Thread: Scotland post-vote Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027768

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The immediate implication is that **** appears everywhere on **** of Fools (or is it only **mins and H**ts who are supposed to do that?).



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.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Well, to quote Sir John Major: "If the answer is more politicians, you are asking the wrong question".
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
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 ?
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

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.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
* 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.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Gildas:

* suggest fixing the mess left over from the ****t*** Referedum before any more gratuitous constitutional tinkering.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
No government can govern without control over revenue raising.

---

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?

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Sioni Sais:
they are crapping themselves at the spectre of UKIP winning seats.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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. ...

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Aye, the question is whether the ministers make use of the information that is supplied to them.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Also, any post-vote constitutional reform needs, as a matter of urgency, to reduce the number of voting lords. The current situation is both ridiculous and unsustainable.

My suggestion of getting them to fight on rotating platforms with giant cotton buds until only 400 are left met with widespread support on Facebook...
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.

---

quote:

---

There's a groundswell of various protests - boycotting companies that threatened to move out of Scotland if the vote went Yes

---

It would be great, wouldn't it, were Scotland to loose most of its economic base?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Why do English people wanting the best deal for England described as "Little Enganders", but Scottish people are brave voices of dissent, Scottish heroes or oppressed nationalist instead of "Little Scotlanders"?

---

quote:

---

There's a groundswell of various protests - boycotting companies that threatened to move out of Scotland if the vote went Yes, support for the Sunday Herald and a whole lot more. On Twitter the hashtags are #45percent, #45andgrowing, #WeAreThe45Percent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's a groundswell of various protests - boycotting companies that threatened to move out of Scotland if the vote went Yes, support for the Sunday Herald and a whole lot more. On Twitter the hashtags are #45percent, #45andgrowing, #WeAreThe45Percent.

There was also a lot of irritation expressed that the service of reconciliation came from St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh not Glasgow or Dundee, where the vote was for an independent Scotland, rather than Edinburgh which voted against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Why do English people wanting the best deal for England described as "Little Enganders", but Scottish people are brave voices of dissent, Scottish heroes or oppressed nationalist instead of "Little Scotlanders"?

---

I'd noticed that as well. Apparently it's ok for the Scots to want everything to be done for their benefit, but it's not ok for the English to want that. Double standard much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's a groundswell of various protests - boycotting companies that threatened to move out of Scotland if the vote went Yes, support for the Sunday Herald and a whole lot more. On Twitter the hashtags are #45percent, #45andgrowing, #WeAreThe45Percent.

There was also a lot of irritation expressed that the service of reconciliation came from St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh not Glasgow or Dundee, where the vote was for an independent Scotland, rather than Edinburgh which voted against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term "Little Englander" referred to those who wanted nothing to do with anyone or anything outside the UK. They weren't great fans of the British Empire (the term appears to be associated with those who didn't want to continue the Boer Wars).

Originally it had nothing to do with England and the English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.

---

Why do English people wanting the best deal for England described as "Little Enganders", but Scottish people are brave voices of dissent, Scottish heroes or oppressed nationalist instead of "Little Scotlanders"?

What is a Little Englander and why, quetzalcoatl, do you seem to dislike the English? Is it because we tend to vote in Conservative governments?

And before we go changing anything, wouldn't it be a good idea to ASK the English what WE want? After all we represent the vast bulk of the union. Our voice must be heard. Or do you think you know what we'll say and you don't want to hear it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Our state, Texas,claims when it joined the United States it reserved the right to succeed at anytime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
So who does the ***l*** budget ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Compulsory voting gets people to the polling station. But, it's a poor substitute to engaging the people in the political debate such that they want to vote and do so informed on the issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Devo max means full fiscal autonomy devolving everything except defence and foreign policy. It has been offered by no-one and is vanishingly unlikely to be offered. People should stop using the term for the current offer being developed. There is absolutely no likelihood of devo max - it would mean, for example, relinquishing control of the oil revenues to Scotland, and giving the Scottish government full control of the Scottish tax and welfare system - not just bits of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
In what way have the government backtracked on their DevoMax proposals?

---

quote:

---

There is absolutely no likelihood of devo max - it would mean, for example, relinquishing control of the oil revenues to Scotland, and giving the Scottish government full control of the Scottish tax and welfare system - not just bits of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Equally important, if not more so, is to have political issues a matter of public discussion in the pubs, offices, homes, churches of the electorate. Achieve that and turn out of an informed electorate follows. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say it's putting the cart before the horse.
extremists, or maybe a celeb).

I want a democracy where the electorate are engaged in the political process, between elections as well as on polling day. An electorate that will hold their elected representatives to account, during their term as well as at the ballot box. An electorate who are not disillusioned with politics, who don't see their representatives as remote and barely interested in their constituents beyond making sure they get voted back in, who don't see political engagement as the preserve of the keenies and the elite.

Get that and you won't need compulsory voting to get large turn outs on election day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think a good start would be as follows re rebalancing the equation for England -v- the Rest of the UK:

(a) Only English MPs get to vote on issues that affect only England; Miliband is on to a loser if he thinks he can tough that one out. We don't therefore need an English Parliament, with all its attendant on-costs, quite so much.

---

quote:

---

(b) Reverse the Thatcher-era's centralisation of government in Whitehall and Westminster by restoring county council's powers (the last thing we want IMO is 'English regional assemblies' for the same reason as we don't want an English Parliament - another layer of bureaucracy and politicians with their snouts in the taxpayer-funded trough).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(a) Only English MPs get to vote on issues that affect only England; Miliband is on to a loser if he thinks he can tough that one out. We don't therefore need an English Parliament, with all its attendant on-costs, quite so much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think a good start would be as follows re rebalancing the equation for England -v- the Rest of the UK:

(a) Only English MPs get to vote on issues that affect only England; Miliband is on to a loser if he thinks he can tough that one out. We don't therefore need an English Parliament, with all its attendant on-costs, quite so much.

