She's Going to Vote Tory.....Cause Neither Have Got Devolution

Hat tip to Miserable Old Fart



Only at the weekend in Scotland David Cameron was saying how he and the Conservatives got devolution. Yet new poster girl Julie Fallon lives in Llandudno, Wales. She's voting Conservative at the General Election because of:

• schooling DEVOLVED ISSUE
  
• community development DEVOLVED ISSUE
  
• support for children DEVOLVED ISSUE

So maybe she's only going to be voting for them in 2011 at the Assembly elections.

But then we didn't really expect the Tories to get devolution. Did we?

I mean their snuggling up in bed with the Ulster Unionists has upset some of their Catholic candidates in Northern Ireland. Annabel Goldie has said that David Cameron can effectively have sway over Scotland even if there is no representation in Scotland for the Tories at Westminster. The other week in Westminster they clearly didn't get proportional voting systems.

Ello, Ello, Bout Ye

Yes they almost were talking about it until the 12th....

....April that is, not July. It certainly feels like it, and reading some of my friends' Facebook updates from Hillsborough Castle of the last couple of years, err, I mean weeks, they certainly say it felt like it.

But responsibility for the Police in Northern Ireland will be transferred from Westminster to Stormont on 12th April.

The PSNI go from ello, ello, ello to bout ye in just over 2 months times.

Can Northern Irish Devolution Survive Last Week?

Of course currently all eyes are on just one Northern Irish political family. Of course at the start of last month that family consisted of 2 MPs, 2 MLAs and 2 Castlereagh Borough Councillors (yeah Gareth Robinson also represents the East Ward), not forgetting the post of First Minister.

But as Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said "devolution is bigger than one man", so with the fallout of Northern Ireland's first family can devolution survive? I would say yes.

My reason for this stems from the fact that a few years ago even my jaw scraped the floor. It was the occasion of TV coverage of Ian Paisley sitting down laughing with Gerry Adams, with Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson in attendance at the start of the current partnership. This was for anyone used to Northern Irish politics the sign that the will of the people could overcome the will of the individuals concerned. To have the DUP and Sinn Fein sitting down in the one room, promising to sit together in power was something that many of us only dreamed off and turned off in our waking moments.

Therefore whether Peter is still ensconced office of the First Minister at the end of this week, or the DUP are preparing to select a successor the process will carry on. As I blogged earlier the most talked about alternative is Sammy Wilson which may not be everyone's ideal as a successor, and certainly isn't mine, but other options are of a somewhat similar ilk. The fact is that if the DUP do appoint a replacement First Minister or keep Robinson the politics of Northern Ireland will keep on moving, because the people want it to.

The biggest obstacle, that with hindsight it now appears that Robinson hasn't been 100% focused on, is the devolution of policing and justice. The current diversion may have been putting this on the back burner, but it is indeed one area (after many such) that Northern Ireland parties used to stare across a big divide over. The distance has been cut down somewhat but there are still, as ever, some of the biggest obstacles still outstanding.

Sinn Fein are wanting immediate transfer of these powers but the DUP have been stalling claiming it could only happen on the condition of community confidence. As recently as Thursday the DUP chief whip Maurice Morrow said he didn't expect them to the transferred in the lifetime of this assembly. Sinn Fein are calling for the Secretary of State to act as Guarantor of the St. Andrews' Agreement on this issue.

So whatever the outcome of this week I see Northern Irish devolution carrying on, though we need to see some joint up government starting in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The fact that Peter Robinson wasn't willing on Friday to meet with Martin McGuinness while this crisis was developing shows that the relationship is still only one of political convenience. It needs to become one of political expediency for the good of the people that the Northern Irish politicians have been elected to serve.

David Through the Looking Glass

The Mad Hatter was heading to city hall. The Cheshire Cat had been and left the stage for the Duchess to take over the most prestigious address in Wonderland trying to agree with everyone and find a moral in everything.

