|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scotland post-vote
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
The previous thread was pre-vote.
Now that we know the decision, let's discuss the consequences for Scotland and for the UK as a whole.
Will life return to the way it was, or will this cause endless ripple effects? Will it lead to an earlier general election, for instance?
[tidy-up of thread title post H&As Day]
[ 20. September 2014, 22:08: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The immediate implication is that **** appears everywhere on **** of Fools (or is it only **mins and H**ts who are supposed to do that?).
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
There's a lot of talk already about possible knock-on effects in terms of greater levels of devolution on ***land having its own Parliament perhaps and issues about resolving the conundrum of ****t***, Welsh and Northern Ir*** MPs still being able to vote on specifically ***l*** affairs ...
Meanwhile, Cameron's positive name-check of the Welsh and how they can play a 'central' role in helping to determine or model how devolution can work within a revived Union context has met with derision and outrage from members of the Welsh Parliament ... how dare Cameron speak on their behalf without consulting them first ... ?
So, if the debate and speculation of what's not even been 24 hours yet is anything to go by then yes, there'll be plenty of ramifications for some considerable time to come.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems very unpredictable to me. Cameron is undoubtedly relieved at the no vote, but probably concerned that his MPs will haul him over the coals about promising increased powers.
* have heard people say that Labour has written its own suicide note, by helping the Tories - but you could also argue they have saved the Union!
Also the impending UKIP by-election. Who knows?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Salmond resigning is another element in the mix - come back in 6 months and ask! After all, it's quite possible we will return to normal apathy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
To those who propose parliaments for Wales, Northern Ireland, ***land, London, Manchester, Newcastle and all the ***l*** counties, * ask: how many parliaments, politicians and tiers of government do you want? * was a young man when West Lothian MP Tam Dalyell first asked the West Lotian question. Then, and later in the 90's * was an opponent of devolution because, as many politicians warned, it would lead, either to the break up of the UK, or to an unworkable chaos. Though * know that the genie was let out of the bottle 15 years ago, and will never go back, * think that view has proved right.
****land may have rejected * *******ence, but it will rightfully expect the devo-max that the Westminster politicians promised. Cameron, fearing that his own party will demand similar "freedom" for ***land says that, in tandem, he will introduce and ***land only legislature. Miliband is horrified by that idea, as he has more to lose if his ****t*** members can't vote. That wouldn't be costly or difficult to introduce, because Westminster could sit as an ***l*** parliament two days a week without ****s members, and as a UK parliament on other days. But imagine this potentially chaotic situation.
A UK parliament with a Labour majority. Quite possible next year. A ****t*** parliament with a SNP government. An ***l*** legislature with a Tory majority. Again quite likely. What answer would there be to such democratic gridlock? To extend further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland shouldn't be too difficult if the people there want it. But ***land is by far the biggest part of the UK. Do you give it national autonomy or regional autonomy? How much do you give it? And what relationship does it have to the "federal" UK government? Federal countries such as the USA or Germany may know how to deal with this, but we have little experience of it here, It's an experience * never wanted nor believed in, but one we must now learn to live with.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well, to quote Sir John Major: "If the answer is more politicians, you are asking the wrong question".
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Whatever they do, they have to avoid a situation in which it becomes impossible for the UK cabinet to have major positions held by non-***l*** MPs.
You can't really have the Chancellor also being the ***l*** finance minister - conflict of interest if he has to budget for the whole UK - and how do you then have a ****s, Welsh or Northern Ir*** Chancellor ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Triple Tiara:
Well, to quote Sir John Major: "If the answer is more politicians, you are asking the wrong question".
True. The simple answer is that they'll have to learn to work together. Might do some of them good.
The promises that Cameron made should be honoured. People voted to stay because of them. Besides, if they don't, we'll just end up with a redo in a few years time.
The promises made to the ***l***, Welsh and Northern Ir*** should be honoured as well. Otherwise it'll just cause yet more rUK v ****land ill feeling. Especially the West Lothian question. Just think, if we had resolved that, rUK kids wouldn't be paying university tuition fees either. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
We don't need more politicians, or more quangos. We do need more localised power - which means funded power, not just responsibility.
