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.

Subtract the powers devolved to Holyrood from Westminster & you're there. Includes those prior to, including & subsequent (as per the referendum promises) to the 2012 Scotland Bill.

LOL, cop out.

In what respect? All you need to do is look at the Scotland Bill & wait for the white paper due in janiuary to see what the further devolution will entail.

Curious that Ed Balls was completely anonymous during the referendum campaign. Now he's on every news bulletin trying to defuse the West Lothian question & kick it into the long grass.

Labour will have a huge problem with this at the election, Cameron & UKIP will absolutely slaughter them over it. The SNP will be waiting to pounce on any delay in promises being reneged upon. The only losers in Scotland from such a scenario will be Labour.

Miliband now has two elephants in the room as well as having Ed Ball as his shadow chancellor.

Oh that's priceless, even by your "WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.....Tories" standard.

The 2007 Welfare Reform Bill introduced Labour's very own "Bedroom Tax" on private tenants.

The 2010 Labour manifesto promised even more NHS privatisation. Don't forget Capita, Labour donors, with their logo over NHS buildings.




If you're going to spout lies, at least try and make them difficult to disprove.

Labour introduced the 'bedroom tax' in 2008.

How much has the contracted out Lorenzo IT system cost the NHS since 2002 when Labour signed the deal?

The changes to Housing Benefit payments introduced by Labour were an attempt to mitigate the profiteering from private landlords and were only introduced if and when someone moved into a privately rented property. Unlike the Bedroom Tax that was introduced retrospectively, irrespective of whether there were any suitably smaller properties for a tenant to move to. Hence the absolutely farcical situation where some tenants have moved out of council and housing association properties, into smaller privately-owned properties at an increased rent and thereby, an increased level of HB

care to point out any inaccuracies?

Care to point out the accuracies?

All of it

Now carry on, or will you do a runner from this thread? The same as you have on the Rotherham thread?

Where are the accuracies in what you said on the Labour introduction of the bedroom tax?

Labour did not introduce a bedroom tax, they introduced a cap on housing benefit that was not applied retrospectively. The cap only came into force whwn a new application for HB in the privte-rented sector was required.

The tories came up with the bedroom tax, a far more accurate description than their spare room subsidy.

The LHA was a needs based system, which is exactly the same as the 'bedroom tax'. Size of property & number of rooms according to actual need.

Remarkably tenants who did move were allowed to keep the difference between what they were paid in housing benefits & what they paid to their landlord. So their was no actual saving on the benefits bill.

Not for the first time, you appear to be comparing apples with oranges again

Both policies were about resource allocation. The right number of rooms being allocated on the basis of actual need.

How much Labour saved on the benefits bill by allowing tenants to keep any reduction in rent they achieved from their 'profiteering' private landlords?

How many people actually moved home as a result of the LHA?

And income and corporation tax are both policies about raising revenue for the government. Doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Seems the queen was happy about the 'no' vote

Its a shame she cant afford her own telly. Or did he ring her before she went to bed?

Quite a number actually, but don't let facts get in your way, they haven't troubled you thus far.