As the FT has reported:
The Conservatives will ban Scottish MPs from having a deciding vote on any changes to the rates of income tax in their first Budget if they win next month's election, David Cameron will announce on Friday.
That then is the end of the Union.
What the Scots failed to secure by referendum last year Cameron will now seek to deliver by the back door.
Deny the Scots a vote on income tax in the UK and they are in the process denied the chance to engage in macroeconomic debate for the country of which they are still a part, and of which David Cameron says he intends that they should remain. Is it surprising they intend to vote as the opinion polls suggest likely?
Three thoughts follow.
First, he now believes that Scotland is a colony to be ruled from London.
Or he wants the SNP to win in Scotland without any consideration given to the consequences.
Or he's a fool.
I'm struggling to find any other alternatives.
And the impact is massive whichever, or however many, are true.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Should the uk Parliament get a vote to approve income tax rates in Scotland, if not they deny the chance for the whole uk to engage in the macroeconomic debate for the whole country.
Scotland varies rates right now
That’s a micro decision at present wiuthin a rigid framework of control
“Scotland varies rates right now”
Yes, that’s his point.
“That’s a micro decision at present wiuthin a rigid framework of control”
So how would the ability of England to vary income tax rates not be the same?
They are the rates from which Scotland can make variation
So they have to be able to vote on them
I don’t believe that Cameron’s thinking on the subject of the SNP ever got beyond ‘Restless natives are a risk to the profitable exploitation of our colony’ and ‘Labour can lose the Scottish constituencies they need for a majority’.
Both points are wrong, and you have pointed out several errors in them; and we already know that the deeper thoughts of the latter-day Conservatives on this topic – and any other – are digging ever deeper into the hole of maximising the gains for the wealthy in ever-increasing inequality.
Cameron doesn’t ‘do’ detail. He often confuses could and should with will and can. The dire Scottish situation may well be made much worse by his tendency to float a fleeting notion as ‘a plan’. He has constructed the political equivalent of the Large Hadron Collider. It consists of 3 elements 1) past statements/promises on EU reform, 2) past statements/promises on English votes for English law 3) current statements on Scottish devolution.
Assume Cameron forms the next government in some agreement with UKIP and Ulster Unionists, et al. Assume Miliband rejects overtures from the SNP. Cameron’s promise for EU reform will be unlikely to materialise, he won’t get unanimity among the other 27 nations. Does he campaign for yes or no in the promised EU referendum? If yes he loses UKIP support if no the SNP get antsy. Assume he continues to confuse and conflate UK and English interests as with the reported tax issues. Assume he continues to make speeches using rhetoric that appears to classify Scots as ‘them’ and English as ‘us’.
Fast forward to 2016, Scottish elections, the EU referendum in prospect, cuts biting hard, no firm data on which to base an electoral decision. If you are a Scot who will you vote for with only the rhetoric of the 2015 Westminster election to guide you? Would you vote for continuing austerity, probable exit from the EU and renewal of Trident offered by Westminster? Or would you vote for a tenuous chance to strike down the policies you have consistently rejected in the past? Independence will be the clarion call in 2016.
Cameron’s fall back position appears to be that he only needs London to achieve the ideological goal of his party. Perforce that entails carrying England with him but without Scots MPs that is more probable. Cameron is not the old fashioned, noblesse oblige, unionist tory he is a Libertarian, a very different animal. Maybe Cameron has the charisma to win over the Scots. Maybe he will achieve sufficient movement in Europe to provide a fig leaf at the referendum, but he is playing a very dangerous game. The very least he needs to do, if the Union really does mean something to him, is start treating the Scots with some respect.
I think your prediction is quite correct
Another corollary of barring Scottish MPs from voting on English decisions is that Scottish MPs will be barred from ever holding the major offices of state. You can’t have a Chancellor or Prime Minister who are unable to vote on their own budget. A Home or Justice Secretary who can’t vote for their own legislation.
Let alone the rhetoric, that unless Scottish voters come to their senses and vote for English parties, they can have no say in the government of the United Kingdom.
The law of unintended consequences.
Indeed
Of course Scottish MP’s could still hold cabinet positions. The cabinet (the de facto ‘Executive’) can propose legislation, which it must stand behind as a collective.
This is a separate function to the legislative role of cabinet members as MP’s. The Executive must propose legislation that a suitable majority of the Legislature, as representatives of those who must live according to the laws proposed. That the Execuitive needs a majority of English representatives, for laws solely over England, doesn’t preclude Scottish MP’s from their role in proposing law.
I accept the point that decisions made in England will affect Scotland. But so what? So will laws made in America (GFC anyone?) or in Saudi Arabia (oil prices, anyone?). Scots MP’s don’t vote on those.
Coincidentally, today I was explaining the ‘West Lothian’ question to an Irishman who had no knowledge of the topic, and had just assumed that Scottish MP’s had no vote on English law where the Scottish equivalents were devolved. His instinctive response was that it was plainly ridiculous. I don’t think it’s that simple, and understand the arguments RM makes, but I think the converse position is entirely reasonable. The devil, as ever, is in the implementation. And no, I don’t trust Cameron to get that right because this is comes across as typical ‘soundbite politics’.
But if we’re going to say that non-dom businessmen should keep their opinions on UK taxation to themselves, then we should be able to ask whether ‘representation without taxation’ is appropriate for Scotland.
As aan exercise in missing the point that’s an exce3llent answer
It appears to me that England needs a devolved parliament set up in a similar way to the ones in the colonies of Wales, Northern Island and Scotland. Keep the English parliament separate from Westminster with the latter governing the UK in whatever form that takes. Wonder which elected body the current MPs would rather get elected to?
If there is a solely English assembley the concept of english votes for english las makes sense. Without it there is no sense.
One thing Cameron and his cronies are forgetting, if they ban Scottish MP’s from voting, they are in effect creating an English Parliament, which under the Act of Union cannot exist while the Act of Union is in force, by doing so then Cameron and his cronies would in actual fact END THE UNION.
Cameron is a politician who is one of those who always has to be seen “doing” or “saying”. In government and politics it is sometimes best to put up and shut up.
Empty vessels make most noise!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/cameron-admits-the-united-kingdom-is-a-terrible-idea-2015042497692
I’m waiting for Labour to change the agenda to this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/24/snp-dup-democratic-unionist-party-government-tories-anti-scottish-coalition-homophobic?CMP=share_btn_tw