The less power that Westminster has, the better. In fact, the less power that politicians have, the better. They do tend to suck.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Rather unusually, * 'm in agreement with Ed Miliband over a very important issue. With Gordon Brown, whose intervention may have helped save the union, promising enhanced powers for Hollyrood, with the backing of the three main Westminster parties, it's absolutely essential that they deliver on those promises. This will undoubtedly lead to further devolution for ***land, Wales and Northern Ireland. But these changes don't have the same urgency as honouring the promises made to ****land.
For a start, there's no agreement on what sort of devolution ***land may want. Boris Johnson has suggested that London and other big cities get more powers and financial controls. Others favour regional controls such as the North East. Some would argue that only ***land itself, not it's regions, need financial freedom. Former attempts at devolution within ***land have all proved futile, though the idea may be better received today than it was a decade ago. It needs an in depth discussion and consultation, which can't possibly be complete before next year's general election.
So * would say to the government: go ahead and implement the promises made to the ****s. Then let's slowly and calmly assess how much, and what sort of devolution may be appropriate for the other parts of the UK.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This doesn't look like an auspicous start.
This doesn't look like an auspicious postscript either.
Divisive "business as usual"? It does seem to me to be essential to keep faith with the ref5rendum promises first. Sorting out some kind of E n g l ee s h devolution as well does look desirable, but there's no obvious short term timetable even to get started on that. The main parties want different outcomes and it is not easy to see any kind of workable compromise.
Good luck William Hague. If you thought Leader of the House was a nice way to bow out, think again.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
* thought the Blair administration had the correct answer to the West Lothian Question. It was another question. "What West Lothian Question?"
Apparently there have been three thousand votes in the House of Commons since devolution. ****t*** votes have been decisive in all of seven of them. One of these was the decision not to bomb Syria (Well done ****s MPs!) which, * assume, will not be a devolved matter. Incidentally the West Lothian question implies that ****t*** MPs get a vote on ****t*** matters and ***l*** MPs don't but ****t*** MPs get a vote on ***l*** matters. Actually, neither ****t*** or ***l*** MPs get a vote on devolved matters which is the prerogative of the ****t*** Assembly. They do get a vote on stuff that hasn't been devolved, which admittedly involves more ***l*** business but then the ***l*** are less keen on local government than the ****s and Welsh (c.f. the abject failure of regional assemblies, low turn out for council elections, police commissioners Ha! Ha! Ha! and so forth). Some people are talking as if a ****t*** MP could never again be Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer which rather makes a mockery of all this stuff about saving our precious union from the curse of nationalism.
* suggest fixing the mess left over from the ****t*** Referedum before any more gratuitous constitutional tinkering.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Gildas:
* suggest fixing the mess left over from the ****t*** Referedum before any more gratuitous constitutional tinkering.
Agreed. Unbundling and prioritising of aspirations is highly necessary. So is promise keeping. If that gives the Skots some kind of advantage for a while, so what?
[ 20. September 2014, 00:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's just raw politics now in London, it seems to me. Each party trying to work out some territory which it can control; thus, the Tories see the south as their natural hegemony; Labour some of the cities.
Amusing to see Cameron say 'let's come together'; yes, and split everything up into fiefdoms.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
Agreed. Unbundling and prioritising of aspirations is highly necessary. So is promise keeping. If that gives the Skots some kind of advantage for a while, so what?
The trivial fix - making sure that MPs elected from constituencies that have the power to control X devolved to a more local parliament don't get to vote on X for the rest of the UK - is straightforward to implement, and is a logical and moral no-brainer. Milliband opposes it because he wants to gain political advantage with the votes of his northerly colleagues, which is hardly surprising for Milliband. The SNP has, * understand, been quite consistent in abstaining from voting at Westminster on matters which have been devolved to Edinburgh, and * regard that as a principled and honest stance.