It was surprising therefore that young David having found himself in this position wanted a bit of every one of them. He wanted the power that the Mad Hatter, a school boy acquaintance, had achieved only more so. He wanted to smile for everyone like the Cheshire Cat yet to know that there was also a time for sincerity. As for the Duchess, well he wanted that house, he thought he had to be nice to everyone to do so. He'd enjoy the view from the inside if he succeeded of Tweedledum and Tweedledee working out which of them was the Duchess, or indeed the Cheshire Cat's, natural successor.

"I don't think we should invent differences where there aren't differences," said David.

But then he went on to invent similarities when they were tenuous, "A hung Parliament would be bad for Britain, would be bad for the sort of strong united determined leadership that we need, but we shouldn't invent differences where they don't exist."

Yes as you tell this isn't from the pen of Lewis Carroll but a look at the wonderland, befundleland more like, of the Conservative leadership. They really think:

"There are many more areas where Liberal Democrats and Conservatives agree and that's a good thing but we need to have a decisive election."

Now I'm all for agreeing with my political opponents when we do agree but Dave, on this one I must protest. Senior Tories have apparently saying the the Cameron 'love bomb' is aimed at Lib Dem voters not our MPs, candidates etc. Hence the comment about a hung parliament being a bad thing. You see the Tories are talking about change but don't want to have to move to accommodate some of another parties agenda if there was a hung parliament. As they are aiming that statement at Lib Dems it should be apparent that Dave doesn't want the change that we behind Nick Clegg are offering. If he was prepared to do the things the Lib Dems wanted a hung parliament would be good for Britain if that were the case.

Indeed lets look at the three key areas that they say they are targeting: green issues, decentralisation, and less state interference.

Green Issues: Looking around at Conservative councils and activists around the country I've yet to be convinced that there really is a green heart beating behind a blue Rosette. Iain Dale their uberblogger led a denial-lite blogging strand that stretched across a number of Tory blogs recently over Copenhagen. Indeed did anyone spot an activist led Tory presence at the Wave recently. I know I didn't see one in Glasgow (where the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems were out at activist level) and I've heard the same in absentia approach to the climate happened in London. More likely to see Tory activist marching with the Countryside or Tax(non)Payers Alliance that an alliance of environmental concerned groups.

I remember the struggles we had getting better environmental provision through when the Tories controlled Kingston council. From what I see beneath the rhetoric even their own shadow cabinet are fully on board the green agenda. The Lib Dems have a few exceptions, but by in large are on board. We don't deny climate change, but will heartily debate how best to go about it.

Decentralisation: Actually seeing Annabel Goldie reverse over the horizon about Calman and hearing all the cutting of Westminster powers promised from the Tories, what they are doing is just that. They are not decentralising power they are cutting the public's ability of have it accountable to them. The Tories rather than moving power from the centre to publicly elected bodies are looking to sell parts of it off to commercial interests. Therefore not for profit will not be an incentive to take over certain aspects but it will another way to make money of those who are poorest, to line the pockets of Dave and Gideon's friends, whether resident or non-domiciled in the UK.

Less state interference: See the above whereas the Tories actually want less state period, the Lib Dems want certain powers devolved down to a more local level areas of health, policing, education being prime examples. The Lib Dems also recognise that there are some issues that need to have more co-ordination, even outwith our borders. Yes that does mean some decisions being made at European level. But the Tories wanted to pull us out of the European Convention on Human Rights, out of the international policing arrangements, don't want us to join the Euro ever. So don't want to protect you rights, your security or your shopping prices in a sensible way all in the cause of less 'interference'. Yes there is a time and a place for freedom but with that freedom there is also a need for responsibility, the Tories are prepared to negate as much responsibility as they can get away with. You don't think so, you may be too young to remember the last Conservative period of power then.

So David Cameron may well be thinking he is looking though a looking glass when he looks at Lib Dem policies compared to his own. He's actually just standing on the street looking through the window at the real change that is on over in the shop window, but he's so vain all he sees is his own reflection and the door to number 10 over his shoulder. Indeed he is already taking the voters and his victory for granted, thinking that those who vote Lib Dem can't see through what he says about difference and similarity.

