It never made sense for the LibDems to leave off supporting a Loyal Opposition.
The AV vote is a passe' issue.
Why can Scottish universities charge the same tuition and in England, proper, Cameron's Conservatives bulled thru a 300 per centum Tuition increase.
Cameron don't want no Young Turks running out with their 'bac' & an M.A. and going into politics. The Tories want to stay in power. Semper. Sempeternam. Always and ever, Lord Acton's dictum obtains:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. IN the USA they legally evicted the chief crook, Richard M. Nixon. He couldn't even buy a flat in New York City after that

Well, that stuff about Nixon's not true...

Reading this makes me chuckle :)

@ Invictus -- RE: Nixon. What about the newly revealed George Steinbrenner allegedly "illegal" contribution to the Comm. to Re-Elect the Pres. (CREEP). The Watergate tapes, the film "All the President's Men" the book by Woodstein ...
But enuf about the Cousins. Clegg has flipflopped on Lansley's National Health Service cutback/reform. Clegg at least should -- following the Election and Referendum debacle -- resign as leader. If the LibDems had some sense of morality that politicians see opportunistically, and then jump to the prevailing morality, they might , the LibDems bring a Vote of No Confidence. But they are in some level of power, even if second to the Tories in all things important. See you in 5 years when the Labour Party swings in. More revolving "Musical Chairs" games than France's government has.

I am definately NOT a Nick Clegg fan; not only did he go back on promise but then he tries to justify it by saying that it was because he didn't win the election. Hello! They were never going to win the election which is why his promise was specifically about what he would do if he didn't win the election..."I promise to vote against any rise is tuition fees AND pressure the government for a better system' (paraphasing from memory.)

However, the coalition and the Lib-dems will survive this and here is why...
Lib-dem voters in the 57 seats they hold might not like the Con/LD coalition; but they would like a con majority even less; most of the LD maginal seats have the tories in second place so Lib-dem voters will have a choice exert some influence, or exert none. They will vote to exert some influence IMHO. But what if they don't and they get say only 24 Seats? Well as it is likely Labour will come back a little bit by winning say between 20 and 30 Con/Lab marginals then the Lib-dems will still hold the balance of power at the next election and will be able to exert more pressure as they could probably form a government with either of the big two giving them greater bargaining power.

The Lib_dems will also block NHS reform and go to the country saying they saved the NHS and the tories will distroy it if elect on a majority. The NHS reforms do not form part of the coalition agreement so blocking them won't mean the coalition agreement is broken.

The big reason why Lib-dems will survive is time. Nick has moved from hero to zero in a year - he has almost 4 years left to turn things around. He will only need slight improvements and Lab to do a littlk better and things will work out for him and his party.

@ figle: "Suppose your family are going to the zoo, but you don't like the zoo. They know you don't like going, and offer you an icecream if you go happily. This is the important bit: they are going to go, and you are still going to have to go with them, even if you kick up a fuss. So, do you go begrudgingly, or do you accept the position and make the most of it."

I don't agree with this analysis. If Clegg had refused to go to the zoo, Cameron's trip to the zoo would have ended in his attempt to govern in minority failing, and a second general election.

Why on earth did the Scots vote the SNP into power? Salmond's going to be a Taiwan-esq nuisance for the next 4-5 years. Labour's weakness in Scotland is not a good sign. At least Labour has Wales.

What's a Taiwan-esque nuisance supposed to mean? I really can't see any way that the defeated non-communist ROC remnant holding out on Taiwan is at all like a newly elected SNP government in a devolved Scottish assembly.

The Scots voted the SNP into power because they support its policies. Democracy in action.

As for taylor4, you wrote

"IN the USA they legally evicted the chief crook, Richard M. Nixon. He couldn't even buy a flat in New York City after that "

It isn't true that Nixon was "legally evicted." He resigned. That's quite different from being impeached or otherwise thrown out of office. He was disbarred in New York, but I'm sure if he wanted to live in New York he could have found an apartment. HE actually loved in New Jersey. He also became a quite influential elder statesman when it came to foreign policy (always his strong suit) by the late 70s.

There's plenty to criticize Nixon about without making stuff up. A ridiculous amount.