Discussions about whether E-country wants devolution to the regions or not will take much longer. The fairly toothless creations that were proposed by the Blair government did not enjoy popular support, and it is far from obvious to me that a new elected regional government scheme would prove any more popular.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
* think a part of the argument is that a party which has a UK majority would not have an E***land or rUK majority which might matter a lot if tax raising becomes devolved. No government can govern without control over revenue raising. Look at the mess the U.S. is in over such issues when control is split.
[ 20. September 2014, 08:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
Agreed. Unbundling and prioritising of aspirations is highly necessary. So is promise keeping. If that gives the Skots some kind of advantage for a while, so what?
The trivial fix - making sure that MPs elected from constituencies that have the power to control X devolved to a more local parliament don't get to vote on X for the rest of the UK - is straightforward to implement, and is a logical and moral no-brainer. Milliband opposes it because he wants to gain political advantage with the votes of his northerly colleagues, which is hardly surprising for Milliband. The SNP has, * understand, been quite consistent in abstaining from voting at Westminster on matters which have been devolved to Edinburgh, and * regard that as a principled and honest stance.
Discussions about whether E-country wants devolution to the regions or not will take much longer. The fairly toothless creations that were proposed by the Blair government did not enjoy popular support, and it is far from obvious to me that a new elected regional government scheme would prove any more popular.
So who does the ***l*** budget ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
No government can govern without control over revenue raising.
You could have an arrangement where the UK Treasury collects tax for the UK-wide expenditure (eg: defence) from the whole UK and for all other expenditure in ***land, Wales and NI. The ****t*** Government collects tax from ****land for ****t*** expenditure. There would be some bureaucratic paperwork (not least, in ****land we would have to pay two sets of tax), but it could work.
Until, that is, there is a situation where a UK budget is underspent and there's the question of where to redistribute that extra money. Or, where a UK budget goes over forecast and more money is needed. Though, * 'm not sure that's going to be much different from the government departments scrabbling around to protect their budgets when the total expenditure needs to be cut. Just with an extra player on the board, the Government north of the border.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sure, it's possible to sort out collection processes, but who determines the rates of taxation to cope with overspends and underspends? And who determines spending policies and prioritises UK overall interests versus e.g. purely Skots or purely Anglo or Welsh, or NI interests?
And what issues will count purely as "regional", what as UK national? * 'll bet that's not too easy a list to get agreement over.
The parallels with the US tugs of war over the Federal budget seem to have something to teach us.
Alan, David Cameron's coupling of Skots DMax with West Lothian and Barnet might very well turn out to be a strategy for wrong-footing Labour and delaying the promised DMax. * also suspect that if Gordon Brown is abandoned to 'twist in the wind', that might also be seen as a benefit.
Decoupling is the way to get DMax promptly; anything else looks like political chaos to me.
Just because EYE may be a bit paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get YOU.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
Sure, it's possible to sort out collection processes, but who determines the rates of taxation to cope with overspends and underspends? And who determines spending policies and prioritises UK overall interests versus e.g. purely Skots or purely Anglo or Welsh, or NI interests?
The question about what is national or regional spend will need to be defined by parliament in legislation for devomax. Then Westminster decides the budget in vote with all MPs, and tax level for whole UK follows.
Budget for north of the border defined at Holyrood, and for rUK at Westminster without MPs from north of the border and taxation levels follow.
quote:
Alan, David Cameron's coupling of Skots DMax with West Lothian and Barnet might very well turn out to be a strategy for wrong-footing Labour and delaying the promised DMax. * also suspect that if Gordon Brown is abandoned to 'twist in the wind', that might also be seen as a benefit.
Decoupling is the way to get DMax promptly
IMO devomax is going to come very slowly, and if left to Cameron to determine will be very unlikely to be what people north of the border expected. Devomax is uncertain as EU membership and other risky parts of the Yes campaign. Cameron may find convincing his party to be no easier than convincing EU governments. Salmond etal missed a trick not pointing that out.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
* suppose it may be a choice between slow and very very slow Alan. The greater danger is that wrangling over DMax despite promises is simply going to come across as 'perfidious Albion' - and as * think Alex Salmond has foreseen may reopen the Skots Indy box a heck of a lot quicker than was agreed in advance.
