***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 01:29
|
I think we are all becoming numbed by it now.
One scenario that no one seems to have raised is that there might be a marginal YES vote, but the ensuing financial crisis may require measures that gradually make actual implementation of the vote less and less possible to pursue.
Perhaps there might be electoral backlashes at the chaos in Scotland and the UK generally.
If there was a hardening of Westminster MPs' attitudes not to pass the legislation, and Salmon lost a vote of confidence and his government fell, it would be back to square one and a lot of tears.
|
Interesting segment in BBC R4 Broadcasting House. Interview with a Scots family where Dad was no, Mum undecided and daughter one of the 16-18 first time voters.
Daughter's take on Nicola Sturgeon was straight. Described her as a nippy sweety, Scots vernacular for a sharp tongued and spiteful woman. Exactly same judgement as my former colleague Paul now returned home to Fifie.
|
Somewhat O.T., but a generalised thought from Janet Daley about lack of trust in politicians.
tinyurl.com/pe34j4l (Daily Telegraph)
|
|
Clearly an astute young lady. On the debate the other night she came across as a bully in the way she constantly overtalked the opposition even Galloway. I'm surprised someone did not take her behaviour to task and score some points.
|
>> Clearly an astute young lady.
No spring chicken, 44 I think.
Would it be lowering the tone of the debate to say that something sounds fishy about both Salmond and Sturgeon?
Salmon has very cleverly, and destructively, culivated the seeds of resentment - I heard a Yes campaigner on the BBC news channel this morning saying he accepted the 'better together' arguments, but he couldn't help thinking he is missing an opportunity and that Scotland as part of the UK is somehow being "done over". I paraphrase, I didn't get the exact words - he was nailing a Yes placard to a gate at the time, if anyone else saw it.
I'd rather Scotland remained in the union, it must be a step backwards to split. But things have gone too far now. If there's a no vote, the whining will continue anyway and the bribes promised to Scotland will lead to campaigns from other regions, especially NI, Wales and the north of England.
So they may as well go, sad and wrong as I think it will be, it could be the least bad result.
Educated young Scots will continue to migrate south for jobs in greater numbers than they do now, when the defence and financial services jobs have gone; for every 5 Scots in Scotland there is one in England already.
Scotland could end up with its old and unskilled in a declining economy dependent on tourism - or possibly a tax haven for rich foreigners. Neither sounds like the Nationalist's dream.
Or they could find a lot of oil.
|
The air up here is surprisingly positive. There's a nice charge about the place. I was up just outside Stirling this morning, out in camping, hill walking and back-packer territory and it seemed to be the only topic to be overheard.
Yes or no, there were lots of smiles about. That was really encouraging. It's nice to be able to engage on extremely contentious issues but still retain a positive vibe.
Honesty, currency and the initial 10 years in the event of a yes are hot topics.
On the honesty point, i wonder if it's possible to have politicians who don't feel the need to put a spin on everything. To have a politician who feels they can come out with some bad news and not have it used against them as if it were some personal failure.
|
Anything can happen.It is a once in a lifetime decision for the Scots.
I still think many Scots will bottle out in the last minute and vote no.
|
|
Galloway is good value as a ranter (I particularly liked his peroration to a bemused US Senate Committee) but I was astonished at the articulateness and political awareness of the young audience. My lot at that age were mostly shut-in and incommunicative and I don't remember my own students being that much on the ball. Maybe it is a Scottish thing.
|
I think it is a Scottish thing they are very political aware I also saw the program.
Galloway came over a bit daft in my opinion.Going on about the war again.
|
If the Scots leave and make a pig's ear of it (which is certain given their economic policy),, I would strongly object to bailing them out..
The record of Scottish PMs of the UK - Blair and Brown - is hardly encouraging.
Good for foreign wars and spending wasting money.
Last edited by: madf on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 17:02
|
>> I was astonished at the articulateness and political awareness of the
>> young audience. My lot at that age were mostly shut-in and incommunicative and I don't
>> remember my own students being that much on the ball. Maybe it is a Scottish
>> thing.
