Devolution, is it fair?

[Taffy]

In my personal opinion, I think that devolution is, to a certain extent, a good thing. As long as people recognise the difference between devolution and independence it works fine. What gets me is the inequalities in Phoney Tony's schemes.

Currently, the Scottish Parliment has these powers:

• It CAN vary tax rates;
• It CAN make up it's own laws
• It's members CAN vote on laws that affect the rest of the UK, but not Scotland;
• It has the power to IGNORE certain policies from Westminster Parliment.

The Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (National Assembly for Wales) has these powers:

• It CAN make variations on laws passed in Westminster, but CANNOT make it's own laws;
• It CANNOT vary tax rates;
• It has power over CERTAIN policies from Westminster, but this power is LIMITED.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has these powers:

• It CAN vary laws passed in Westminster AND it can make it's own laws;
• It CAN vary tax rates;
• Has power over policies from Westminster.

Notice the inequalities. Why are they there? Are the Scottish more important than the Welsh or Irish? Do they deserve more power to govern themselves than the rest of the UK? Why does the National Assembly for Wales have such little power in comparison to the other two parliments?

I think that the Irish and Welsh Assemblies should have the same amount of power as Scotland currently has. Why shouldn't they?

 

[gringotsgoblin]

The issue is whether each respective legislative body has a mandate for certain powers.

50.3% of the Welsh voters said they wanted an Assembly. However, only 50% of voters turned out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_referendum,_1997) Therefore the*actual* support of the population for an Assembly is only 25%. As there is such little support, it may not be the best idea to give the Assembly large powers. However, if public opinion changes, more powers could (in theory) be passed across.

However it's different for the Scottish Parliament. There has always been stronger support in Scotland for independence. The results of the 1997 referendum bear this as there was a 74.3% support for the body on a 60% turnout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_referendum,_1997). Although still only 45% of the population voted for the Parliament, which isn't much of a mandate.

It should be noted that often if a government wants to change something fundamental in the constitution it requires an 66%-80% approval from the main legislative body (in this instance the House of Commons). In the UK where major changes to the constituation are planned often the goverment acts unitalaterally (see Maastricht, Devolution, etc).

On a slight aside, you state that the members of the Scottish Parliament can vote on matters that affect the rest of the UK, but not Scotland. I'm not sure that an MSP can do this, unless they are also a MP. However, it is unfair that a Scottish MP (ie based in the House of Commons, not the Scottish Parliament) has a say on education (and other issues) policy in England, while an Englsih MP cannot vote on Scottish education.

Of course as a large number of senior Labour MPs are Scottish they wouldn't get rid of this. Can you imagine Gordon Brown (when he's Prime Minister) not being able to vote on Education policy that he has set??

Anyway, getting back onto your question. Yes devolution is fair for those countries that have it - and it's vaguley based on the respective mandates. However (for once) the English have ended up worse off.

Gringots

 

[BiG D]

50.3% of the Welsh voters said they wanted an Assembly. However, only 50% of voters turned out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_referendum,_1997) Therefore the*actual* support of the population for an Assembly is only 25%.

Uhm, no, that's not how it works at all. Actual support is 50.3%, end of story. It can be assumed that the support/don't support ratio is the same between those who did vote and those who didn't vote. Voter turnout doesn't change that.

If we were to weight elections and referendums by voter turnout, nothing would ever happen because there would never be enough votes...

 

[Wraith]

Uhm, no, that's not how it works at all. Actual support is 50.3%, end of story. It can be assumed that the support/don't support ratio is the same between those who did vote and those who didn't vote. Voter turnout doesn't change that.

If we were to weight elections and referendums by voter turnout, nothing would ever happen because there would never be enough votes...

Actually, I'd be inclined to infer from the stats posted that 50.3% of 50% of the population (the net 25% of the population mentioned by Gringots) wanted an assembly, 49.7% of 50% (the remainder of those who voted) did NOT want an assembly, and the remaining 50% (the non-voters) don't really care one way or the other. Therefore, only 25% of the Welsh population actually support the idea of a Welsh assembly.

The problem is that as you say, we can only base election and referendum results on the actual votes cast as no-one can absolutely know for certain the opinions of those who don't vote.

If we assume for the sake of an example that the highest proportion of non-voters was young males (aged 18 - 30). It may be that for whatever reason all young males were against the assembly. The split of opinion throughout the whole population would therefore be weighted against the assembly. Conversely, it could be that young males were all supporters of the assembly, and, had they all voted, the assembly would have been shown to have a much higher proportion of support than the votes suggested. We just don't know and so have to base decisions on the best information available.

 

[DeZmond]

Firstly, some disambiguation. MSPs (ie members of the Scottish Parliament) do not have rights to vote in the House of Commons. An elected MP from a Scottish province, however, does have the power to vote in the House of Commons.

Moving on, the real question is where to draw the line. The MP for my constituency, Jim Murphy (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jim_murphy/renfrewshire_east) also works for the Department of Work and Pensions. Any bill introduced would normally apply to Scotland also, so there's no logical reason why he should be refused the right to vote on such a bill.

Of course, I agree that it is unfair for a Scottish MP to vote on a purely England/Wales/Ireland - related bill - I think the solution would be in the drafting of each bill, a statement should be made saying which country/countries it will apply in. From this, the nationality of each MP wanting to vote would be taken into account and the relevant MPs would then get the chance to vote. Nice, simple and effective. Precisely why, in this world of politics, it won't happen. :/

 

[gringotsgoblin]

Uhm, no, that's not how it works at all. Actual support is 50.3%, end of story. It can be assumed that the support/don't support ratio is the same between those who did vote and those who didn't vote. Voter turnout doesn't change that.

If we were to weight elections and referendums by voter turnout, nothing would ever happen because there would never be enough votes...

It's an interesting point. The massive Labour majority of the 1997 election was based on only 44% of the vote (not even including those who didn't bother).

However, the issue of low voter turnouts does affect the perceived mandate. This is why politicians are always looking at ways to increase voter interest. This can be achieved through the use of more proportional electoral systems(here for description of voting systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system). [Note: The British have a first past the post system which is recognised to be one of the least 'proportional' systems]

As you point out, not voting cannot be assumed to be a vote for or against a policy. As Wikipedia notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Special_majority) "many constitutions require that an amendment receive the votes of a minimum absolute number of members, rather than simply the support of those present at a meeting"

Isn't is odd that when governments make decisions there needs to be a minimum number of people present - but when putting the vote to the people, any old majority will do.

Gringots