Now Sinn Fein are Threatening the SNP Tactic

Yesterday I blogged about the bankers at RBS using the SNP tactic of not just taking the ball away, but themselves out of the game if their bonuses of £1.5 bn (25% of profits) are turned down by Government. Today I see that Martin McGuinness the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland is threatening, in coded language, that the same may happen in Northern Ireland over the timing of devolution and justice to Stormont.

I say coded message so let me decipher, McGuinness says that the institutions are unsustainable without a date for devolution of policing by Christmas. You may think so what if you are not Northern Irish, but that is code for all the institutions of devolution, not just cross-border agencies but also the Assembly and the dual mandate of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Devolution of policing has always been one of the major stumbling blocks in fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement. After all Sinn Féin and their military were never going to be likely to be on friendly terms with the force that was arrayed against them throughout the Troubles. So this has been the longest, hardest and most painstaking march towards a peaceful, settled Northern Ireland there has been.

However, it is one of those rare occasions that I agree with the DUP Jeffrey Donaldson. I quite often have found the man objectionable in the past, but he is correct when on the BBC this morning I heard him say that setting deadlines in stone was something that should never be done in Northern Ireland politics, but that the best settlement for all sides should be worked out. If that is done by Christmas then that is fine, however if it is not Sinn Féin should not arbitrarily walk away from all the progress that has been made.

There are signs that a consensus is almost settled on the first Justice Minister under this period of devolution. David Ford the Alliance party leader looks set to gain the cross-community support to take on that role. Now the politicians need to reach agreement over policing and McGuinness is right in that it has to cover equality issues. But with only three weeks to Christmas and probably less that two of those productive setting a Christmas deadline for a resolution is ludicrous so close to that date. Even Tony Blair over ran on his deadline to get the Agreement signed off initially.

Would Iain Gray Please Define Elite

The following is the Press Association release made about comments from the leader of the Labour MSPs Iain Gray:

Devolution may have benefited "elite" groups more than the general Scottish population, Labour leader Iain Gray has said.

His comment came as he prepared to deliver a lecture on 10 years of devolution at Edinburgh University.

Mr Gray warned that politics must shift from "identity to values" - and hit out at the SNP's "obsession" with independence as a solution.

Now that makes interesting reading for a number of scores. One just under 80% of the time spent under devolution, Scotland has benefited from a Labour First Minister and many of the ministerial roles being held by his Labour colleagues. So while I think he is trying to be disparaging about the SNP he is also being very disparaging about his Labour colleagues and indeed the Lib Dems who shared power with them.

Secondly I wonder if the elderly who gained free personal care count as elite? Or those who get their eyes tests free? What about the various students from all walks of live who do not have to pay tuition fees in Scotland? OK I can see them ending up being part of the elite but not all of them started there and without than many of them would not have started a degree.

What about the whole population who will benefit from the targets and actions taken to make Scotland a greener place, a knowledge based economy and other such actions which benefit many not just the elite. There is also the smoking ban which was brought in to help those that had no option but to work in some of the lowest paid jobs from the effects of passive smoking.

Just what does the Gray man of Holyrood mean by elite, you have to ask oneself when so many benefits have come to Scots that Labour in England have yet to deliver or trailed behind with.

An Evolution of Devolution #ldconf

This morning I was in the hall bright and breezy for the Future of Devolution debate which was moved by Alistair Carmichael MP. When I say bright and breezy not quite early enough to hear Alistair moving the motion, after all it isn't every day one turns forty, but present for the rest of it.

It started with Simon Hughes moving an Amendment calling for:

"Urgent initiatives to address the democratic for England, and the replacement of the Barnett formula for allocation funding to the countries of the UK with a needs-based formula."

This was accepted by the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems who were the movers of the motion. But as the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, there is a desire for more power in England. It may end up with a devolution to a 4th larger nation, but that is an issue the details of which need to be addressed. If we as Lib Dems with our Federal nature don’t deal with it, it will play up to the cause of English Nationalism, rather than the reverse case as put by some of our opponents.