A new SNP leader trumpeting "we have been betrayed" will cleansweep Skotland at the next UK election, if indeed the Skots people believe they have been betrayed. Which won't bother Cameron nearly as much as Milliband or Clegg.
[He'll just transfer the blocking blame to them. And hasn't got a lot to lose anyway]
[ 20. September 2014, 11:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
There's a really good article by Irvine Welsh on the aftermath of the r*******um.
Irvine Welsh on the aftermath.
* (mostly) agree with him. Despite feeling rather down about he r*******um outcome (even though * never really believed it would be a Yes this time), * 'm excited to see what will happen in the general election. If the SNP makes gains, that would be fun.
[edited to correct link messed up by asterisks. tinyurl is my friend. B62]
[ 20. September 2014, 12:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by quetzalcoatl:
It's just raw politics now in London, it seems to me. Each party trying to work out some territory which it can control; thus, the Tories see the south as their natural hegemony; Labour some of the cities.
Amusing to see Cameron say 'let's come together'; yes, and split everything up into fiefdoms.
It'll all be talk until June 2015, ie after the May 2015 election. The "three major parties" are politicking away like mad already (eg, the promises of addition powers for Holyrood) and they are crapping themselves at the spectre of UKIP winning seats.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Sioni Sais:
they are crapping themselves at the spectre of UKIP winning seats.
Well, the Tories are. Labour are probably hoping UKIP will take enough votes to give them some seats, and probably wouldn't mind a couple of Tory seats going to UKIP if it gives them a lead.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
* think they are all crapping themselves, and beneath all the talk of constitutional reform, they all are aiming at the next election. So the aim is to win more seats for one's own party, and hopefully, shaft the other parties. So Cameron in his speech, was simultaneously hoping to exorcise the UKIP ghost, satisfy his MPs, who are angry at powers granted north of the border, and shaft Labour.
As he said, 'let's all come together'. Oh the irony.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Sooo...the Tories are quickly adding conditions thus backing out on the promises already.
There will be Referendum 2.0 in 9 years rather then 20, at this rate.
Tory apparatchiks might be thinking this situation is just like post general election where you have promised and then don't neccessarily have to follow through. But, a funny thing happens when you promise something in a referendum situation - people not only want you to do something, they get angry if you don't. And, then, if enough of them are angry, you get another vote.
rUK might want to hope for a Labour win the next time around cause if its Tory or UKIP involved, ya'll are going to be in for one bumpy ride.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
At present the Scottish Government has a lot of political capital. Of the 55% an unknown proportion voted in the expectation of further devolved powers. Difficult to know how many, but a conclusion that the majority of people in Scotland voted in favour of further powers for the Scottish Parliament (either independence or further devolution) is not unreasonable. The Scottish Government needs to use that capital to be down in London demanding further devolved powers, demanding the powers they want (and/or think the people of Scotland want them to have), and demanding a rapid implementation of those powers. Otherwise they're going to find themselves getting the minimum extra powers Westminster can get away with giving them, on a timescale that will be as slow as Westminster can manage while still appearing to make progress.
Although I appreciate Salmond felt it necessary to step down having failed to lead Scotland to independence, I am concerned that waiting until the SNP have elected a new leader and new First Minister before pushing the promised devolved powers could result in a loss in the momentum gained over the last few months.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I find it ironic, in the wake of all the criticism that the 'Yes' campaign hadn't a clearly articulated plan of what would happen after a vote for independence, that the 'No but we'll give you more devolution' campaign that abruptly arose in the last couple of weeks has already shown just how unclear its own ideas were.
If they don't sort themselves out quickly, I could see a portion of the Scottish electorate getting angry equally quickly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Speaking as an American, I am pleased Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. If it had voted to leave there would be repercussions here in North America. Our state, Texas,claims when it joined the United States it reserved the right to succeed at anytime. California also has that right, though I do not think they will ever leave.
Then there is Quebec in Canada.
I would hope Great Britain will move from a Unitary Parliament to a Federalist System, much like Canada's system.
