On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I don't see why it somehow inherently makes sense for it to be a UK-
wide scheme, as you seem to suggest.

I think it makes more sense than it being by somewhat
arbitrarily-delimited[1] countries, especially in the case of Wales
(given the the Borders region between England and Scotland doesn't
contain fairly large conurbations in the way that it does with Wales).

[1] In real terms. Many people live in north Wales but carry on
business in Chester, say. They might want to use their free travel
there.

Anyway, the nature of devolution
means that there won't be a UK-wide scheme - Parliament only deals
with such matters the territory of England. (Again, feel free to
pontificate about a UK Parliament that only has powers w.r.t. some
fields in England only, in others in England & Wales, in others NI as
well, and in others across the whole of the UK - that's the current
constitutional settlement we have.

I don't call it pontification, I call it political debate.

Having a single tier of local government was *exactly* what was
proposed for the North East. Also, the whole beauty of it would be
wresting various powers away from distant Westminster and Whitehall to
somewhere closer to home. It'd be a far better way of doing things
than an English Parliament, IMHO (which is how some would 'solve' the
'problem' of lopsided devolution in the UK).

Though we should be careful not to devolve things like providing local
public transport services to such bodies. We'd end up with the silly
situations that exist in, say, Germany, France and Switzerland, where
local services stop at the border even where this makes no sense
whatsoever. We're better, IMO, with our quasi-national system whereby
local authorities can add funding but don't control the entire
service.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.