There then followed a stream of familiar Scottish faces, some excellent Welsh ones and a few English ones. First up for Bev Hope who pointed out quite correctly that "Scotland doesn't need independence, doesn't want independence, and wouldn't benefit from independence". She also said we have to set out our stall clearly as we are up against as very clear and concise message, we need to lose the jargon and tell the people in accessible terms what we want for them, and for them to have.

She was followed by another first time speaker at Federal Conference who bookmarked his speech in Welsh, as he said the language of heaven. He called for the need for respect for Wales, so that people would stay or come home to Wales rather than being lost to jobs in London. Urging us all to chose a different devolution for a better future.

Kevin Lang the PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith was the next to speak. He said that now was the time to have the debate on independence because under a proper debate (i.e. not the national soliloquy) with proper and true analysis we would win the argument of what Scotland wants and needs. We should therefore support a referendum so that we can put this issue to bed for a generation.

Frank Kindel from the NE of England, welcomed Simon's amendment but stated that the people of NE England didn't want to have one form of government from Westminster replaced with another. If there was to be a move to devolution in England it had to address those issues. Roger Roberts of Abercowry then rose to speak of the need that even with devolution we have to address the issue of borders. The people of North Wales rely on the hospitals of Liverpool, also tend to use Manchester and Chester. The net result is that although they have their own provisions given by the Welsh Assembly they have to work with the neighbouring region which is in a different country for some of their provision. The issue of devolution doesn't merely end at the borders, something that those that want independence often overlook. He also pointed out that we should trust the Tories especially on powers for the devolved bodies, nor for that matter on anything else. He called for us to embrace an evolution of devolution.

George Lyon MEP for Scotland then pointed out that Donald Dewar had said that devolution was a process not an event. But what was a shame in Scotland was that the minsters on both side of the border were no longer talking to one another, things were being dealt with in isolation which wasn't in the best interests of Scotland. If the SNP were prepared to work with the UK Parliament they could have a booming voice in Europe but they don't and only have their three voices. The SNP are wanting the UK to fail in Europe and Scotland to fail in the UK for their own selfish ends.

Mark Hunter MP for Cheadle pointed out that the opening lines of the motion:

"Conference believes that Scotland and Wales are distinct nations with distinct identities and longstanding political, cultural and social identities."

Applied to England too and must not be overlooked.

Kirsty Williams AM summating welcomed the amendment bringing the English devolution question to the motion. But added it would be presumptuous for the Welsh and Scottish parties to tell the English party how to best go about doing that. She called on them to get it together for next time and bring the debate to the floor. Now there is a challenge if ever I heard one, and one that fits into our Federalist nature.

Power for a Purpose

It's not all negative, Tavish Scott tells it as it is, Lib Dem proposes are about tacking the tough issues facing us all. More power to enable Scotland to face difficult financial times.

The latest from Tavish TV.

News of Calman Death Throes Premature

A couple of weeks ago Malc was all for rushing the Calman Commission into intensive care. If not to remove the Liberal Democrat life support. However, news that Labour's submission also calls for greater financial powers for the devolved Parliament would mean there is life in the Commission yet.

Labour are now calling for borrowing powers for the Parliament which brings it in line with both the SNP and Liberal Democrats. They may have mocked when Tavish Scott got an agreement out of Alex Salmod to present to Calman on this, as one of the conditions for backing the budget. But now it seems to have persuaded Labour to also get on board on this one so maybe a stronger devolved Scotland is still on the cards. Indeed the Labour MSP with responsibility for the Calman Commission Pauline McNeill said:

"I am also convinced that Holyrood should have prudential borrowing powers, which would allow us to develop a more coherent strategy for fighting the recession. Labour's submission supports the conclusion of (economist] Anton Muscatelli that borrowing powers are closely allied to revenue-raising powers."

So there you have it. A future budget to help us through the recession may well be more easily paved if such working together on these issues may well grease the road to consensus.

It does not however throw the doors open for all five of John Swinney's steps to independence.