"What's a Taiwan-esque nuisance supposed to mean? I really can't see any way that the defeated non-communist ROC remnant holding out on Taiwan is at all like a newly elected SNP government in a devolved Scottish assembly."

Because the SNP is going to blackmail Westminster for more and more concessions, all the while holding the independence referendum over their head. It's like Taiwan because if the SNP gets its way it will be a quasi independent state that just exists to annoy the crap out of the UK. Devolution was a terrible idea.

"The Scots voted the SNP into power because they support its policies. Democracy in action."

People almost never voted based on policies. SNP policies would wreck Scotland anyway. Financial autonomy? Ireland anyone? Putting Scotland on the Euro? Ireland anyone?

Well devolution is a stupid idea, what with the West Lothian question and all, but I still think the Taiwan comparison is par from appropriate. Scotland wants to get a continued flow of money from England to flow in, while Taiwan wants to be free of communist domination. There's also no possibility of force being used in a Scottish independence scenario, while that's far from the case with Taiwan.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly that an independent Scotland would be unworkable, but the success of the SNP is based on popular support for what they say and historic grudges against the English. If I had to guess Salmond is smart enough to know this and is really just doing brinksmanship for more aid from south of the border rather than formal independence.

Well it's not identical of course. Scotland isn't being armed to the teeth by the Russians or Chinese, while Taiwan's existence is owed entirely to generous unending American military support. So that's why there isn't a threat of force, because Scotland isn't being used as a proxy for hostile powers, as far as we know.

But in terms of being a country led by gutless "nationalists" who engage in brinkmanship in order to extract more resources, the comparison is entirely apt. If the Taiwan independence forces didn't manufacture a crisis every once and a while, and allowed PRC-US relations to warm, there would be no need for US aid to Taiwan.

The West Lothian question isn't really a question. You can't have a proper federal system when one of the entities dwarfs the other three by 10x + in terms of population and economy. An English assembly would be a waste of money, something Tories are supposed to be against. Furthermore, Scotland votes overwhelmingly Labour in Westminster elections, so Tories are ruling a pro-Labour country, rather than the Scots imposing their will on the English. Tories want an English assembly so they can monopolize domestic policy - and since Thatcher's day they gave up trying to get support in Scotland, that is the only reason they raise the "West Lothian" issue.

I'm jsut going to give up on talking to you about Taiwan since it'll get nowhere.

The West Lothian Question is totally a question. How is it legitimate for Scottish MPs to vote on English (and Welsh) matters while other MPs can't do the same for Scotland? That's far from democracy.

As for the supposed unworkability of a federal Britain, America has a vast difference in the population and economic power of its states and the federal system works pretty well. The same could be said for Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Just about the only thing that worked well in the Wiemar Republic was the functioning of the federal system, and Prussia was absurdly dominant in that union.

@ Putin: "Because the SNP is going to blackmail Westminster for more and more concessions, all the while holding the independence referendum over their head."

Such blackmail wouldn't work. If there was an independence referendum, recent polling shows that a clear majority of Scottish voters would vote *against* independence. I say that as a Scot myself.

As for the West Lothian question, the answer is simple. Don't give Scottish MPs a vote in legislation that would not apply in Scotland. Sorted.

FYI, Putin, the reason the SNP did well in the elections to the Scottish Parliament has *almost nothing* to do with independence. Most people who voted for them did so because they've done quite a good job in government over the past few years despite being a minority administration.

And what, then, constitutes legislation that "would not apply" in Scotland? Is it so clear cut? And for that matter, where are the West Lothian complainers on the issue of Northern Ireland? Tories didn't/haven't cared when their Unionist pals were voting with them on English issues for decades.

An English assembly would raise all sorts of constitutional quandaries. What if Labour controls the UK government but the opposition controls the English assembly (or vice versa, although that would likely not happen). Can't the English only types then claim that England should have to approve any bill dealing with public services because it disproportionately affects England?

If America is your model for federalism, keep in mind that the American federal system applied to Britain would completely neuter the power of England, since it'd require an upper house of parliament in which each country gets an equal number of seats. Is that really what you want? The German model also has an upper house (although much weaker than the US Senate) in which states get roughly an equal number of seats.
The idea that Canadian federalism works is news to the people of Quebec, which comprises 1/4 of Canada's population and economy. It's also probably news to the Western Canadians, who rail against the Ontario bias of Canada every chance they get.

