***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 8 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 20:50
|
First result:
CLACKMANNANSHIRE RESULT
"No" wins by 19,036 to 16,350. The total number of ballots was 35,410, a turnout of 88.6%.
%wise thats 54% to 46%.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 01:35
|
And the second:
ORKNEY RESULT
No wins by 10,004 to 4,883, or 67% to 33%.
There was a turnout of 83.7%
I must get to bed!
|
|
It!s only 6.30 here in Vancouver. Watching on Film on
|
Looks like the Nos have it it the bag.
Interest here rather eclipsed by the vote as to whether the the teachers go back after a strike stretching back to the beginning of June. Results due at 9.30. Relations between local government and Union is abysmal. Canada is a strange place. A nice place to live in many ways but labour relations in some areas are like UK in the seventies. Very bureaucratic too.
|
55:45 for No. Just heard Salmond graciously deliver what amounted to his concession speech. He rightly says that the rate of participation is extraordinary and a huge credit to Scotland.
It's the right decision and those of us who believe in the Union can breathe again. Made us all think, though, which is probably a good thing.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 06:34
|
So that's it for 'a generation'. Thank goodness for that (although part of me wonders how long a Scottish generation is, given their historically shorter life expectancy ...).
|
Thread drift
Ru on holiday in BC CG? I flew to Seattle in March then drove to Revelstoke via Kamloops for some skiing. Returned thru Montana to CA. Beautiful part of the world....some friends are currently considering emigrating to BC.
|
|
I expect the SNP to revert to their standard political position, take the credit for anything remotely good and blame whoever is in power in London for everything else.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 07:11
|
Common sense prevailed. Good.
Just a shame the British government resorted to bribery, to the tune of a reported £13bn in the Grauniad at one point, during the final weeks of the campaign.
|
Well i am pleased about one thing, looking at Salmonds face this morning, he looks like someone has stood on his testicles.
Tho on second looks it could be well practised fake humility.
|
|
The bribes & threats worked - a foretaste of tactics if we ever get an EU IN/OUT referendum?
|
>> The bribes & threats worked - a foretaste of tactics if we ever get an
>> EU IN/OUT referendum?
Getting your excuses in a bit early aren't we?
|
Much has been made of the very high turnout, presumably as compared with that for an election. Of course this was not the same thing at all. At an ordinary election in many constituencies, most people can be fairly sure that their individual vote will make no difference. Here we had a close poll with very vote counting towards a single result.
Maybe this will turn out to have beena good thing if it brings about a federal UK. Devolution, Scottish in particular, started us down that road and with further devolution pending their is an obvious solution to the West Lothian question.
It's also the Tories only chance of wielding much power at a national level in the foreseeable future so no wonder Dave is quite keen to get on with it.
PR doesn't sound so bad in this context.
|
>> Tho on second looks it could be well practised fake humility.
>>
My thoughts too, I think he has got exactly what he wanted.
|
>> My thoughts too, I think he has got exactly what he wanted.
Absolutely no doubt about that!!!!
|
>> Well i am pleased about one thing, looking at Salmonds face this morning, he looks
>> like someone has stood on his testicles.
>>
>> Tho on second looks it could be well practised fake humility.
I was disappointed. I was fully expecting him to stand there all bitter and angry and blame everyone but himself. Instead, the odious little man came across as almost gracious.
But then as has been said before, he didn't have a hope in hell of delivering on his promises had the vote gone his way, so perhaps the package of bribes concessions handed out by Westminster in the last few weeks were exactly what he was angling for all along. Kind of best of both worlds in some respects.
|
"well practised fake humility."
I'm pretty sure he doesn't do the genuine sort.
|
>> I'm pretty sure he doesn't do the genuine sort.
Is there an active politician who does?
They get a bit more reflective once they're in the Lords.
|
>> I expect the SNP to revert to their standard political position
>>, take the credit for anything remotely good and blame whoever is in power in London for everything else.
>>
I listened to a Yes voter moaning about " We were lied to". How ironic.
I was a little confused when Salmon and later Swinney said 1.6M voted yes when the BBC figures said 153920. A nice bit adjustment
|
>> I expect the SNP to revert to their standard political position, take the credit for
>> anything remotely good and blame whoever is in power in London for everything else.