• Current framework Scottish Parliament can vary tax by 3p
• Assigned Revenues Budget determined by amount of revenue collected in Scotland. No power to alter taxes and no block grant
• Enhanced devolution powers Holyrood able to set some taxes. Limited borrowing powers
• Full fiscal autonomy Taxes set in Scotland. Percentage of revenue paid to Westminster for defence and foreign affairs
• Independence All revenues collected in Scotland. Holyrood able to borrow and determine monetary policy

While the Lib Dems have agreed to fiscal autonomy Labour are currently just announcing their move to enhanced powers. Plans to push either further may well backfire on the Finance and First Minister's face.

Justice and Policing Stormont Breakthrough

One hundred and fifty two days, not the longest stand off in Northern Irish politics but possibly one of the most crucial with one of the greatest outcomes at the end. Many said it could never be done but the DUP and Sinn Fein have actually come to an agreement over moving forward the devolving of powers for justice and policing from Westminster to Stormont.

Announcing the programme of "modalities" that will lead to the eventual transfer of these powers appears to have finally removed the major stumbling block that was outstanding between the two parties. With the logjam about to be removed in the next few months.

The steps include appointing the Senior QC as the new Attorney General. A cross-community consensus vote in the Assembly would elect the Chairperson of the Justice Committee until May 2012.

There is also a sunset clause to review the arrangements in time to put in place a more permanent settlement on these issues.

So it's back to work for the folks on the hill.

Has 42 Days Extended 40 Years Without Abortion?

Remember back in June when the DUP backed Labour in able for the flailing government to secure 42 day detention without trail in the commons? Remember the DUP denying that there were any deals done over upcoming legislation? This despite historically the DUP being a defender of civil liberties in the area of detention without trial even in the tough times of the 70s and 80s.

When just what are we to make of the decision of Labour to totally shelf the amendment to the human fertilisation and embryology bill scheduled for today which was to relook at Northern Ireland's exemption from the bill. All the abortion amendments including the need for two doctors approval have been slipped to the end, with no time to debate them. A recent survey showing 62% of people in Northern Ireland being in favour of allowing abortion as a choice to be taken up locally. Despite this Labour have put off the chance to discuss it for how long? Another 40 years maybe? Many protested both for and against the idea on Saturday so it is a debate that Northern Ireland wants, no needs to have.

Northern Irish politician's claimed that they should have a say in such legislation at the assembly. But if they are given the option will they listen to the majority of the people on this? Or will they listen to the vocal minority? who sadly make up the core vote of most of the main parties.

Just what role did the 42 day vote have in making Harriet Harman basically dump these amendments en masse?

Two Knights. So What?

We're Knights of the Round Table,
We dance when ere we're able,
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.*

From Monty Phyton and the Holy Grail and Spamalot

Well it really takes the biscuit when Nats Jeff have to compare the knights heading up the respective Commission/Futures Trust on either side of the debate.

Jeff goes out of his way to disparage the achievement of Sir Kenneth Calman. Yes unlike Sir Angus Grossart he is not involved in the world of business or economics but that hardly means he is not qualified to pass a dispassionate eye over the future of our country. Sir Kenneth has been Chair of Cancer Research in Scotland, Chief Medical Officer both for the UK Dept of Health and here in Scotland as well as holding senior posts at both Durham and now Glasgow Universities. He's also currently President of the Boys Brigade.

Sir Angus is a lawyer turned merchant banker, now Vice Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Has been Chairman of the National Gallaries of Scotland, as well as being Chairman of the Fine Arts Society and Lyon and Turnbill auctioneers.

Both seem able to carry out carry out cognitive function at the highest level, both have experience of leadership, both have shown a diversity in interests. I don't think it does anyone justice to accuse someone appointed to chair a review that they may not agree with of being an inferior product to the one that they do. Not when the evidence is there that both have strengths.

*I have to admit before writing and researching this piece fully I'd used this quote before reading here "[Sir Angus's] interest in architecture has taken him far afield, from Crusader castles in Syria to the Inca ruins at Machu Picchu in Peru" pure coincidence I assure you.

Have DUP Paved Way for Nationalists Future?