The American system is way too complicated even for America.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I found myself wondering if Cameron's mentioning devolution to other parts of the UK, in his doorstep morning-after speech, was a ploy to delay increased devolution to Scotland.
I'm expecting this to come up in the next few months: "but we can't fulfill those campaign promises to you just yet, Scotland, because it seems like everyone should have the chance for what you have, but Northern Ireland AND Wales AND England haven't ALL made up their minds exactly how they want it to work in their country yet."
Where did such a sweet fluffy bunny like me ever learn to be so cynical?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I found myself wondering if Cameron's mentioning devolution to other parts of the UK, in his doorstep morning-after speech, was a ploy to delay increased devolution to Scotland.
It may be. But I think it is more of a ploy to reassure the little-Englanders that "Scotland isn't going to get all the goodies, at your expense" and so stop them going over to UKIP.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If they don't sort themselves out quickly, I could see a portion of the Scottish electorate getting angry equally quickly.
That's just what (Scottish-but-living-in-England) wife says. Had she been able to, she would have voted "Yes".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It may be both - I mean, both a sop to the Little England faction, sorry English Parliament faction, and also a dilution of increased powers to Scotland, to placate angry Tory MPs, and UKIP.
And of course, an attempt to screw the Labour Party.
The 'United' in UK has that sleazy brassy look, oh so attractive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Likely to make No voters regret their choice so much that independence, fairly soon, becomes irresistible.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I found myself wondering if Cameron's mentioning devolution to other parts of the UK, in his doorstep morning-after speech, was a ploy to delay increased devolution to Scotland. ...
You've got a point there AR, but there is something you won't have picked up abroad. The last week or two of the campaign, have crystallised and revealed publicly something of how dissatisfied and switched off the English are with the present set-up, particularly once you get outside London.
Also, he's put Milliband on a spot. Everyone knows that something has got to be done about Scottish MPs still being able to vote on non-union matters in the London Parliament. However, if Labour were to get a small working majority in next year's Westminster election, Milliband will have to be dependent on tame Scots Labour MPs if he wants to impose his policies on the English. Now that hare is up and running, that will no longer be acceptable to the English. So he will have to accept some sort of coalition arrangement for governing the English part of the UK. But having to work with anyone else sticks in the Labour craw even more uncomfortably than it has historically done for the Conservatives.
The public think that politicians look at constitutional adjustment not in terms of what would work better or better represent the will of the electorate, but solely in terms of what will give their own party a leg up as against the other ones.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It all looks rather tacky, doesn't it? They're all trying to shaft each other, before the next election. Yes, I know that's normal politics.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Labour Party have two problems:
1. That their current leader aroused a mixture of hostility and despair on his visit north of the border. The contrast with Gordon Brown is significant - yes he was in his own backyard but he has had a bad press in Scotland for being absent from Parliament for so much of the time since losing the 2010 election. Nevertheless, he was able to attract crowds and, once he had an audience, rouse them to action and enliven with rhetoric in a way that Mr Miliband can only dream of.
Of course, there is the lingering doubt that much of Mr Brown promised was not in his gift and that the pledges were made without first speaking to the leaders of the other two parties - but that again becomes a problem for Mr Miliband, not Mr Brown.
2. If Mr Miliband is seen to be in favour of giving Scotland everything promised by Mr Brown then he has no credible answer to the calls for reducing the number of members of the Westminster Parliament from Scotland - and if the same, or similar, degree of autonomy is given to Wales then that argument would hold good there too.
But if Wales and Scotland have their representation reduced at Westminster there is a very real prospect of Labour never being able to win a majority there ever again.
Which, of course, is not something that Mr Miliband can argue against since he, and Mr Brown before him, have argued long and loud - and stymied redrawing of boundaries - that it is not the business of the boundary or electoral commission to concern themselves with the prospects of individual parties when forming constituency boundaries or deciding on the number of constituents any one MP can have.
So if Mr Miliband has been happy for the Conservative party in particular to be in a situation where it is effectively prevented from having an overall majority he can't then argue against the same thing for his own people, especially when they have such dominance in Wales and Scotland that there is precious little chance of their ever being out of government in either place for very long.