The UK has avoided the stupidity of federalism, I don't know why they'd invite these problems on themselves.

@ Putin: "And what, then, constitutes legislation that "would not apply" in Scotland? Is it so clear cut?"

Yes. It is that clear cut. Some legislation applies to the whole of the UK. Some only applies to England / Scotland / Wales etc. The scope, in this context, of any given piece of parliamentary legislation, is generally very clearly defined. Likewise, the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies - and the limits of their powers - are clearly defined.

"An English assembly would raise all sorts of constitutional quandaries. What if Labour controls the UK government but the opposition controls the English assembly?"

This has already been the case for the last few years, with the Scottish Parliament being controlled by a different party (SNP) than controls the UK Parliament in Westminster (first Labour, then Tory/Lib Dem coalition). No constitutional crisis arose.

@Jamie - so we elect 650 MPs across the UK. Lets say half the time is spent on the reserved legislation, defence, foreign affairs etc and half the time spent on English matters that are desolved to Scotland/Wales and NI. Don't the English MPs than have to work twice as hard as the Scottish MPs? Or will we send those same MPs to Scotland and do away with their Parliament?

"No constitutional crisis arose."

Sure, but Scotland is small compared to England. Isn't it more likely a problem could arise when you have England, which is 85% of the UK, represented by one party while another party represents the UK as a whole. Why wouldn't the English assembly attempt to block UK parliamentary actions which they claim affects the English is some disproportionate way? Isn't it very likely that such arguments would arise given England's vast population compared to the rest of the UK countries?

"Likewise, the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies - and the limits of their powers - are clearly defined."

But they as of now don't have equivalent powers. Wales and Scotland don't even have equivalent devolved powers. So what does this mean, each of the countries are going to have the same ability to tax and spend? Aren't Scotland and Wales currently allowed a certain amount of money to spend as the wish? What then will happen with England? How do avoid problems of the various countries not complaining about the amount of UK federal money they receive?

So you want a return to a unitary state? It doesn't seem like anyone else does. In 1997 the people of Britain voted to break up the UK, it's just a matter of how far things are going to go at this point. A federal system would certainly have problems due to the dominance of England in population and economy (not to mention its different political culture), but it looks like some muddled compromise along federal lines is inevitable. English voters will not tolerate being denied equal political rights indefinitely.

I would predict that you'll see a lot of constitutional reform there in the first few years after the Queen's death. King Charles will not have the same sort of mystique and mythical position above politics and even culture that this current broad has. That would be the time the English stand up and demand serious changes. If the Scottish can make laws only for Scots why can't the English only make laws for hte English? Whatever arguments political scientists might make here, that's a pretty powerful question to ask. Add that to the likely republican push in a lot of Commonwealth realms in a post Elizabeth II era and the Catholic growth rates in Northern Ireland and there's an environment ripe for transformation.

Thing is, it's could be thirty years away...

A federal system never benefits the big states within the country. In the US, virtually all the big states are net contributors to the federal budget. States like Mississippi, West Virginia and Alaska get all the benefits. Tiny states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionate impact on our electoral process because of electoral college induced federalism run amok. In Canada, Ontario gets the lowest amount of equalization payments, while Ontario pays for the ability of other provinces to have low taxes and high subsidies for their universities and hospitals. So, a federal system would likely hurt England more than it would help.

The experiment with devolution is not federalism, and it happened before Salmond's "Arc of Prosperity" (Iceland, Ireland, etc) collapsed. At this point further devolved powers would be absolutely economically suicidal.

The UK parliament is an English parliament with Scottish, Welsh, and NI MPs added to it. England has no reason to believe its supremacy in this arrangement will be threatened by continued union. Disunion will only hurt the English, and an English parliament would manufacture nationalism where none exists.

@ Invictus:

"....in the first few years after the Queen's death. King Charles..."

If you ask me the Queen has a good chance of out-living Charles. You wouldn't bet against it, would you?

It would sure makes things a lot easier on you people. A middle age King William would be a much better symbol than a wizened King Charles.