Iain Dale, that'll be the Tory one rather than my Scottish colleague and friend, raised an interesting quandary over the Democratic Unionist Party's support of Labour in the lobbies on Wednesday night.

If the as yet unsubstantiated rumours that some deal has been done, no matter how surreptitiously, could it help the nationalists? No, not the SDLP or Sinn Fein but the Scottish variety.

Like the DUP the SNP lead a devolved executive within the UK. Like the DUP the Scottish Nats are seeking leverage over financial packages for their part of the union. So what happens if at some point in the future Gordon Brown needs more than the 9/10 Unionist votes to secure a crunch vote? What if Alex Salmond makes an approach to Gordon to shore up what he needs and names his price?

If Gordon has as he said yesterday not made a deal with the DUP he can stand up to Alex, however if it comes to light that some preferential treatment is heading the way of Northern Ireland how can he turn down some quid pro quo concession to Scotland.

Could it be after years of defending the Union and standing up to Nationalism that in one moment of seized opportunism the DUP have manged to aid the process that may unravel the Union that they hold so dear? We live in interesting times, and will look out for developments.

West Lothian Answer Revisited

Looks like I published rather than saved as draft earlier than I intended and a number of people have already read only a disjointed opening paragraph. So here is the full version for your consumption.

Iain Dale has thrown his hat into the ring over the West Lothian Question or more to the point the answer to the question. Following the backing of Canon Kenyon Wright for an English Constitutional Convention (ECC), similar to the one he chaired for Scotland it looks like a serious attempt to seek the West Lothian Answer.

The West Lothian Question is not a simple one to answer otherwise there would have been a definitive answer a long time ago. So the ECC may well be a way of finding the enigma that has been circulating since Tam Daylell first raised the issue. The ramifications are far reaching ie there should not be two levels of MPs at Westminster, we already have seen some friction about the two types of MSPs in Holyrood. The issue of who can vote on what issues is largely impacting on plitics both North and South of the border. Also the issue of funding and the Barnett formula is well overdue revisting.

So I would say now is probably a good time to ask for an ECC. Rather than glibbling throwing out policies like banning Scottish MPs for voting on English only matters at Westminster an ECC would look at all the ramifications in detail. It should have a remit to look at the issues that devolution has raised for England and have dialogue between the parties to reach the solutions.

I hope that if Iain Dale and other signatories of today's letter go into an ECC they will do so with open minds seeking the best answers rahter than merely rubberstamping of their own ideas. The letter already rules out options for regional assemblies for England which the ECC would have to look into to meet the fullest remit to see if it is beneficial for local accountability, responsibility over issues or not.

Is Oath a Barrier Too Far?

Yesterday's cancellation of talks between Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams is down to the ability of one man to say an oath.

Martin McGuinness is widely tipped as Sinn Féin's chosen candidate to become Deputy First Minister is power sharing can be agreed. However, he is a former commander in the IRA and their is a doubt over his ability to swear an oath in support of the police and rule of law should he take office.

While some press only mention that Peter Hain stepped in to postpone the meeting the Belfast Telegraph has no qualms about laying the blame on Paisley's door. Dr Paisley is quoted as saying that the Oath should be taken by both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at the time they assume shadow responibilty upon their designation on 24 November.

However, a senior source in the Northern Ireland Office pointed out that this would appear contrary to what the DUP were striving for at the St. Andrew's talks. The DUP's stance during those talks was to avoid the appearance of actually taking up office on 24 November. Comparing this dilemma that Dr Paisley is creating the source added:

"It is analogous to an oath of office being taken by any MP. You don't take it when you are nominated or even when you are elected. You take the oath when you actually take up your seat."

So the question to Dr Paisley must be do you want an appearance of taking up office on 24 November or do you want to carry out what you negotiated for in Fife?

Target Date Set For Northern Irish Devolution

Reports of the Northern Irish Assembly may have been greatly exaggerated by the BBC earlier.

No party has yet rejected the Governments' plan for progress. They have until the 10 November to respond to the plan which gives a minimum of 14 days after that to appoint the First Ministe and Deputy First Minister.

