legislation.