English devolution 'could save UK'

[Siggon Kristov]

Why does it not matter if the parliament is English dominated?

What are you talking about, and why is this question directed to me as if I said that "it doesn't matter" if the parliament is English-dominated?

Well, em you felt fit to propose a system which left the parliament English dominated, I assume that you as a Socialist would only propose a system that was fair and thus your entire system would be fair for everyone.
Theirfore my question is either depending on your viewpoint 1: Why is it fair that the UK Parliament is English dominated? or 2: Why did you propose an unfair system?

I still don't know what you're talking about (what I proposed, or where I said that "it doesn't matter" if the parliament is English-dominated). Either way, any proportional system will give the English the most seats, since England accounts for over 80% of the UK's population. I don't see what it has to do with being a Socialist.

Let's say a federation has 100,000,000 people.
60,000,000 are from Nation A.
20,000,000 are from Nation B.
12,000,000 are from Nation C.
8,000,000 are from Nation D.

Let's say the legislature had 200 seats; I'd say to distribute seats like this:
Nation A - 120 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation B - 40 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation C - 24 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation D - 16 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Each citizen's vote would be valued the same on the federal/union level.

If we distributed the seats equally, it would look like this:
Nation A - 50 seats (1 seat per 1,200,000 citizens)
Nation B - 50 seats (1 seat per 400,000 citizens)
Nation C - 50 seats (1 seat per 240,000 citizens)
Nation D - 50 seats (1 seat per 160,000 citizens)
A citizen of Nation C would have a vote that is 5 times more valuable than a citizen of Nation A. That would be unfair.

[soysauce]

The problem is that Scotland has a very different people and culture, so does Wales to a lesser extent and we all know about Northern Ireland, The differences between Scotland and England (who would dominate the parliament) are akin to the differences between Germany and Austria.
Here's our issue, Scotland with it's specific needs would suffer if it was dragged around by the rest of the UK as would happen under Siggon's system so some other system should be used to protect Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland from being thrown around by the will of England.
That is unless you refuse to recognize the different cultures that make up the UK.

[Aquinas]

As an Englishman, I feel the current Westminister Parliament is English enough for me, because the large majority of its members are English people representing English constituents. I do not need an English Parliament. There is more of an argument for English regional assemblies, though.

[Siggon Kristov]

The problem is that Scotland has a very different people and culture, so does Wales to a lesser extent and we all know about Northern Ireland, The differences between Scotland and England (who would dominate the parliament) are akin to the differences between Germany and Austria.
Here's our issue, Scotland with it's specific needs would suffer if it was dragged around by the rest of the UK as would happen under Siggon's system so some other system should be used to protect Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland from being thrown around by the will of England.
That is unless you refuse to recognize the different cultures that make up the UK.

What system are you talking about?
The English population physically dominates the UK. The only way to stop that is to reduce the value of their votes, and increase the value of the votes of the smaller regions.This means that an Englishman will have less say on the union level than a Scot, just because Scotland is smaller.

A party could have 60% support from Nation A, while having about 10% support from each of the other nations. This is about 40% support overall.

If the seats were distributed proportionally, the party would end up with:
72 seats from Nation A
4 seats from Nation B
2 seats from Nation C
1 seat from Nation D
79 seats in total, out of the 200 (39.5%) - Fair

If the seats were distributed to give al nations equal seats, the party would end up with:
30 seats from Nation A
5 seats from Nation B
5 seats from Nation C
5 seats from Nation D
45 seats in total, out of the 200 (22.5%) - Unfair

[soysauce]

Have you been to Wales? I don't want to come across as offensive towards the Welsh, I love Wales, but England and Wales aren't too dissimilar. Obviously they have their symbols, their language, and their accents, they usually kick our arses at rugby too and we have a fierce but friendly rivalry with them, but when you cross the border into Wales other than the accents and road signs there its no different at all. Obviously they're Labour-leaning which makes them different from the English but they share our legal system and a lot of 'things' cover England and Wales.
If you'd read about their politics like I've been doing recently you'd find that they're in favour of the union, there aren't many politicians there calling for independence. Even Plaid Cymru aren't aiming for independence (although their leader has said she'd favour it in the past but has no idea how it's economy would function). Like I've also said to you a few times, their First Minister has been critical of the SNP.

