All this talk of people wanting more power at local level is somewhat surprising, considering the idea of regional assemblies was floated as recently as 10 years ago, and no-one was interested.

That was 10 years ago. I think you might find what motivated many Scots to vote Yes was the idea they could rid themselves of the Tory yoke forever.

I think that was naive myself as I am sure a right wing party would rise eventually in Scotland but that is not the point. I don't think people have ever viewed the UK as so London and South East centric as they do now nor do I think people have ever felt more disenfranchised governed in effect by a minority Tory administration they did not give a majority to.

They can also see the effects of devolution in Scotland (and Wales) with some attractive policies that have arisen directly because the devolved administrations have been able to implement them.

Anyone campaigning for devolution in the North West promising not to privatise the NHS, reintroduce free prescriptions and so on would get a lot more support this time than when the country was prosperous and the Westminster government was actually quite popular in my opinion.

How did they feel from 2005-2010 under a Labour government who got more than a million less votes and less % of the vote than the Tories did in 2010? Were they concerned by the disenfranchisement of others?

You have this completely the wrong way around.

We have just had a No campaign that argued that Britain was an inherently cohesive structure. If you seek to limit the real power of Scotland by excluding them from a democratic process you have just argued they belong to, what was the point of arguing "No" for?

In any case there are very few English only issues that don't affect Scotland as part of the UK. For example large infrastructure projects such as HS2 or Crossrail that occur entirely in England affect how much money is available to be spent elsewhere in the UK including Scotland. So anything that uses money from the UK treasury is by definition a UK wide issue. If we privatise the NHS in England which if it meant it costs more to run thus also reducing the money available elsewhere is an English issue that would have a direct effect on Scotland also impacting on the funds available to it.

The only way this can work is if we go for a federal option whereby each country is given a budget and it can do what it likes within that budget without affecting the others ability to do what they want and central government has very little power. That is not what Cameron is offering.



What will play into the hands of the SNP is attaching conditions to a promise that when made didn't have any. Or have you missed Salmond making hay with this already saying the "No" voters had been lied to?



The idea you can work out how to address the issue of what further devolution for Scotland means for England and address the issue before the election is crazy. Even if Cameron said the answer is English votes/English MP's I wouldn't actually expect that to happen. I would not put it past him to suggest this in his manifesto but I think he'd be lying if he did. Or fundamentally stupid. It is as I said earlier a sure fire way to break up the Union. Exclude the Scots from the UK democratic process and you are telling them to push for another referendum.

How does that affect anything I posted? It's a fact the Yes campaign was predicated a great deal on the basis of the Westminster government not representing Scottish views. Back in 2005-10 we didn't have a government introducing things like bedroom taxes or privatising the NHS.

There is nothing like hard times to see Nationalism on the increase and so whether or not the 2005-10 government had a low percentage of the vote is irrelevant to the political landscape today and whether or not people see federalism or regional devolution as a way to escape what Scotland was told it could escape. The fact many in the regions were not bothered about Labour being elected on fewer votes in 2005 as it suited their political views doesn't make any difference to how popular federalism or regional devolution might be now.

What difference would regional devolution actually make? On what basis do you belive it's either democratically or intellectually acceptable for Scottish MP's to vote on matters that are nothing to do with the Scots? '"

No holes in Scottish MP's being prevented from voting on matters that do not concern their constituents. No holes in Labour wanting to retain the status quo in order to avoid losing 40 MP's from it's voting ranks.

An independence vote was the stated aim of the SNP in the 13 years of the last Labour goct.

There is absolutely no conscensus anywhere from anyone other than Labour politicians for regional devolution.

The Barnett formula is not affected in any way by infrasrtructure investments outside of Scotland. The Queensferry bridge is a £1bn project that was voted on by Scottish MSP's only.

Scotland voted no to independence. Scotland has a Parliament that has just been promised more powers on top of those included in the 2012 Scotland Act.

There is no democratic deficit by removing Scottish MP's from voting on matters that only affect England or Wales. It is totally undemocratic to allow this anomaly to continue.

The offer made to the Scots was what was on offer to them. The timetable is to get a draft Bill on what further powers are to be devolved to Scotland on the table by the end of January 2015. If that can be done, why is it not fair & democratic to resolve the undemocratic West Lothian situation at the same time?

Cameron was very clever to leave any mention of this until after the Scottish vote. It caught his opponents off guard. It puts Labour in a position where if they oppose it, they are seen as being totally undemocratic & continuing the unfair, self interested practice that gives them and extra 40 votes in England.

Of course the independence movement would seize on any failure to deliver. The independence movement, through the election of the SNP as the Scottish government, secured a referendum which it lost due to in part the promise of further self determination.

Salmond would be absolutely right to seize on any failure to deliver. Cameron knows this & has taken the opportunity to try & close down a platform for UKIP & showing Labour to be totally anti democracy by tieing in the two issues.

Why would anyone have a problem with that anomaly being closed off? My MP can't vote on matters that only affect Scotland.

Scottish MP's would not be prevented from voting on UK matters.

Define what are UK matters and what are English only matters.

Devolved (i.e. English) matters would include:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

Reserved matters (i.e. those that the UK Parliament can pass legislation on) include:
benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution

If the Scottish Parliament is given more devolved powers over taxation and public spending, then the same will apply for the equivalent English legislation.

Subtract the powers devolved to Holyrood from Westminster & you're there. Includes those prior to, including & subsequent (as per the referendum promises) to the 2012 Scotland Bill.

LOL, cop out.

In what respect? All you need to do is look at the Scotland Bill & wait for the white paper due in janiuary to see what the further devolution will entail.

Curious that Ed Balls was completely anonymous during the referendum campaign. Now he's on every news bulletin trying to defuse the West Lothian question & kick it into the long grass.

Labour will have a huge problem with this at the election, Cameron & UKIP will absolutely slaughter them over it. The SNP will be waiting to pounce on any delay in promises being reneged upon. The only losers in Scotland from such a scenario will be Labour.

Miliband now has two elephants in the room as well as having Ed Ball as his shadow chancellor.

Oh that's priceless, even by your "WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.....Tories" standard.

The 2007 Welfare Reform Bill introduced Labour's very own "Bedroom Tax" on private tenants.

The 2010 Labour manifesto promised even more NHS privatisation. Don't forget Capita, Labour donors, with their logo over NHS buildings.




If you're going to spout lies, at least try and make them difficult to disprove.