If, and it is still a big if, this paln is accepted and followed the Assembly should be up and running again by the 26 March. I seem to remember one of the previous changes of devolution and direct rule happening around St. Patrick's Day as well, but I may be wrong.

Time is ticking for Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams then.

It's Good To Talk

Dr Paisley...Deal or No Deal

The seven parties that won seats in the Northern Irish Assembly are meeting for talks in St. Andrews for the rest of the week. This is probably the last change saloon for the Assmebly which has been in suspension since 14 October 2002.

The parties have until 24 November to come to an agreement on power-sharing or else the whole process will be mothballed. As this would be the third time that an attempted devolved Northern Irish assembly would fail these talks take on added importance.

Will there be progress this time? It is hard to tell howver the signs are looking up. Last week it was announced that the IRA are now incapable of carrying out a sustained campaign. Then earlier this week the Rev Dr Ian Paisley sat down to talk with the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland Archbishop Sean Brady.

Two big questions need to be answered. Is it possible that Sinn Féin will accept the Northern Ireland Police Service. If they do, is Dr Paisley's DUP party ready to share power with Sinn Féin? If the answers to both questions is yes than this Friday could be even bigger news than the Friday that the Belfast Agreement was signed.

Romours that Noel Edmonds is heading to Fife with a van load of boxes waiting to ask his famous question are according to sources totally unfounded.

picture hattip to Brother's Bar

Is World Cup the Catalyst for the West Lothian Answer?

Today's Scotsman raises an interesting point by suggestion that the current World Cup could could intensify pressure on the devolution settlement.

Since Tam Dalyell asked the West Lothian Question it has gone unaswered and after 7 years of devolved power in Scotland it has raised its head above the parapets of Westminster to save Tony Blair's hide on a number of occasions.

The question that is seeking to be answered is:

How can it be right that MPs elected to Westminster from Scottish constituencies have no ability to affect the issues of their constituents which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and

If power over Scottish affairs is devolved to a Scottish Parliament, how can it be right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will have the power to vote on issues affecting England (including those that don't affect Scotland), but English MPs will not have the power to vote on Scottish issues?

According to James Kirkup's article in today's Scotsman there is growing disquiet in England and this might tear assunder the constitutional agreement that was established in 1999. A report is going to be made by the Scottish affairs committee next week that is going to highlight this unease and proposes possible solutions.

The committee sees four possible outcomes the dissolution of the UK; English devolution; fewer Scottish MPs; or English votes on English laws. Can any of these answer the question sucessfully and fully?

Dissolution of the UK

A radical proposal but would it be sustainable. It throws up a number of other questions not least of which is the Northern Ireland question. Could Northern Ireland survive on its own? We are still waiting to see if they can return to governing themselves at present. If they cannot what would become of them on dissolution, would they remain part of England or part of Ireland?

Both the major parties have governed the UK for years as unionist parties standing up against the Nationalists of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would they then take a big u-turn and give in to those calls after all this time.

What would become of North Sea oil and its revenue? those fields are goegraphically Scottish not English could nay government contemplate losing such a highly profitable income earner and put the English in a position of energy debt.

Admittedly dissolution of states has been occuring all over Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, this has usually been initiated by the smaller fragments seeking and gaining their independence from the larger state. The notable exception was the equality of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Not one of these dissolutions has been powered from the largest section of the whole releasing voluntarily the other states.

English devolution

Tony Blair will claim he tried to do this and it failed. The problem with the North East Assembly proposal was that it was not devolution in any meaningful sence. There was to be no real power to that proposed Assembly it has less ability to change anything that the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.

Giving real power to the regions of England and increasing the powers bestowed on Wales and Northern Ireland could have real benefits to everyone. There are differences in provisions of certain services from region to region. Environmental concerns in the South West would be different from the largely urban Midlands. Transport in London is vastly different from those in the North West. Health care provision in the South East commuter belt is different from the heavy industry background of the North East. One shoe doesn't necessarily fit all, one solution created in Westminster is necessarily the best for the regions.

