Occam’s Razor Will Give the Labour Party a Haircut

Constitutional reform is important. If Scotland can have its own Parliament and make its own laws then there can be no justification for Scottish Members of the UK Parliament being able to vote on laws that affect England, Wales or Northern Ireland exclusively. It is a simple point of principle that is easy to understand.

The easy solution to this has already been suggested; establish a convention under which, when in Parliament at Westminster, Scottish MPs would refrain from voting on any legal measures in respect of which legislative authority has been devolved to other bodies. That solution requires no legislation, no grand constitutional conference and no tax payers’ extra money. Occam and his razor would endorse the solution, even if it means that one political party has to suffer a haircut.

The opposition to such a convention comes from the Labour Party, who claims that there is something wrong about introducing it, although what is wrong with the principle the Labour leaders have failed to explain. In fact the reason that the Labour Party opposes such a simple convention operating is quite obvious. Such a convention would reduce the power of the Labour Party at Westminster over English affairs, because deprived of Scottish MPs votes, the Labour Party would not be in a position to challenge legislation purely affecting English affairs. In other words Labour would lose power if a more democratic system were to be introduced.

The alternative offered by the Labour Party is more devolution in England, after no doubt a series of expensive and time consuming delays. For some reason they consider this fair proposal to be unconsidered and partisan.

I have no allegiance to any political parties, but I do have regard for democracy. The present arrangements run counter to democracy and favour one political party in a way that cannot be justified. The true test of the democratic process is whether the democratic model adopted is fair. What is adopted at present is painstakingly unfair.

The West Lothian question was answered when the Scottish parliament was brought into being. It is one thing to answer a question by providing a solution, and quite another thing to adopt that solution, even if the solution is cost free and simple.

7 Responses

  1. http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/

    Why is David Craig wrong?

  2. Because his facts are wrong. Oceans are net absorbers of co2, not emitters. Land does not emit carbon dioxide except really slowly unless it is ploughed. Vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased with industrialisation.

    • Sorry to disagree but are his facts really wrong?

      His diagram shows that oceans emit 332 gt whilst absorbing 338 gt. That is a NET absorption. i.e he is saying oceans are net absorbers of CO2. (the same goes for vegetation and land). Unfortunately for clarity’s sake he did not also show how much fossil fuel burning and land use absorbs. Probably because it is next to zero.

      His point, however, is that these very large land and ocean processes continue whether or not humans produce CO2.

      I now quote: “As for little Britain. Britain accounts for about 1.4% of CO2 emissions due to human activity. That’s just an infintessimal 0.05% of total CO2 emissions. So if we really adhered to idiot Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act and reduced Britain’s CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, this wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it would just about shut down any form of activity in the UK.”

      You have said in an earlier blog that we should do something to lead the rest of the world.

      Are we Dodo’s?

    • http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html
      http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7478/full/nature12857.html
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
      I could go on…

    • on the substantive point, of course the climate change act will make no difference, and UK measures will make no difference because they are geared to financing renewable energy, as opposed to preventing excessive emissions of carbon dioxide. Thus we are financing wind turbines and PV without being able to store what they produce and will lose much of the benefits in slowing down and then having to speed up electricity generation by fossil fuel. Targets are idiotic when it comes to trying to solve this problem. We need agreed measures not targets and to keep competitive need to tax goods made in places where they do not restrain carbon dioxide by fossil fuel burning. I have no doubt that the 80% legal target will not be met and if it is not met what will they do? have a judicial review!

  3. My point is simple. The UK is not making a haperth of difference to climate change. Whether we burn coal or whether we shut up shop, it will not make any difference.

    But if we continue as we are under the Act we will become a technological and cultural backwater.

    We are, in effect, choosing extinction.

  4. Agreed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: