On 2010-04-01, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Eric wrote:

Tom Anderson wr

Devolution seems completely daft to me. Make the right decision, and
make it once.

Assuming that the right decision is the same one no matter where you are
looking from. Not really a very sensible assumption.

The right decision might be "X in Scotland, Y in England and Wales, and Q
in Berwick". That decision could be made nationally; you don't need
devolution to do that.

Or do you mean that in England, they might think "X all over the UK" was
best, and in Scotland, "Y all over the UK" was best? I'm not impressed by
that case - it doesn't matter what people think, it matters what's best,
so let's just do that.

"best"? How's that defined, and how do you know the definer was correct?
Quite simply, you _don't_ know.


Eric

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Mar 31, 6:49 pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

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.

You can say the UK's internal borders are arbitrarily-delimited if you
wish, but there's a whole lot of history to it all. And if there are
lines then they have to get drawn somewhere.


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.

Same thing.


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.

Wow - you're proposing that *local* transport issues should not be
devolved to *regional* bodies? Sorry, but I just can't get down with
that at all whatsoever! Devolution is all about getting those powers
closer to the people - the further away many of these powers and
decisions are from Westminster and Whitehall and the centre, and the
closer they are to the people and places they apply to, the better in
my reckoning.

In my 'fantasy constitution' (don't worry, it's not like a whole other
mythical type world!) I'd have regional assemblies across England -
and I suppose they'd be the ones with responsibility for local
transport (along with some arrangement with the local authorities I
guess). There could be certain incentives built in (by UK Parliament/
government) for co-operation on cross-regional services. And the
regions could offer free bus travel to senior citizens if they wanted
to - whether that would extend beyond their region would be up to them
to decide and work out.

....and Dragons

sorry Mizter T couldn't resist!
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

On 01/04/2010 16:33, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Eric wrote:

Tom Anderson wr

Devolution seems completely daft to me. Make the right decision, and
make it once.

Assuming that the right decision is the same one no matter where you
are looking from. Not really a very sensible assumption.

The right decision might be "X in Scotland, Y in England and Wales, and
Q in Berwick". That decision could be made nationally; you don't need
devolution to do that.

No.

These are different counties, with differing demographics, legal
systems, education systems, religions and so on. Before devolution this
meant that there was no such thing as a genuinely UK decision anyway and
the Scottish dimension had to be considered.

The difference in devolution isn't that there are now seperate decisions
in Scotland, on most matters there always were even if they were just in
the hands of a civil servant in (New) St Andrew's House juggling the
Scottish health budget for example.

The difference is that these seperate decisions are now made within a
democratic infrastructure closer to and accountable to those in Scotland.

Or do you mean that in England, they might think "X all over the UK" was
best, and in Scotland, "Y all over the UK" was best? I'm not impressed
by that case - it doesn't matter what people think, it matters what's
best, so let's just do that.

Evidence based policy is a good idea, and is more likely in a devolved
setup where PR is mysteriously tolerated by the ruling minorities who
control Westminster.

Hmm, remind me to debate this with you over a beer.

Alex.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 01/04/2010 08:29, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:06:25 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

I cannot imagine how healthcare would be easily
devolved.

Isn't NHS Scotland a separate organisation to NHS England?


Indeed it is and always has been. Created in a seperate act of
parliament as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...land)_Act_1947

"Though the title 'National Health Service' implies one health service
for the United Kingdom, in reality one NHS was created for England and
Wales, accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and a separate
NHS was created for Scotland, accountable to the Secretary of State for
Scotland."

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---