Of course, the biggest issue is now that of English representation - the case for reducing the voting power in Westminster of Welsh and Scots MPs is unanswerable.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
I wonder if this supposed 'demand' by English voters for regional devolution is much of a thing, really? I work with a lot of English people, and when I mention devolution to them (English devolution I mean) I never get more than a 'huh?'
I can see why regional politicians might be interested in it, but is there a groundswell? I'll confess I don't really know, but I'll also admit that I doubt it.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Of course, the biggest issue is now that of English representation - the case for reducing the voting power in Westminster of Welsh and Scots MPs is unanswerable.
Is it? Apparently there have been vanishingly few votes in Parliament where subtracting Scottish MP's votes would have made any difference.
I suspect it's just part of a shell game and a way of throwing a cheap bone to English voters who have been energized by UKIP xenophobia.
Not that I don't support it, and English devolution, in principle. I just don't buy it that that English voters really want it.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
"English representation" is a red herring thrown in by Cameron, with the tacit assistance of Clegg and I'm sure Miliband too, to delay the extra powers promised to the Scots near the end of the referendum campaign when the 'Better Together' campaign realised it was in serious danger of losing.
We can see now that the UK wide parties are opposed to devolution in the same irrational and emotional way as UKIP is to the EU. I'm certain that the UK civil servants are even more strongly opposed to devolution, especially if it means that policy wonks have to work outside London Transport Zone 1.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Why would policy wonks have to work outside London Transport Zone 1? They don't do any work in it after all so why change the habits of a lifetime?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Why would policy wonks have to work outside London Transport Zone 1? They don't do any work in it after all so why change the habits of a lifetime?
They do stacks of work! All of it on behalf of ministers who want change or need information.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Aye, the question is whether the ministers make use of the information that is supplied to them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
"English representation" is a red herring thrown in by Cameron, with the tacit assistance of Clegg and I'm sure Miliband too, to delay the extra powers promised to the Scots near the end of the referendum campaign when the 'Better Together' campaign realised it was in serious danger of losing.
We can see now that the UK wide parties are opposed to devolution in the same irrational and emotional way as UKIP is to the EU. I'm certain that the UK civil servants are even more strongly opposed to devolution, especially if it means that policy wonks have to work outside London Transport Zone 1.
That's an interesting point, which will no doubt increase Scots paranoia. It's also Cameron trying to shaft Labour over English votes; it probably won't work, as too many Tory grandees will be appalled by the speed of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Aye, the question is whether the ministers make use of the information that is supplied to them.
From what I have seen and heard they keep supplying proposals and information until the ministers see something they are "comfortable with". A bit like First World War generals and their staff.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Basically, keeping the promises made during the referendum ought not to be contingent on sorting out issues in the rest of the union.
The asymmetry will then be a spur for sorting out the constitutional issues properly, rather than Westminster getting distracted by the next shiny new election or arguably unnecessary war.
In that process? I think Ed Milliband's suggestion of a constitutional convention makes sense - (I am not his greatest fan, I think it may be the only sensible thing i remember him saying.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Exactly so, DT. Ken Clarke seemed to be taking pretty much the same line as Ed Milliband on Any Questions. "constitutional reform is not a 'back of the envelope' job" or something to that effect.
Cameron's bundling of issues wont fly.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's classic Cameron, actually; very good delivery, but poorly thought out. He's an odd mixture of polish and cack-handed. He looks good, but he's always having to rush back and stick things together again.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
People might be interested to know that 10,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday, and the Scottish Green party have also experienced a post-referendum rise in membership.
Additionally there is a "show your commitment to a better Scotland by donating to a foodbank" campaign, started on Friday which seems to be popular.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But if Wales and Scotland have their representation reduced at Westminster there is a very real prospect of Labour never being able to win a majority there ever again.
Just to kick this into touch.
quote:
only four of the 18 general elections since 1945 would have had a different result if Scotland had been excluded.
source
The Labour majorities in 1997, 2001 and 2005 would have all been working ones, if reduced.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