As opposed to blaming the EU or the bad stuff?
|
|
The biggest problem they had was Wee Willy - horrible little man. His links to the Murdoch empire were disclosed in the "Eye" this week. A complete little hypocrite.
|
>>A complete little hypocrite.>>
And would have been in a complete panic if he had won and rUK had pulled the plug on him, even if only slowly.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 11:04
|
>> The biggest problem they had was Wee Willy
Who is wee willy - I'm not Googling that term!
|
|
The correct term is Wee Eck (the Ego). Which is only deflated on the surface for temporary show.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 11:08
|
Turnout was interesting:
Turnout - which was 84.5% across Scotland - was generally higher in No areas than Yes areas.
Particular highs were recorded in East Dunbartonshire (91%), East Renfrewshire (90.4%) and Stirling (90.1%) - which rejected independence by 61.20%, 63.19% and 59.77% respectively.
Relatively fewer people went to the polls in the urban strongholds where Yes Scotland was relying upon large numbers of supporters to turn out - such as Glasgow, where the turnout was 75%, and Dundee, where the turnout was 78.8%. They voted in favour of independence by 53.49% and 57.35% respectively.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29223984
|
The BBC said earlier - I can't find the link - that there was a strong co-relation between areas of high unemployment and a high yes vote.
Extract from the link above:-
"The No vote also averaged 60% in councils where more than 30% of the population were professional and managerial, compared with 51% where less than 26% were in professional managerial occupations, he added."
A sweeping generalisation would say that better educated, more intelligent, employed Scots voted no. Less well educated, less intelligent, unemployed Scots voted yes.
As a generality, you understand.
|
The No win was clearer than predicted, but not as much of a landslide as it should have been.
Scots, known and acknowledged as such, are so densely interwoven with British history that it is crystal clear to anyone but a moron that the UK is one nation.
The two biggest beasts in the No campaign to name but two: the prime minister and his sometime predecessor Gordon Brown, two Scots of different types.
The image of the Act of Union is well worth a look. Signed by several dukes among other great and good, not all of them Scottish.
A Yes vote would have been perverse. Interesting, but perverse.
|
>>The No win was clearer than predicted
I think I was spot on ;-)
The 'Shy Tory Vote' effect worked in favour of the No vote.
The lower turnout in the lower socio-economic areas is probably a reflection of the fatalism and lack of engagement from those who feel they have nothing to lose/gain.
|
>> The lower turnout in the lower socio-economic areas is probably a reflection of the fatalism
>> and lack of engagement from those who feel they have nothing to lose/gain.
>>
The nothing to lose/gain plus reasons for staying under radar are factorss in not being on the Register as well as staying away on the day.
|
>> The No win was clearer than predicted
>> >> I think I was spot on ;-)
You were Lygonos. But I meant predicted by the yoohoo and shoveguv polls, which suggested a much closer result than that.
Why is everyone now set on lynching Alex Salmond? He doesn't seem any nastier or more immoral than anyone else in politics. Indeed just like the appalling Farage, he has an engaging side. You can disagree with someone without having to see them as a villain, surely?
|
>> The lower turnout in the lower socio-economic areas is probably a reflection of the fatalism
>> and lack of engagement from those who feel they have nothing to lose/gain. the pubs were still open.
|
|
Few pubs in Scotland, most drinking establishments are 'bars'.
|
I still can't understand what Scotland was really looking for!
They have separate laws, education system, free prescription, national holidays etc. etc.
What freedom they exactly wanted?
Conversely, if we live in United Kingdom, why we have different laws at different places?
There must uniform laws and rules for everyone in the UK.
|
>> There must uniform laws and rules for everyone in the UK.
Why?
One size fits all is, in reality, a garment that fits nobody.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 13:23
|
Why not?
A country [= UK] must treat all citizens equally.
|
>> Why not?
>>
>> A country [= UK] must treat all citizens equally.
But the UK isn't a country is it? It's a union of four different nations, each with their own history culture and language/dialect.
They should have freedom to deliver services in their own way, just as a rural county in England should have freedom to do things differently from London.
|
>> >> Why not?
>> >>
>> >> A country [= UK] must treat all citizens equally.