I had some difficulty identifying daughter's and Mother's voices in interview mentioned above (listeninig while sorting the caravan for departure). Will need to listen again to be sure it was daughter talking but she too was articulate and clued up. Wondered what the London politicos suddenly there after last weekend's poll scare 'telling us how to vote' thought they were achieving.
Did nothing to shake my conviction that votes for 16-18yo is right and should be adopted in rest of UK.
Any Questions this weekend OTOH was a shockingly poor debate. Three Scots politicos, Tory, SNP and Labour plus female leader of a pro-devolution Scots business group. She was the only one who made any sense whatsoever.
Labour man kept going on about Scotland becoming a foreign country 'like Denmark' and what would happen if Danes wanted to share the pound. Even the First Minister of Wales is against sharing the pound he said.
Carwyn Jones, a Labour politician, toeing the party line, oodathortit?
|
>> Did nothing to shake my conviction that votes for 16-18yo is right and should be
>> adopted in rest of UK.
I saw it as a non too subtle brand of gerrymandering...because the young are more radical in thinking and idealistic...then reality sets in.
|
>> I saw it as a non too subtle brand of gerrymandering...because the young are more
>> radical in thinking and idealistic...then reality sets in.
No doubt the (small c) conservatives in late sixties said same of reform that allowed you and I to vote at 18.
|
>> No doubt the (small c) conservatives in late sixties said same of reform that allowed
>> you and I to vote at 18.
Yes, I agree ..and women in the past.
It's just that these circumstances, it smells fishy....like a great big salmond.
|
>> It's just that these circumstances, it smells fishy....like a great big salmond.
>>
Or Sturgeon ......Caviar anyone ?
|
>>
>> >> It's just that these circumstances, it smells fishy....like a great big salmond.
>> >>
>>
>> Or Sturgeon ......Caviar anyone ?
I did that joke at 13.29, and I don't think it was original then:)
|
>> >> Did nothing to shake my conviction that votes for 16-18yo is right and should
>> be
>> >> adopted in rest of UK.
>>
>> I saw it as a non too subtle brand of gerrymandering...because the young are more
>> radical in thinking and idealistic...then reality sets in.
Spot on.
|
"Did nothing to shake my conviction that votes for 16-18yo is right and should be adopted in rest of UK."
Quite! And why not 14-16yo? In fact, I was pretty bright at 10 - so why not 10yo?
|
|
Voting rights should start as soon as you start work and start paying income tax. Voting gives you the right (in theory anyway) to say how country income is spent, you don't put up your share, you don't have any rights on how its spent.
|
>> Voting rights should start as soon as you start work and start paying income tax.
>> Voting gives you the right (in theory anyway) to say how country income is spent,
>> you don't put up your share, you don't have any rights on how its spent.
Agree 100% with with this in principle, but given that one in four under 25's in the UK nowadays is unemployed, it might not be quite that simple in practice.
|
Not sure I care whether the voting age is 16 or 18 or whatever but I think it should be mandatory to pass a basic test/exam before being permitted to vote. A random ( to avoid rehearsal ) multiple choice tick box at the top of each ballot paper would suffice. Simple basic questions which serve only to establish that the voter actually understands and grasps the key elements of each of the party's manifestos but which in no way support or denigrate them.
Try this little excercise, find an ardent lifelong supporter of X party and ask them to give you 3 current examples of their policies as expressed on their chosen party's manifesto. Usually they struggle. But they are still allowed to vote.
Only those who can prove they know what they are voting for should have their's counted. Too many vote "X" because they always have, or their family always have without ever considering whether "X" is the party which actually best represents their own views.
|
>> Agree 100% with with this in principle, but given that one in four under 25's
>> in the UK nowadays is unemployed, it might not be quite that simple in practice.
Its very simple. they don't get a vote.
|
|
Does that also count for retired people then?
|
It's a pity that those in the South of England see Scotland as being a country of unemployed, alcoholic, ranting communists.
The reality is that it has a lower unemployment rate and higher GDP than the rest of the UK.
Zero's just peeved at the thought of rUK having to find another £8-10bn (and the rest..) to pay for HS2.
|
>> It's a pity that those in the South of England see Scotland as being a
>> country of unemployed, alcoholic, ranting communists.
They are not that... but they are basically a socialist country, based on the main two political parties that consistently take the vast majority of the votes
>>
>> The reality is that it has a lower unemployment rate
Yes, because so many people are employed by the State
|
>>because so many people are employed by the State
21.2% for Q1. 2014 apparently compared with 18.0% (5.41m out of 30.5m) for UK as a whole, and over 25% for Wales and NI.
English college staff were taken out of the figures a couple of years ago, and privatised cleaners/ancillary staff in schools/hospitals too (despite working wholly in education and the NHS), so I'm not sure how the 'real' figures would look.
Also Lloyds Bank workers and Royal Mail have been shifted from public to private at the end of 2013 - again I'm not sure what effect that may have had....
Damn those smaller class sizes and higher number of doctors and nurses per capita.
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/1955
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pse/public-sector-employment/q1-2014/stb-pse-2014-q1.html
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/number-general-practitioners-1000-population
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/nurses-whole-time-equivalent-1000-population
etc.
The SE England benefits to some extent from economies of scale (higher population in a given area compared to more rural/less dense populations)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 21:02
|
>> It's a pity that those in the South of England see Scotland as being a
>> country of unemployed, alcoholic, ranting communists.
Didn't say that, but you got 1 out of three right
>> Zero's just peeved at the thought of rUK having to find another £8-10bn (and the
>> rest..) to pay for HS2.
I am peeved at constantly listening to Salmond running down the english, turning everything into an anti tory rant, and blaming everything on us south of the border. You want him you can have him. Please leave and take him with you.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 21:13
|
|
And I am peed off you lot didn't leave before you inflicted Lulu and Sheena Easton on us. Make sure you take them with you.
|
>>
>> I am peeved at constantly listening to Salmond running down the english, turning everything into
>> an anti tory rant, and blaming everything on us south of the border. You want
>> him you can have him. Please leave and take him with you.
>>
What many forget is that Salmond was chucked out of the SNP for being a far left extremist many years ago, about the same time as he was given the shove by his English girlfriend, this may give an insight into his anti English shoulder chip.
|
>> It's a pity that those in the South of England see Scotland as being a
>> country of unemployed, alcoholic, ranting communists.
>>
>> The reality is that it has a lower unemployment rate and higher GDP than the
>> rest of the UK.
>>
>> Zero's just peeved at the thought of rUK having to find another £8-10bn (and the
>> rest..) to pay for HS2.
HS2 - another vanity project, for which we all have to pay, with little benefit for most.
|
>> HS2 - another vanity project, for which we all have to pay, with little benefit
>> for most.
Needs another thread but the current mainline railways out of London are full. Trains are as big/long as they can be. Trying to lengthen platforms and enlarge tunnels while keeping the commuters commuting is impossible.
New railway needed. Costs no more to build it for 180 or 200 mph than current speeds.
|
Ah good old Londoncentricity.
|
>> Ah good old Londoncentricity.
The line is needed to spread the centricity about. But don't worry, it stops short of the border.
|
£80bn?
I hope that that actually adds net value to Birmingham/Manchester etc rather than simply re-distributing money from London.
Apparently with London at around 9 million people, the second and third cities in the UK should be around 4.5m and 3m according to something I read somewhere a few days ago (stunning evidence basis there I know).
|
>> Ah good old Londoncentricity.
>>
When the trams in Edinburgh are full the same logic will apply.
|
>>When the trams in Edinburgh are full the same logic will apply.
Just under £1bn to have trams running on the no. 23 bus route - VFM...
Could've bought 2 Holyroods for that...
or 1/12 of an NHS IT scheme that was 'dismantled'
or a chunk of a national ID card scheme
etc
Makes the £290m Borders rail link look like a bargain.
|
>> Ah good old Londoncentricity.
It's the centre whether you like it or not Lygonos.
Lagos is the capital of Nigeria for all practical purposes, although it's down in one corner and there's an official Brasilia-style official capital somewhere more sensible... except it's sort of in the middle of nowhere like Brasilia.
HS2 looks an utterly stupid idea to me. Only big building contractors stand to gain, no one else. And it will trash countless thousands of virgin acres quite apart from all the enormous urban confusion and rebuilding.
Beeching tried to destroy this country's comprehensive rail network but didn't really succeed. The necessary bits can be restored. If you want to go at 200 in a train - it isn't very exciting actually - you can take the Euro thing. There's no need for it here. Just a bunch of damn self-important boxwallahs making impertinent demands on the taxpayer. Let them get there in six hours instead of two and spend an agreeable night in a commercial hotel. Cheaper and nicer for all concerned. I'm sure Lygonos will agree (:o}).
Tchah!
|
>> Does that also count for retired people then?
And therein lies the massive contradiction in the 'no representation without taxation' argument; it boils down to an incredibly arrogant assertion that only taxes on income count and that tax is only contribution people make to society.
People on benefits still pay VAT and other duties and, under reforms by present govt, an increasing proportion of Council Tax. Arguably, they pay a larger proportion on their income in tax than the very well off.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 20:14
|
>> Does that also count for retired people then?
No because they have paid, and still pay tax
|
>> No because they have paid, and still pay tax
What planet are you on?
Most did pay (income) tax though there will be a fair number of wives/widows in older generation who either never did or didn't after marriage/childbirth. LOADS on only the state pension or state plus itsybitsy work pensions pay nil or at best a nugatory amount of income tax.
But see also my post pointing out there are taxes (and contribution to society) not related to income.
|
>> >> No because they have paid, and still pay tax
>>
>> What planet are you on?
The tax paying planet, remember us, the ones that paid your wages?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 21:19
|
>> The tax paying planet, remember us, the ones that paid your wages?
Even at 5 my kids were paying tax on the sweets bought with their pocket money.
|
>> >> The tax paying planet, remember us, the ones that paid your wages?
>>
>> Even at 5 my kids were paying tax on the sweets bought with their pocket
>> money.
i paid for their sweets - damn i was double taxed
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 14 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
>>The tax paying planet, remember us, the ones that paid your wages?
And what have the public services ever given us?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
|
>>
>> >>The tax paying planet, remember us, the ones that paid your wages?
>>
>> And what have the public services ever given us?
Potholes in the road
|
|
Must be an English thing - the smooth roads up here are paved with the gold Brown sold at a pittance.
|
>> Must be an English thing - the smooth roads up here are paved with the
>> gold Brown sold at a pittance.
That scotch fella
|
>> And what have the public services ever given us?
>>
I was a public servant.. and proud to have been so.. however I can still acknowledge I provided no income to the State, I was a net loss to the State (for a necessary reason).
You have to have a decent balance, so those that do generate income can pay for those that don't and you can't consistently tax the hell out of those that 'do' either, it doesn't work like that.
A 'yes' vote for Scotland will sadly (for them) have the inhabitants learn this the hard way.
There would be some hard times indeed, ahead.
|
>>you can't consistently tax the hell out of those that 'do' either, it doesn't work like that.
It's never worked like that - you tax the hell out of the middle earners, as them at the top can dodge it, and them at the bottom have nowt to tax.
And I don't think maintaining the rule of Law is a "net loss to the State"
|
>> And I don't think maintaining the rule of Law is a "net loss to the
>> State"
>
Its a UK PLC fixed cost
|
>> Its a UK PLC fixed cost
Yes, money fairly well spent. But please don't call our country that. It isn't some pathetic commercial firm (although it is a bit pathetic in some ways). It's far too huge, ancient and important for that reductionist name to be anything but an insult.
|
>> Its very simple. they don't get a vote.
>>
Something to be said for that of course, since the unemployed are not only not paying the taxes but generally in receipt of them. Lots of people seem to think that Labour sought to create a "client state" which is why so many people, working as well as unemployed, are on benefits.
On the other hand...well off people who can look after themselves aren't necessarily interested in paying tax for services they are going to choose and pay for themselves, such as education and medical care.
Tax is essentially about redistribution. Without it we would have untrammelled capitalism and nearly everybody would be poor.
I fear this would be a very unpleasant country if only the taxpayers could vote.
To the original point - Eck's promotion of 16-18 voting is just cynical manipulation of the system. But I do think that we should aim to extend the vote to younger people, provided that they are educated in what it's for and how to exercise it for the overall good.
No wonder voters of all ages are so easy to dupe. They have never had to give it any real thought, so many never have.
|
A poll taken of 16-18yo Scots not long after it was announced they'd be able to vote showed a very substantial majority would vote for remaining in the union.
As a gerrymandering exercise (which I expect was a major part of the SNPs desire to extend the franchise) it seemed a rather poor one back then.
|
>>
>> >> Agree 100% with with this in principle, but given that one in four under
>> 25's
>> >> in the UK nowadays is unemployed, it might not be quite that simple in
>> practice.
>>
>> Its very simple. they don't get a vote.
>>
Way to further disenfranchise and marginalise a generation.
|
>> Quite! And why not 14-16yo? In fact, I was pretty bright at 10 - so
>> why not 10yo?
You or I might have been 'safe' to buy/consume alcohol at 14.
The law has to draw line at a point where the majority have the capacity to manage actions/decisions. I'd say that for purpose of voting, as with issue of a driving license (albeit mopeds only), I'd say 16 is a reasonable point.
Ignoring which way they'd vote, which has nothing to do with principle, why should we not move to 16, still the age at which it's possible to leave education for employment, as voting age.
|
At sixteen I was to busy thinking about the other sex.(Kidding) <:)
We used to discuss politics at home from a young age.My father had a good job I suppose lower middle clas if class exist.
He had to pay for private insurance due to his salary above the threshold.The discussions where always very left wing oriented.Social Democrates I suppose.
|
Unashamedly stolen from a poster on Guido's page.
Hat-tip to "Vlad The Loud-Hailer".
RMS TITANIC UNION the film.
The cast
Gordon McRuin – the one eyed mad ships pilot.
Captain Darling -the quiet, reserved ship’s captain.
Call me Dave – the first officer responsible for deck chairs.
Nick Clogg – the cabin boy who specialises in towel folding.
Alex Almond – owner of the competing Blue Saltire Line.
The story so far: Alex Almond the evil owner of the competing Blue Saltire Line has given the Captain Darling a dodgy navigation chart that has fooled most of the crew in deliberately steering the ship onto the rocks, causing certain doom.
The terrifying one eyed ships pilot McRuin is clinging to the ships wheel, screaming abuse at Captain Darling and hurling his mobile phone around the bridge. Meanwhile on the top deck the first officer of deck chairs, Call me Dave is trying to line up the sun loungers in colour coordinate groups. Below decks, cabin boy Nick Clogg, whose towel folding skills delight first class cabin passengers is honing his skill in making a giraffe from a hand towel.
Will the great ship of state “RMS Titanic Union†hit the rocks and sink? Will Alex Almond pull off his greatest stunt and steer his Blue Saltire Line to success? Will McRuin manage to miss the rocks and hit the harbour wall? Will Captain Darling’s eyebrows turn white with the stress? Has Nick made a giraffe or is it a dodo? Has Call me Dave managed to pull off successfully merging the tope and light brown loungers in an inspiring floral arrangements?
So many questions, the answer and premier will happen Friday 19th September.
|
Excellent Roger whoever wrote this has a sense of humor.
The Great Ship Titanic will miss the rocks but is heading for a almighty storm.
|
|
Meanwhile the ageing matriarch of the shipping company is watching the news anxiously on what she calls "the Box". "Oh, do be careful boys!"
|
I don't think the union is seriously threatened, if only because the Scots on the whole love the English and vice versa.
In a pub once at the time of an England-Scotland game, I quoted to companions the chant I had heard in the street a little earlier from a bunch of footer fans: 'We hate Scotland, we hate Scotland!' Suddenly became aware that there were several blokes with saltires painted on their faces, glaring at me with satirical indignation. I assured them I had merely been quoting, but they obviously knew that already and were actually rather sweet. They were teasing me.
It's interesting. Only three days to go. Fingers crossed on all sides.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 15 Sep 14 at 13:12
|
I don't get to vote as I'm no longer living in Scotland but my own straw poll of Edinburgh residents today ( all by coincidence company directors or professionals by the by, so not totally dumb people ) by text shows a clear majority in favour of 'Yes'. I think I'd probably have been a marginal 'No' myself but only because independence still begs much clearer answers to many big and fundamental questions in my mind. If they were answered to my satisfaction I'd maybe have a different view.
My friends in Scotland mainly seem to think the unquestionable resultant pain of national divorce in the event of a 'Yes' majority will be long term worth it but all accept that in the short to medium term it'll be pretty tough.
As ever though, with any political scenario where there is only a marginal victory for either side, you are inevitably also left with nearly half the voting population who are not satisfied with the outcome, but unlike a General Election there would be little chance of reversing the situation in the near future.
Whichever way it falls, I sincerely hope it works out for all concerned. People are just people after all with much the same personal lives, hopes, and concerns no matter where they live or whatever their nationality.
|
|
Really? Have you ever been to Lancashire?
|
Hey...You ! Cheeky flippin' Tyke !
|
Joshua Rozenberg on the legal issues arising from the referendum:
www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/11/nine-legal-questions-scotland-yes-vote-joshua-rozenberg
Conclusion? This one could run and run.
|
|
Seems a bit hyperthetical to me. I think everyone knows it's not happening overnight. i'm sure it's technically possible that any vote could be ignored, it's not very likely at all.
|
Whatever the result, is it not time for Great Britain (or somewhat Smaller Britain) to have a written constitution?
What about an English parliament - not in London - but in one of our deprived regions?
The UK IS too Londoncentric.
|
|
No interest in more politicians, it'll end uplike the regional parliaments. Binned off.
|
Poll of the Falkirkbairn's immediate family
Household votes
Falkirkbairn - no
Son 1 yes
Son 2 cannot vote as moved abroad 2 mths agp
Son 3 no
On that basis it is 4 x No's to 2 x Yes with 2 frustrated non-voters (he is on the voter's roll but not resident and therefore not entitled to vote!)
|
>> Whatever the result, is it not time for Great Britain (or somewhat Smaller Britain) to
>> have a written constitution?
We have an excellent proxy constitution, at least so far as rights of citizen against state are concerned. It's called the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unfortunately politicians frit of being called to account and a media terrified of privacy and similar laws constantly misrepresent it's purpose. Every HRAa story that can be presented negatively is shouted from banner headlines while act's positive use, for example in recent ground breaking decisions of the family courts its role, evem where spelled out from the bench is simply ignored.
|
>> technically possible that any vote could be ignored, it's not very likely at
>> all.
>>
Unless there were to be a financial/political crisis and public backlash against the politicians north and south who brought it about.
|
>> Unless there were to be a financial/political crisis and public backlash against the politicians north
>> and south who brought it about.
If the outcome is Yes then it's only going to be so by the narrowest of margins. It wouldn't even need much of a crisis for the public to swing other way more decisively. Which makes Cameron's warnings about a 'permanent divorce' look a little silly.
Add in possibility of a Labour gov or coalition after next May, dependent for its majority on Lab and LD seats in Scotland, and prospect of a second 'confirmatory' referendum looks quite possible.
And if this can cause the sort of crisis of markets/confidence that some, including IMF, suggest what the hell do we think will happen when an EU referendum is in the balance or looks like being out?
|
I dont see, maybe im wrong. Those on the yes said are very vocal and organised. Whatever the win margin, I think it more likely to bring about a crisis if it were ignored.
Another referendum sounds like we'll keep asking until we get the right answer.
The markets I wouldn't expect more than a few jitters.
I acemdemical anyway I expect a no vote in the mid 50s %.
|
>>
>> Add in possibility of a Labour gov or coalition after next May, dependent for its
>> majority on Lab and LD seats in Scotland, and prospect of a second 'confirmatory' referendum
>> looks quite possible.
>>
And exasperated MPs might add a clause stipulating it had to have a 2/3 majority, as any sensible constitutional change should require anyway.
|
>> And exasperated MPs might add a clause stipulating it had to have a 2/3 majority,
>> as any sensible constitutional change should require anyway.
What goes around comes around.
There was a similar provision in the abortive 78/9 devolution legislation requiring support of 40% of electorate in referendum. The hurdle was not cleared (and Wales voyed against).
|
And exasperated MPs might add a clause stipulating it had to have a 2/3 majority, as any sensible constitutional change should require anyway.