As for Putin33, federalism isn't just about bean counting. Regardless of however many barely applicable examples from America or Canada you throw out, the simple fact is that while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own devolved assemblies representing them England does not. It might have been the case in the past that England=Britain=Westminster but with the existence of three regional assemblies dealing with regional issues it's inevitable that a stronger English national identity will develop. You cannot continue to have it be (de facto) that the Celts can run their own affairs AND have a vote on purely English matters. That's wildly unfair. In typical British political fashion the solution is going to be absurdly complicated with all sorts of constitutional gymnastics, but the current system can't last forever.

A unitary is no longer politically possible, and independence for the constituent countries is also undesirable. That leaves a devolved English assembly and a radical restructuring of how the government of the United Kingdom functions as the only realistic possibility. If you don't like it, Putin33, then build a time machine and make John Major win in 1997.

"A unitary is no longer politically possible"

I don't think the toothpaste is quite out of the tube. As it stands, the NI parliament seems to be barely functioning and Wales doesn't have very many autonomous powers, yet the nationalists are weak there. The only problem case is Scotland. It all depends on what El Presidente does. One can hope that Salmond overreaches with whatever concessions he extracts and discredits the whole enterprise of nationalism, much like BQ did in Canada. I think as more and more small countries collapse in the face of the turmoil of the global economy, sensible minds will prevail.

"Westminster but with the existence of three regional assemblies dealing with regional issues it's inevitable that a stronger English national identity will develop."

It's not inevitable. The Tories are playing it up as a means of propping up support for themselves. It's a cynical play at party politics. Much like nursing white grievance has been an explicit Republican strategy since 1964. It's a lot of bluster but there's no "there", there.

"I think as more and more small countries collapse in the face of the turmoil of the global economy, sensible minds will prevail. "

What does that even mean?

People don't give up rights once they are granted them. No matter how ineffective the devolved assemblies may be, there's still a solid constituency supporting them and a political class which has their continued existence in their self-interest. For instance, I live in Illinois. The Illinois legislature and governor are doing even less than California is to fix our state's budget crisis. But no amount of incompetence in Springfield will lead to people calling for direct rule from Washington. I realize American states are wildly different from UK devolved assemblies (there's literally no way to get rid of a state, for example), but the larger point about local control still is valid.

"It's not inevitable. The Tories are playing it up as a means of propping up support for themselves."

Is it so unbelievable that the English will want the same sort of control over their own matters as the Scots, Welsh, and Occupied Irish have? That's really quite bigoted of you to say that English nationalism can ONLY be the result of some dastardly Conservative plot. It could really be as simple as the English being upset at having to pay for free university attendance in Scotland.

"But no amount of incompetence in Springfield will lead to people calling for direct rule from Washington."

Is the power of the states anywhere close to what it was even 40 years ago? If not then why not, if people cling so hard to their "rights"? People aren't as dogmatically attached to this idea of 'local control' as you would have us believe. Problems become more complex, it becomes more apparent that localities are ill equipped to deal with them, and people find ways to adapt. Nation States have forfeited their own existence before - voluntarily - in order to create a political entity better equipped to deal with the challenges they face.

"Is it so unbelievable that the English will want the same sort of control over their own matters as the Scots, Welsh, and Occupied Irish have?"

I'm sorry how many Tories did the Scots elect to Westminster? Who is running the government there now? Who is playing up this West Lothian question in their party platforms and making proposals to implement an English Grand Committee? Where was the complaining when the Tories imposed the poll tax on a Scotland that was uniformly hostile to it back when the Iron Lady was in power? No, this thing started because the Tories wanted to attack the legitimacy of a Gordon Brown premiership and because playing up English resentment against the Scots only benefits the Tories.

"to pay for free university attendance in Scotland."

Why doesn't the UK parliament implement the same plan for English students? Is it the Welsh and Scots fault the UK government doesn't give a damn about affordable education? And did I miss the meeting where it was decided that the English don't get to benefit from the Scots oil wealth? Would the English be willing to trade their ability to use overwhelmingly Scottish oil for a change to the university fee policy?

When you scratch beneath the surface you start exposing the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all.


I