>>
>> But the UK isn't a country is it? It's a union of four different nations,
>> each with their own history culture and language/dialect.
>>
>> They should have freedom to deliver services in their own way, just as a rural
>> county in England should have freedom to do things differently from London.
>>
>.........and Great Britain should have freedom to do things differently from unrelated countries of the E.U. !
|
> >.........and Great Britain should have freedom to do things differently from unrelated countries of the
>> E.U. !
>
On the whole it does. How much of stuff in Queen's speech was EU driven? Not much meat this year 'cos it's dog end of a Parliament so look at least years too.
|
>> >.........and Great Britain should have freedom to do things differently from unrelated countries of the
>> E.U. !
We do, we blindly implement al the rules, the rest of Europe don't.
|
>> We do, we blindly implement al the rules, the rest of Europe don't.
Or they enact, and then ignore them (or if you prefer, they take a common sense approach!)
I have seen this at first hand. I once went to a seminar, on the then newly issued Insurance Mediation Directive, at the offices of some high powered London law firm.
There was a moment's silence at the end of the opening presentation, while everybody started to take in the quite wide ranging and onerous compliance obligations and risks. Then a voice said "Will they be implementing this in Greece?", followed by gales of laughter.
Later in the mid 2000s I did quite a lot of work in central and southern Europe, including Greece. and there was no sign of all the compliance we were doing in the UK. Even in Italy, where bureaucracy is a way of life, they seemed to find it all too much to bother with.
Unfortunately I had very little experience of France in that context, and none of Germany, both would have been interesting.
|
>>
>> We do, we blindly implement al the rules, the rest of Europe don't.
>>
Absolutely. The EU isn't the problem. The way we do the EU very much is.
|
>> >>
>> >> We do, we blindly implement al the rules, the rest of Europe don't.
>> >>
>>
>> Absolutely. The EU isn't the problem. The way we do the EU very much is.
Maybe in part. I have seen some gold plating, but I wouldn't say it's the major factor.
If the EU is producing directives and allowing other countries to treat them as optional, then it is definitely part of the problem
|
>> the prime minister and his sometime predecessor Gordon Brown, two Scots of different types.
According to my comic, the PM and GB have formed a warm cross-parliamentary friendship in the process of campaigning together for a No vote.
What they have most in common is having been head of government. One does tend to hang about with one's equals, while trying to be civil to everyone else...
|
>> What they have most in common is having been head of government. One does tend
>> to hang about with one's equals, while trying to be civil to everyone else...
>>
>>
It is often said that it's lonely at the top. Brown and Cameron have much in common in their personal history; both for example have had to bury their own children. It comes as no surprise to me that they have mutual empathy for all their political differences.
|
>> Brown and Cameron have much in common in their personal history; both for example have had to bury their own children.
Quite right Harleyman. I'd forgotten they had both lost children. Perhaps that's the real reason for the 'friendship'.
|
|
Win Win for Salmond. He has kept the Pound.
|
>> Win Win for Salmond. He has kept the Pound.
And poundland, they would have had to shut up shop.
|
Nice thread on PH. Go to page 1.
tinyurl.com/k258z5x
Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 14:33
|
>> Nice thread on PH. Go to page 1.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/k258z5x
Something similar (probably several iterations) doing rounds on FB.
|
Someone posted a link to the Grauniad cartoonist Steve Bell, Vote No or the bum gets it!
Despite occasional demented brilliance, to me Bell seems excessively po-faced and ideological. His Gillray-like disgust is justifiable in a way, but his expressions of it are so disgusting looking that the enterprise is counter-productive, anyway to a drooping sensitive lily like me. I feel the same about Gillray actually.
|
|
Alec Salmond is standing down as leader of the SNP and First Minister, report in progress. (BBC Scotland).
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 16:34
|
And, on a lighter note, and from the same source, a bit of good news.
"The Tartan Army is fed up. Fans of Scotland's national football team have decided there is little point in singing Flower of Scotland, their anthem, at Ibrox.
One Scotland fan pointed out: "How can we possibly sing Flower of Scotland when it contains the ridiculous line of 'But we can still rise now and be the nation again'?" "
Thank God for that. Dreadful dirge.
|
>> Dreadful dirge.