But, to do it now would imply 'we'll keep moving the goalposts until you give the right answer'. And perhaps invite civil unrest.
|
5 pearls of Scottish wisdom to remember. . .
1. Money cannot buy happiness but somehow, it's more comfortable to cry in a
Mercedes Benz than on a bicycle.
2. Forgive your enemy but remember the b******'s name.
3. Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in
trouble again.
4. Many people are alive only because it's illegal to shoot them.
5. Alcohol does not solve any problem, but then neither does milk.
|
>>
>> But, to do it now would imply 'we'll keep moving the goalposts until you give
>> the right answer'. And perhaps invite civil unrest.
>>
Not necessarily. It might just be saying "We are fed up with hearing your whining on this subject, and even more frustrated by the fact that you can't even properly agree what you want. So go away, sort it out amongst yourselves, and come back when you have reached an agreement that 66% of you are happy with. Then, whatever it is, you can have it. Until then nothing changes."
|
>>Another referendum sounds like we'll keep asking until we get the right answer
Yes, because otherwise we will not be able to get over our "false consciousness ", Marxist jargon which could be rendered as, "If you don't agree with me - you're wrong!" and will vote the wrong way.
|
>> technically possible that any vote could be ignored, it's not very likely at
>> all.
>>
Unless there were to be a financial/political crisis and public backlash against the politicians north and south who brought it about.
Unless the Uk Govt used all its ahem powers to ahem make sure that when the votes were counted that it resulted in a No vote.
If its that cataclysmic a disaster if Scotland votes Yes then surely it could be justified to fix the vote?
Means to an end?
Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Princess Diana???
:)
|
|
Get your tinfoil hats here - roll up...
|
|
i am sure many Scots were abducted by aliens...:-)
|
>> i am sure many Scots were abducted by aliens...:-)
>>
Only till the Glasgow ones discovered there wisnae a bar on board :-)
|
Panic measures the Barnett formula won't change.
Yeah let's have another dram of Whiskey.Vote Yes and get it over with.>;)
|
|
I started out as a 'better together' sort of bloke but now I, along with friends who I've questioned, have had enough of this grovelling to the Jocks. Time to say Byeee!
|
>> I started out as a 'better together' sort of bloke but now I, along with
>> friends who I've questioned, have had enough of this grovelling to the Jocks. Time to
>> say Byeee!
>>
Wot he says 100%
|
What is this grovelling of which you speak? Do you mean the sudden late 'concessions' and today's letter to The Record from the '3 graces'?
If Cameron had been willing to offer 'Devo Max', or even Devo Midi, at outset and the 3 way referndum Salmond suggested all the hiatus of last couple of weeks could have been avoided.
|
>> What is this grovelling of which you speak? Do you mean the sudden late 'concessions'
>> and today's letter to The Record from the '3 graces'?
>>
>> If Cameron had been willing to offer 'Devo Max', or even Devo Midi, at outset
>> and the 3 way referndum Salmond suggested all the hiatus of last couple of weeks
>> could have been avoided.
so exactly WHY should the scotts be offered more local control than any other part of the union? will England get more control over our destiny by having out own parliament? NO we will still have to share it with the jocks. Devo Max means cake and eat it for them and them only. Either they want a union or they don't. If they don't - sod off.
|
Because Scotland and Wales (as with NI) are separate countries witihn a common kingdom.
Moaning about he fact that the 'West Lothian Question' remains un-tackled all but 40 years after it was first posed is just what-aboutery.
|
>> Because Scotland and Wales (as with NI) are separate countries witihn a common kingdom.
>>
>> Moaning about he fact that the 'West Lothian Question' remains un-tackled all but 40 years
>> after it was first posed is just what-aboutery.
>>
You haven't answered the question.
What makes a Scottish citizen more important than a Welsh one, Northern Irish one or an English one?...
...and if the the answer to the above is they are not more important, then why can't we all have the same privileges?
|
>> You haven't answered the question.
>>
>> What makes a Scottish citizen more important than a Welsh one, Northern Irish one or
>> an English one?...
I thought I had and don't understand the Scotland more important point.