The problem with NuLabour and is they like control from the centre. NuLabour want to control the minituae of the things that fall under Whitehall departments from Whitehall. You just have to look at their proposals to merge Police forces, control of Health Service provision etc to see that bigger equates to better in their eyes. Therefore giving power to regions is probably not on their agenda.

Fewer Scottish MPs

Last May there already was a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs coming down from 72 to 59. Any further reduction would only serve to make many of the largest geographical constituencies in the UK even bigger. Now I know there are bigger constituencies in Canada, the US and Australia but these places also have a different degree of accessibility by-and-large. The wilds of Scotland do not easily allow for small airfields of easy access by superhighways.

Already to accomadate the reduction some constituencies in Scotland straddle two Scottish Parliamentary regions and two or more Scottish Parliamentary seats. Where I stood in Linlithgow and Falkirk East last May the voters were served by two different councils, two regions, two Police Forces, two health boards etc. The constituency had 2 constituency MSPs, 12 list MSPs and that is for a relatively straightforward division. Some Scottish MPs elsewhere have far more other elected representatives to deal with for various parts of their constituency.

So the practical side of having non-coterminous boundaries needs to be properly addressed before any further reduction is even considered also the practicalities of MPs serving large constituencies.

English votes on English laws

The question with this had been what constitutes English laws. Even Tam Dalyell the poser of the original question on occasion since devolution voted in Westminster on what was a devolved issue. In his explanation although the law would only apply to England it would have a knock on effect in Scotland. However, as Tam would no doubt probably agree some of his English former colleagues proobably wish they had the same opportunity on some of the decisions that have been made in Scotland. So who is to determine what is truely a devolved issue in that sense?

So what is the best option? I would say English develution. To what extent? Probably on a regional level but giving real power to the regions and not just forming talking shop. It works for Germany and Spain more or less equal in size to the UK. But until both Labour and the Tories are prepared to let some power leave their grib and let decisions be taken and exercised outwith Whitehall the West Lothian Question will continue to fester.

So while Gordon Brown's new found liking for the three lions on his shirt is the opposite of the majority of his fellow Scots it doesn't look like the West Lothian Answer is any closer to being found.

To Talk or Not to Talk That is the Question

Trouble is brewing, as always, at Stormont. This time it appears that the DUP aren't quite sure where they stand.

On 13 May the DUP's Peter Robinson said:

"The secretary of state suggested [a committee] in terms that are satisfactory to us.

"We believe that yes, it is necessary for the assembly to look at the issues which are an obstacle to devolution and how they can be removed... if parties aren't prepared to look at what the obstacles to devolution are and how they may be removed then what on earth are they into an assembly for and what on earth were they elected for?"

However, in his press conference after he turned down the nomination as First Minister Rev. Paisley said that he wasn't going to sit down in a committee with either Sinn Fein or the Ulster Unionist Party as both "had links to paramilitaries".

So the question has to be asked of Paisely and his party if they aren't prepared to look at hte obstacles to develution and how they can be removed what are they doing at Stormont? Why did they bother to stand in the last round of assembly elections?

Come on Dr. Paisley Mr. Robinson deserves an answer for asking this question.

Paisley Says No.

Some things never change.

As reported here last week Gerry Adams stood up to propose the Rev Ian Paisley as First Minister and his colleague Martin McGuinness as deputy First Minister.

Then Paisley declined saying that his "reasons were well known and had been endorsed by the majority of the unionist voters".

Afterwards he also showed it was not sectarian when he added, "If Mr [Reg] Empey [the UUP leader] wants the support of a terrorist organisation [the UVF in the form of PUP's David Irvine], let him have it, but he'll not have my support".

So no movement there then. No Mr Paisley calling anyone's bluff and accepting but applying the rules he holds dear by forcing the withdrawal of the next two biggest parties and letting the SDLP retain the Deputy First Minister post. No that would have been radical. But then Paisley is only radical when it suits his way of being conservative.

Update:This is the view of Kevin Connolly from BBC Northern Ireland.