I don't think any of them are Scots, but the Rolling Stones wrote a good lyric that could serve as a Jock anthem:
Let's drink to the hard-working people
Let's drink to the lonely at birth
Let's drink to the two thousand million*
Let's drink to the salt of the earth...
*Er... world population has more or less doubled since the song was written. What's the matter with the idiots, breeding like flies (of course I mean humans, not the Caledonian subgroup)?
|
>> Let's drink to the hard-working people
>> Let's drink to the lonely at birth
>> Let's drink to the two thousand million*
>> Let's drink to the salt of the earth...
Don't think me offensive if I underline that, apart from all the salt-of-the-earth hard-working prole stuff, the 'Let's drink...' theme seems very appropriate.
The phrase 'lonely at birth' is very telling, absolutely brilliant actually. Bleak, bleak, like bits of Scotland. Someone in the Stones was touched with genius.
|
>> Alec Salmond is standing down as leader of the SNP and First Minister, report in
>> progress. (BBC Scotland).
>>
A fish out of the water.
|
Whether it was all published in the Guardian I don't know, but I found a link to a lot of Steve Bell comic strips, many featuring Alex Salmond in a long cod-dialect song. A high point was Bell's rhyme for Rupert Murdoch: '... a turd. Och!'
Tee heeee...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 14:02
|
>> And poundland, they would have had to shut up shop.
>>
Yes, Groat-land doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
|
Do you think it will be a mess O.N.?
If the yes had won Cameron would have had wobbly legs and taking up his bank job at J.P Morgan..;)
|
>> Do you think it will be a mess O.N.?
>>
I think he has created a UK wide mess, if the Yes lot had won it would have been mainly a Scottish mess.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 17:42
|
Lord Salmond of Kirrimuir?
Bribes can go both ways, innit?
|
>> I think he has created a UK wide mess, if the Yes lot had won it would have been mainly a Scottish mess.
It wouldn't have been more of a mess than usual anywhere, whatever happened. Where are these 'messes' ON? You're imagining things.
|
|
Do you think that the English politicians will allow more powers (money) to go North without a fight, they are looking over their shoulders at their voters (jobs). The West Lothian problem has surfaced again. Labour will love that one, it would make them unelectable.
|
>>The West Lothian problem has surfaced again. Labour will love that one, it would make them unelectable.
Do you mean incapable of being elected? That isn't true either. Only (off the top of my head) in 1955 and 1974 (twice) has Scotland changed the flavour of Government we have had.
|
|
So if all the MPs from NI, Wales, and Scotland are not allowed to vote on English matters it won't make any difference to the outcome in the English parliament. The Genie is out of the bottle, this is now about more than just a few Jocks. Who is next for more power, the English regions and cities?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 18:34
|
>> The Genie is out of the bottle, this is now about more than just a few Jocks. Who is next for more power, the English regions and cities?
Ah, see what you mean, endless dreary faff about constitutional change. But surely that doesn't constitute a 'mess'? There's always a whole lot of dreary faff about pretty well everything. Business as usual really.
|
So gerrymandering it was then
t.co/lnFap4E3Pm
|
>> So gerrymandering it was then
>>
>> t.co/lnFap4E3Pm
He only got that half right, should have taken the vote away from the over 55's
|
Make that 40+ then you'be remove those who are 50%+ through their working lives, mortgaged, pensioned (invested enough to make it smart if it was lost) then you'd have a shout.
Has anyone posted the football analogy?
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 19:44
|
|
He is not daft, he knew just how much he could push the gerrymandering.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 19:50
|
>> So gerrymandering it was then
>>
>> t.co/lnFap4E3Pm
There's a delicious irony in Ashcroft, another millionaire tax exile, being regarded as providing a reliable account on UK politics.
And as I said two volumes ago it's either right to give 16-18 yo folks the vote or it's not. The result is you politically engage them. FWIW all parties in Scotland bar the Tories favoured the move.
It should now be progressed in RoUK.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 19:52
|
>> It should now be progressed in RoUK.
Given how far off the 45-55% norm the 16-18 year olds were, I don't think so. In my mind what its done has confirmed they are far too out of line reactionary. As we all knew of course and why Salmon wanted them in.
|
>>
>> >> It should now be progressed in RoUK.