NI and Wales have devolved assemblies too and administrative bodies to support them . Both have different devolution settlements from each other and from Scotland. Either can press for more devolution or a Scots style referendum on independence.
There is already a mechanism in the Wales Act whereby legislative 'competence' for a given policy area can be transferred from Westminster to Cardiff. There are odd anomalies though. Justice is not devolved to Cardiff. Except if justice is fulfilled by a tribunal and the policy area is devolved (say Education) then that aspect of justice is devolved......
Minefield alert for a Westminster Civil Servant.....
The issue with Scottish (and Welsh/NI) devolution is that MPs whose seats are in the devolved territories can still vote at Westminster on matters (such as Education which are devolved). Thus their votes determine policy in England while English MPs have no corresponding influence over Education in Scotland.
This is the 'West Lothian Question first posed by the eponymous MP Tam Dalyell during the 1977/8 devolution bill's proceedings.
If English MP's alone had votes at Westminster on England only issues the question would be resolved. Labour won't tsckle that because it will hobble them asa government and the current coalition cannot either because LD's hold half the seats in Scotland outwith the central belt.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Sep 14 at 21:04
|
>>Thus their votes determine policy in England while English MPs have no corresponding influence over Education in Scotland.
And to a reasonable observer this is a quite ludicrous and unfair position.
But as Bromp suggests, and I allude to elsewhere - this is an issue for the English to take Westminster to task over.
|
>> Because Scotland and Wales (as with NI) are separate countries witihn a common kingdom.
>>
>> Moaning about he fact that the 'West Lothian Question' remains un-tackled all but 40 years
>> after it was first posed is just what-aboutery.
Shirley that makes England a separate country within a common kingdom? Sauce for the goose, what?
|
>>Either they want a union or they don't. If they don't - sod off
Zero's (and others') repeated expression of their impotence in this matter is surely more a reflection of the lack of accountability in England between the political leaders and the populace over matters of constitution.
You can spout this line all you want but it's simply hot air and sour grapes.
Don't like it? Sort your own political order out.
As I've said previously, whatever the outcome of this referendum I hope that ultimately it leads to a transfer of power from London to the area ie. devolution of power to the regions of the UK.
And by devolution I mean devolution, not simply an extra layer of managerial politicians who still have to cowtow to Westminster.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 16 Sep 14 at 20:32
|
>> And by devolution I mean devolution,
And by definition that means watering down the total fund available, greater costs for all and eventually greater riches for london, because if you follow it to its natural conclusion London would get richer as that is where most people live and most of the money is generated. It would cause greater inequality.
Its going to cost, a LOT - that all of us have to pay for to give others the power to squabble over crumbs.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Sep 14 at 20:39
|
>> a reflection of the lack of accountability in England between the political leaders and the populace over matters of constitution.
What constitution? British constitution is a moveable feast comrade. There is accountability of course, in the form of elections, but that is a very blunt instrument really. Anyone can say anything they like about 'accountability'.
>> simply hot air and sour grapes.
All this 'if you don't like it, sod off' stuff? Football fan consciousness. Better than nothing.
>> And by devolution I mean devolution, not simply an extra layer of managerial politicians who still have to cowtow to Westminster.
Yeah but... there's quite a lot of fairly real and practical local government everywhere in the UK. Naturally everyone in the political world has to kowtow to Westminster (and Brussels, and God help us Washington). Stands to reason guv. Londoncentricity, remember? Heh heh...
|
We are going to end up in the UK (with or without Scotland) with a Labour Government who will find the call for an English Parliament - or restrictions on what bills Scots (and Welsh) MPs can vote on - very difficult to resist.
Meanwhile English Tory MPs are going to do their best to prove that they don't want to be the Government .
|
No longer reading the Gruaniad on train every day I'd missed this:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/sep/01/1
Keep following the next arrows.
Bell at his best.
|
Excellent Bromp!
Enjoyed the comment:
"Your country is lead by a government that includes Eric Pickles, and you're calling our boy fat ?"
replied to with:
"A government does not merely "include" Eric Pickles. Doorways have to be widened, foundations strengthened, and extra larders installed to take the strain."
|
Independence Vote - Vol 4 - ....