Your references to Wales are quite irrelevant, it's akin to this argument against Women's right to vote: "she doesn't want to vote, why should you?"
Why does Wales's dislike of independence matter to Scotland?

Soy, if England was 'throwing' around the other countries they'd have been calling for independence years ago. Other than the SNP and obviously Sinn Fein I don't hear any mainstream politicians calling for independence for their countries, or saying that England having more seats because it has a significantly higher population than the other countries is unfair.

I'd argue that with 68 members of the Scottish parliament being in support for independence at least that Independence is a mainstream idea in Scotland.
We called for devolution years ago, we didn't get it, then we got it, then we increased our level of devolution, then we did it again,
We've been making an effort to stop being thrown about by Westminster for years, we didn't just come up with the idea overnight...

America's House of Representatives takes population into consideration, I'm sure most other countries parliaments/lower chambers are the same. My Senate idea is based on America's senate idea, a forum where the states can be treated equally. I don't know whether you support my Senate idea or not, but I do think it'd solve your concerns.

It's better than the current system I guess, but if you have an unfair influence than you shouldn't be compensated for losing it.

What system are you talking about?
The English population physically dominates the UK. The only way to stop that is to reduce the value of their votes, and increase the value of the votes of the smaller regions.This means that an Englishman will have less say on the union level than a Scot, just because Scotland is smaller.

I wouldn't say it's the only way of doing it, for example Jack proposed a UK senate idea that could help and I'm sure there's countless other ways of doing it.
What made you think that the only way would be to reduce the value of votes?

[Siggon Kristov]

The English population physically dominates the UK. The only way to stop that is to reduce the value of their votes, and increase the value of the votes of the smaller regions.This means that an Englishman will have less say on the union level than a Scot, just because Scotland is smaller.

I wouldn't say it's the only way of doing it, for example Jack proposed a UK senate idea that could help and I'm sure there's countless other ways of doing it.
What made you think that the only way would be to reduce the value of votes?

Jack's Senate idea was in reference to specifically the upper house. He admitted that the House of Commons would still remain dominated by England, when EEL raised the point that it would be unfair for all countries to have the same number of seats.

In my view the House of Lords would have to become a Senate based on the US Senate where each member-state elects the same number of Senators (say 50 each). That'd be fairer too.

I don't believe that that'd be fair, considering that England has the vast bulk of the UK's population. With nearly twenty times the population of Wales, under your proposal, it would have the same representation.

The House of Commons' constituencies would still remain the same, with the vast majority of MPs representing English constituencies.

Even if it was in reference to the lower house (or entire parliament), it would, as I just demonstrated, reduce the value of the votes by giving each country an equal number of seats.
Let's backtrack...

Let's say a federation has 100,000,000 people.
60,000,000 are from Nation A.
20,000,000 are from Nation B.
12,000,000 are from Nation C.
8,000,000 are from Nation D.

Let's say the legislature had 200 seats; I'd say to distribute seats like this:
Nation A - 120 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation B - 40 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation C - 24 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Nation D - 16 seats (1 seat per 1,000,000 citizens)
Each citizen's vote would be valued the same on the federal/union level.

If we distributed the seats equally, it would look like this:
Nation A - 50 seats (1 seat per 1,200,000 citizens)
Nation B - 50 seats (1 seat per 400,000 citizens)
Nation C - 50 seats (1 seat per 240,000 citizens)
Nation D - 50 seats (1 seat per 160,000 citizens)
A citizen of Nation C would have a vote that is 5 times more valuable than a citizen of Nation A. That would be unfair.

--

A party could have 60% support from Nation A, while having about 10% support from each of the other nations. This is about 40% support overall.