>> Given how far off the 45-55% norm the 16-18 year olds were, I don't think
>> so. In my mind what its done has confirmed they are far too out of
>> line reactionary. As we all knew of course and why Salmon wanted them in.
T'was always so. Idealism is a characteristic of youth. Few indeed are the people who move Left as they age.
|
As one of my colleagues put it today
If you are not a socialist at 18 you have no soul
If you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brain
|
Are you sure?
Any system which leads to the choice between the left leaning Labour party or further left leaning SNP (or Cuba with chilblains as was mentioned this week) might not be so attractive to everyone.
|
Looks like trouble brewing in George Square, (Glasgow). Yes, No, and Police.
It is Friday night, Glasgow party time. :)
|
Did Betfair payout before or after the Yes/No on that happening?
Roll on November for the Scotland v England friendly in Glasgow. The banter will be flowing that evening.
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 20:01
|
>>
>> And as I said two volumes ago it's either right to give 16-18 yo folks
>> the vote or it's not. The result is you politically engage them. FWIW all parties
>> in Scotland bar the Tories favoured the move.
>>
Apparently a straw poll conducted on the younger voters in city areas showed them 70% in favour of Yes. Take them out of the equation, and my guess is that a 60/40 No vote would have been the end result, which may well have finished the job for good.
That having been said, I was in favour of the teenagers voting; it would be they who had to deal with it in years to come, and only right that they should, by voting, take responsibility.
|
>> they who had to deal with it in years to come, and only right that
>> they should, by voting, take responsibility.
they have no idea of the meaning of the word.
|
>There's a delicious irony in Ashcroft, another millionaire tax exile, being regarded as providing
>a reliable account on UK politics.
Only the same "delicious irony" of a leftie retired civil servant attacking the messenger and not the veracity of the message.
|
>>
>> And as I said two volumes ago it's either right to give 16-18 yo folks
>> the vote or it's not. The result is you politically engage them. FWIW all parties
>> in Scotland bar the Tories favoured the move.
>>
>> It should now be progressed in RoUK.
>>
Certainly not!
To paraphrase:
If you're not old enough to die for your country, you're not old enough to vote for it.
|
>> If you're not old enough to die for your country, you're not old enough to
>> vote for it.
Plenty 'died for their country' way under 18 in Blitz etc. Same in Palestine, Israel and points northtoday.
|
If anyone should be banned from voting, its the elderly who will not live long enough to face the consequences of their vote.
Well done to Scotland for harnessing he energies and interest of a huge proportion of the 16-18 years old into the world of politics and and seeing at first hand how the system works.
I cannot see anything other than positive about this.
The ones that complain will be the corrupt politicians who take the back handers, the honours, the contracts and who cannot justify this to innocent idealistic teenagers.
|
>> If anyone should be banned from voting, its the elderly who will not live long
>> enough to face the consequences of their vote.
>>
While we're at it let's have a review of public sector pensions 50% reduction to start with. We're all in this together let's not forget. Austerity measures etc blah blah blah.
That'll happen the week after the EU referendum. You'll need deep lungs if you hold your breath.
|
>> Ordure/Fan
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29283104
Cameron had years to work through the scenarios around the devolution referendum including organising an agreement around Devo-max.
Instead he's making policy on hoof and looks more and more like a rabbit in the headlights.
|
>> >> Ordure/Fan
>> >>
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29283104
>>
>> Cameron had years to work through the scenarios around the devolution referendum including organising an
>> agreement around Devo-max.
>>
>> Instead he's making policy on hoof and looks more and more like a rabbit in
>> the headlights.
Or maybe he is taking the chance to destroy labours chance of getting power ever again by slicing up parliaments . If anyone has come out of this really badly it's the milliband
|
>> Or maybe he is taking the chance to destroy labours chance of getting power ever
>> again by slicing up parliaments . If anyone has come out of this really badly
>> it's the milliband
>>
Too right, can you imagine a future Labour government with a majority of say 40, who every time there's a vote on domestic English matters does not have a majority, because their 46 Scottish MP's that helped get them power, cannot vote.
No wonder Red Ed is squirming.
Cameron may well have played a blinder.
|
>>
>> Too right, can you imagine a future Labour government with a majority of say 40,
>> who every time there's a vote on domestic English matters does not have a majority,
>> because their 46 Scottish MP's that helped get them power, cannot vote.
>>
There will be lots of scope for challenging exactly what constitutes an England-only measure, and how much England-only element there has to be.
The quid pro quo of course would be Scotland, Welsh and NI related matters that would not affect England. Then there would be London-only measures, etc etc etc.
It all sounds like a can of worms. Picked up unthinkingly from the shelf because it was on special offer, now we are wondering whether it's safe to open it.
|
I don't see it as being too difficult. we managed it with Scotland/NI and wales. They all have had large (ish) powers as compared to the past. It might take a few commissions and a few years but I'm sure we'll get there. Other countries have devolved powers, not so sure now it's come to England's turn it's all being decried as 'too difficult' and 'best just leave it'.
Seems to me to be politics of one side, other forums I visit labour supporters seem to see it as plot to keep the tories in power (which it is in their interests to do so) and that it's terrible for country to unpick the WL question. I wonder if the boot was on the other foot, they'd be so keen for WL question to remain unanswered? I don't think I'd have to wonder for long...
|
>> It all sounds like a can of worms. Picked up unthinkingly from the shelf because
>> it was on special offer, now we are wondering whether it's safe to open it.
Which of course is why Labour didn't address it in the 1997/8 devolution round. It was simply reviewed and filed under 'too difficult'.
The coalition had the opportunity to allow 'devo-max' to be on the referendum ballot paper. It was what the Scots wanted but instead they decided to play hard ball and try to give Salmond a b***** nose by insisting on a one question Y/N referendum.
Only when the referendum got sticky did they suddenly decide further devolution was an option after all. No mention at that stage of tying it to anything in England - words used were along lines of 'as soon as possible'.
For Cameron then to appear in Downing Street yesterday Pres of USA stylee with lectern ans seal of office and say actually it's only on table as part of a package looks devious, opportunistic or both.
Can Bobby or Lygonos give us any clue as to how it's played with public in Scotland? I'd guess it confirms all the reasons why they might have voted Yes in first case
|
>> Only when the referendum got sticky did they suddenly decide further devolution was an option
>> after all. No mention at that stage of tying it to anything in England -
>> words used were along lines of 'as soon as possible'.
>>
>> For Cameron then to appear in Downing Street yesterday Pres of USA stylee with lectern
>> ans seal of office and say actually it's only on table as part of a
>> package looks devious, opportunistic or both.
>>
Not sure how you got to that conclusion? More powers for scotland would mean English only powers, the two are interlocked. How can we have more 'scotish only powers' and not have an increase in 'England only powers'? They'd follow each other like night and day.
|
|
The SCottish parliament already has a form of PR. Maybe it's logical to extend that across all UK parliaments, then the "government we did not elect" thing becomes a non-sequitur.
|
Don't get me wrong, the PM is angling to neutalise Labour's scottish MP's powers. But EM is just as bad, what's all that guff about English regional powers?
There was no mention of that anywhere it's equally as 'actually it's only on table as part of package looks devious, opportunistic or both. '
|
A quote from one of my facebook acquaintances:
"Probably for the best it was a NO vote. Right now the people of Glasgow are 1 percent of the population of the UK. Following independence Scotland would have had to contend with a population of mutants forming over 10 percent of the population of Scotland.
The 'Glasgow Question' is a real problem"
Fair comment.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29288249
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 07:48
|
>> >> Ordure/Fan
>> >>
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29283104
>>
>> Cameron had years to work through the scenarios around the devolution referendum including organising an
>> agreement around Devo-max.
>>
>> Instead he's making policy on hoof and looks more and more like a rabbit in
>> the headlights.
>>
As opposed to Labour who had 13 years in power and did nothing and now want a year to think about a policy...
(we can all make political points - none of which are helpful)
|
>> As opposed to Labour who had 13 years in power and did nothing and now
>> want a year to think about a policy...
Like most things the reality is that 'English MPs for English issues' isn't as easy as it sounds.