If the seats were distributed proportionally, the party would end up with:
72 seats from Nation A
4 seats from Nation B
2 seats from Nation C
1 seat from Nation D
79 seats in total, out of the 200 (39.5%) - Fair

If the seats were distributed to give al nations equal seats, the party would end up with:
30 seats from Nation A
5 seats from Nation B
5 seats from Nation C
5 seats from Nation D
45 seats in total, out of the 200 (22.5%) - Unfair

Now, in my example, Nation A only accounts for 60% of the population of the federation. In the UK, England accounts for over 80%; this means its population is 400% of all the other nations combined. If things are done proportionally, England will dominate the parliament.

Even in Jack's idea:
England: 533 HoC seats plus 50 Senate seats
Scotland: 59 HoC seats plus 50 Senate seats
Wales: 40 HoC seats plus 50 Senate seats
Northern Ireland: 18 HoC seats plus 50 Senate seats

England still dominates, and Jack recognised this.

[soysauce]

Jack's Senate idea was in reference to specifically the upper house. He admitted that the House of Commons would still remain dominated by England, when EEL raised the point that it would be unfair for all countries to have the same number of seats.

None the less it is a solution, thus proving that the "only solution" is not:

to reduce the value of their (English) votes,

There's no reason that a solution must include both houses or in fact any of the houses, an increase in devolved powers might be enough.

Let's say a federation has 100,000...
...(22.5%) - Unfair

I understand the maths, and I never proposed doing it that way,

[Siggon Kristov]

Jack's Senate idea was in reference to specifically the upper house. He admitted that the House of Commons would still remain dominated by England, when EEL raised the point that it would be unfair for all countries to have the same number of seats.

None the less it is a solution, thus proving that the "only solution" is not:

to reduce the value of their (English) votes,

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

The English population physically dominates the UK. The only way to stop that is to reduce the value of their votes

^ I believe this is what you have been complaining about.
Jack's solution doesn't prevent the parliament from being dominated by England, so it's not a solution. You still haven't presented a solution to English domination, without undermining English votes.

There's no reason that a solution must include both houses or in fact any of the houses, an increase in devolved powers might be enough.

Let's say a federation has 100,000...
...(22.5%) - Unfair

I understand the maths, and I never proposed doing it that way,

But Jack did, and you claimed it was a solution that proved that the only solution isn't to reduce the value of English votes. You can look at it that way, or as not much of a solution at all since the English will still dominate the House of Commons.

[soysauce]

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

OR allocate seats in the lords equally between nations so that any nation can make putting through a bill a nation objects you quite difficult, that's what I was trying to explain to you.

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

As Above

Jack's solution doesn't prevent the parliament from being dominated by England, so it's not a solution. You still haven't presented a solution to English domination, without undermining English votes.

There's two houses of parliament, the Commons and the Lords, you of all people should know that.
IF you allocated lords seats equally by country then for example Scotland could delay or in conjunction with an other country stop bills from passing, therefore combating the effect of English domination.

[Siggon Kristov]

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

OR allocate seats in the lords equally between nations so that any nation can make putting through a bill a nation objects you quite difficult, that's what I was trying to explain to you.

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

As Above

But that is undermining the English population and the value of their votes, since the House of Lords can't just be switched up like you suggest. A new body would have to be the upper house, and its members would have to be elected in some way which you haven't outlined/discussed yet.

Jack's solution doesn't prevent the parliament from being dominated by England, so it's not a solution. You still haven't presented a solution to English domination, without undermining English votes.

There's two houses of parliament, the Commons and the Lords, you of all people should know that.

I do, and I did mention it, didn't I? Don't be an ass now.

IF you allocated lords seats equally by country then for example Scotland could delay or in conjunction with an other country stop bills from passing, therefore combating the effect of English domination.

It wouldn't be the House of Lords anymore, since it wouldn't be about estates. It would more be of the Senate idea that Jack had.
Even with the Senate idea, you're just undermining the English population by giving the smaller ones more say in the upper house. A nation has over 80% of the union's population, and only gets 25% of the seats; that's unfair. The only way it would be fair is if, as EEL mentioned while he and Jack were discussing Jack's senate idea, the upper house never had that much power.