Bills as drafted at present will have multiple parts and schedules each with differing territorial application. It's been pointed out on radio this morning that there are West Lothian' type questions witihn England. Large segments of transport for example are, in London, devolved to the Mayor/GLA while in other metropolitan areas they still sit at Westminster.
A year and a constitutional convention to work it through still sounds like a tall order.
>> (we can all make political points - none of which are helpful)
>>
|
No great surprise www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29281819. He's hanging onto his MPs power. Sort out the WL question and he'll have loads of dead duck MPs.
I wonder how well Labour will do in Scotland now?
This makes him look stupid, just a few days after promising to honour the agreement he's gone back on his word.
|
I am better at conversation than to write words but I have a go.
Can't get my head round how this is going to work in future.A country in a country Scotland.The majority of the Scottish people vote no for independence.Can we now call Scotland a Province as part of the U.K.All these promises can't be met to the Scots how can the U.K afford it? We suppose to be up to our neck in debt.
This battle isn't over yet there be trouble ahead for years to come.Hope I am wrong.
Last edited by: Dutchie on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 10:24
|
From another forum:
Cameron is confirming every Scottish perception about manipulative English politicians who spend their whole lives playing self-interested games in which the Scots are the uncared-for pawns. A commitment was made to Scotland - it should be delivered on - this is a fairly crucial test of the integrity of the political system. The West Lothian question needs addressing, and Milliband is not seeking to avoid that. But it is Cameron who is trying to link the two on an unrealistic time scale, for his own selfish political benefit, and thereby jeopardise the entire process and the trust of anyone in the UK, not just the Scots, in our politicians.
|
The West Lothian question needs addressing, and Milliband
>> is not seeking to avoid that.
Wholely altruistic I'm sure...
|
Cameron has form in promising things on which he has not delivered.
Why should the Scots trust him on this?
|
>> The West Lothian question needs addressing, and Milliband
>> is not seeking to avoid that.
Yes he is, its the last thing he wants, its death to the labour party. He is visibly quaking in its boots after running away scared from that hostile Scottish rally. The SNP won power because the labour party cocked up, they have no answer to the improving economic question, and now they are about to loose what they thought were their safe seats and could win back.
Miliband is a jelly, a union patsy.
|
>> No great surprise www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29281819. He's hanging onto his MPs power. Sort out the WL question
>> and he'll have loads of dead duck MPs.
He's taking a reasonable position - nobody sought to link changes in Scotlasnd with English issues until after the referendum.
|
>> >> No great surprise www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29281819. He's hanging onto his MPs power. Sort out the WL
>> question
>> >> and he'll have loads of dead duck MPs.
>>
>> He's taking a reasonable position - nobody sought to link changes in Scotlasnd with English
>> issues until after the referendum.
>>
I'm sure his (future possibly) dead duck MPs never crossed his mind.
|
>> I'm sure his (future possibly) dead duck MPs never crossed his mind.
>
And conversely the prospect of hobbling them before they're even elected never crossed Cameron's.
As I said in a previous thread, and was confirmed by a civil servant giving evidence to a Commons committee, the coalition ordered the Civil Service not to consider any options post referendum.
The issues around solving West Lothian Q are actually complicated. To try and devise a bill dealing with them and pass it before next election risks the constitutional equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
|
>> >> I'm sure his (future possibly) dead duck MPs never crossed his mind.
>> >
>>
>> And conversely the prospect of hobbling them before they're even elected never crossed Cameron's.
>>
absolutly he is. Just amusing seeing DC painted as the opportunist and EM as the careful thinker. In realitu they are both playing the same game.
|
>> absolutly he is. Just amusing seeing DC painted as the opportunist and EM as the
>> careful thinker. In realitu they are both playing the same game.
Cameron is in Government and it is he who has, after the poll and contrary to anything and everything said before it, proposed to link Devo Max to changes in voting rights at Westminster. That's what look unprincipled. Miliband hasn't looked good during the campaign but it's difficult to see how he's equalling Cameron for duplicity just by saying 'hang on a minute'.
Just caught the last few minutes of Any Questions. Ken Clarke, one of our few more principled politicians, made a well argued case for the POV which says this stuff is too complicated to be done by press officers on the back of an envelope under pressuree from an impending General Election. Very difficult, he said, to determine what is truly an England only issue. For example, anothe panel member mentioned tuition fees being set at £9k for English students. That looks like an England only issue. But it's not because of the way it interplays with the 'Barnett' formula for determining Scotland's block grant from the Treasury.
(Joel) Barnett of course was a politician of the same era as Tam Dalyell who first posed the West Lothian Question. The fact that the formula, like the question, is largely unchanged/unanswered belies the real complexity and difficulty of a constitutional settlement for a quasi Federal UK.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 14:21
|
Its very easy.
1/ You decide what is "Federal" Defense, foreign policy, immigration, resources, shared services, federal tax rates (tax rates are set nationally - income tax, corporation tax, vat) for starters but there are others.
Devolved countries pay a % of that based on a formula (population/gdp etc) They can, if they wish and are brave or foolish add additional taxes (state sales tax say)
2/ Everything left is devolved, paid for by income tax / VAT / business from your population.
Education is not federal, it isn't now and does not need to be. Ditto NHS
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 14:37
|
>> Its very easy.
If it was they'd have solved it years ago. It might work in other federations like the US but I'd bet it's more complicated even there.
UK would be a very odd federation with something like 90% of its population in one constituent country - England. Furthermore, England itself is lopsided towards London and the SE.
|
>> >> Its very easy.
>>
>> If it was they'd have solved it years ago.
No they wouldn't, it didn't suit their purpose to upset the status quo. Now the cat is out of the bag its not going back.
Of course its skewed towards London and the south east, that why we object to too any formula that spreads the wealth elsewhere, where it wasn't earned. Give the scots their destiny and we aint prepared to do it any more.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 16:16
|
>> Of course its skewed towards London and the south east, that why we object to
>> too any formula that spreads the wealth elsewhere, where it wasn't earned. Give the scots
>> their destiny and we aint prepared to do it any more.
Ironical I hope. Capitalists in the SE don't make money, workers do.
|
>>
>> >> Of course its skewed towards London and the south east, that why we object
>> to
>> >> too any formula that spreads the wealth elsewhere, where it wasn't earned. Give the
>> scots
>> >> their destiny and we aint prepared to do it any more.
>>
>> Ironical I hope. Capitalists in the SE don't make money, workers do.
The money exists, and it spreads around those around it. I suggest you get back to your dark satanic mills.
|
>> Ironical I hope. Capitalists in the SE don't make money, workers do.
>>
+1
Here's another article about the WLQ, indicating that for a variety of reasons Govt had kicked tackling it into long grass as recently as June:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/29/plans-to-restrict-scottish-mps-voting-rights-scrapped
The 'two tier MP' issue opens a BOGOF offer on large cans of worms. Never mind issues over who can vote on seond reading or participate in a bill committee, could a Minister with a Scots seat advocate a course to the Cabinet if it affected only England?
Now even I'm not sufficiently cynical about the Tories to think they'd resurrect something abandoned because of -ve views in Scotland quite as soon as day after the plebiscite. The more I read the more I suspect Cameron has lost backwoodsmen his backbenches and fears that either he cannot get Devo Max through or, more likely, he might need Labour votes to do so. He hopes that by coupling it to English issues he might get the rebels back on board.
And wider thoughts of brother Rozenberg:
www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/19/west-lothian-question-english-votes-laws
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 20:00
|
>> >> Ironical I hope. Capitalists in the SE don't make money, workers do.
>> >>
>>
>> +1
+1? Thats a bit of a cheek from someone who spent a career spending it and not making it!
|
>> +1? Thats a bit of a cheek from someone who spent a career spending it
>> and not making it!
Merely an observation on behalf of the Proletariat!!
|
>> >> absolutly he is. Just amusing seeing DC painted as the opportunist and EM as
>> the
>> >> careful thinker. In realitu they are both playing the same game.
>>
>> but it's difficult to see how he's equalling Cameron for duplicity just by saying 'hang
>> on a minute'.
>>
>>
No I didn't think you would. Fair enough we've allgot a blind spot. Im not a great fan of either, I think most neutral eyes would would see lots of similarities between them. I do.
Btw im not having a dig, just an observation.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 14:43
|
Independence Vote - Vol 7 - Fullchat