---

That'll mean unpicking the arrangements for primary legislation which affects England and Wales. To give England the same rights and responsibilities as Scotland has, within the United Kingdom, would also mean handing to Wales and Northern Ireland those powers currently devolved to Scotland.

---

quote:

---

(b) Reverse the Thatcher-era's centralisation of government in Whitehall and Westminster by restoring county council's powers (the last thing we want IMO is 'English regional assemblies' for the same reason as we don't want an English Parliament - another layer of bureaucracy and politicians with their snouts in the taxpayer-funded trough).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... To give England the same rights and responsibilities as Scotland has, within the United Kingdom, would also mean handing to Wales and Northern Ireland those powers currently devolved to Scotland. I don't see HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office going for that.

---

quote:

---

You must have missed the way that the county councils have been broken down into 'unitary authorities' which aren't meaningful units and have precious little authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(a) Only English MPs get to vote on issues that affect only England; Miliband is on to a loser if he thinks he can tough that one out. We don't therefore need an English Parliament, with all its attendant on-costs, quite so much.

---

Only Scottish MPs get to vote on issues that affect only Scotland. We don't therefore need a Scottish parliament, with all its attendant on-costs, quite so much.

I've found a flaw in your argument, and it's right there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
However, most normal people, most of the time, have got better things to be interested in than attending endless meetings and politics. It's only when politics get out of control that normal people are driven to get engaged in them.

---

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: We need a political reformation. Dethrone the professional political class as surely as we dumped the "Father knows best" professional priest. We'll still need politicians, just as we need ministers of religion. But, we need politicians who serve politics practised by the whole population, servants of the people not privileged leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Let's play the game of finding a clever and completely obvious flaw in your argument. Oh yes, there's already a Scottish Parliament with its own MSPs voting on devolved Scottish matters. The attendant costs have already been spent (or should I say overspent). In addition, the UK Parliament is in England therefore no need to build a new Parliament just give English MPs another half of a job on top of the half job they already have. No need for a pay rise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: We need a political reformation. Dethrone the professional political class as surely as we dumped the "Father knows best" professional priest. We'll still need politicians, just as we need ministers of religion. But, we need politicians who serve politics practised by the whole population, servants of the people not privileged leaders.

---

Good luck with that. A professional political class is a characteristic of representative democracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Let's play the game of finding a clever and completely obvious flaw in your argument. Oh yes, there's already a Scottish Parliament with its own MSPs voting on devolved Scottish matters. The attendant costs have already been spent (or should I say overspent). In addition, the UK Parliament is in England therefore no need to build a new Parliament just give English MPs another half of a job on top of the half job they already have. No need for a pay rise.

---

Nope.

There's a UK parliament in London. There's no English parliament. There's no reason for the First Minister of England to be the Prime Minister of the UK, nor the treasury minister to be the Chancellor. And if a devolved government is what we're seeking parity with (along with the PR voting system that goes with it), a half-baked quick fix is no fair or permanent solution.

So the flaw in Matt's (and your) argument is that the English (mainly Tory) MPs are seeking a short-term political advantage (which probably doesn't exist) by introducing some notion of an 'English parliament' when it's English and parliament in name only. Who scrutinises the laws? Who sits on the committees? Do we need boundary changes? Do we something other than FPTP? Do we need multi-candidate constituencies? All these things were considered carefully when setting up the Welsh and NI assemblies, and the Scottish parliament. You both seem intent on a 'fuck the Scots' style retribution for having the temerity to narrowly vote for the Union...

---

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: And, a professional ministry is normal in the church. It doesn't stop the minister knowing her place in relation to the congregation, and it isn't as anything more than a figure head leader who's the go-to person when a committee needs a representative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, just after a bit of even-handedness. There's no 'fuck the Scots' about it at all; just a recognition that if one part of the UK has a large amount of the devolved powers, then it follows logically and as a basic principle of fairness that the other parts should have too. I'm trying to work out a cheaper way of doing that.

---

quote:

---

There was also a lot of irritation expressed that the service of reconciliation came from St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh not Glasgow or Dundee, where the vote was for an independent Scotland, rather than Edinburgh which voted against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, just after a bit of even-handedness. There's no 'fuck the Scots' about it at all; just a recognition that if one part of the UK has a large amount of the devolved powers, then it follows logically and as a basic principle of fairness that the other parts should have too. I'm trying to work out a cheaper way of doing that.

---

Maybe there should be recognition that a small part of the UK has colossal economic power with no democratic accountability whatsoever. Since c 1980 economic power has overridden the democratic will worldwide and if any reform is needed I would suggest that is addressed,

---

quote:

---

rather than petty arguments about how many legislative bodies are needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Let's play the game of finding a clever and completely obvious flaw in your argument. Oh yes, there's already a Scottish Parliament with its own MSPs voting on devolved Scottish matters. The attendant costs have already been spent (or should I say overspent). In addition, the UK Parliament is in England therefore no need to build a new Parliament just give English MPs another half of a job on top of the half job they already have. No need for a pay rise.

---

Nope.

There's a UK parliament in London. There's no English parliament. There's no reason for the First Minister of England to be the Prime Minister of the UK, nor the treasury minister to be the Chancellor. And if a devolved government is what we're seeking parity with (along with the PR voting system that goes with it), a half-baked quick fix is no fair or permanent solution.

So the flaw in Matt's (and your) argument is that the English (mainly Tory) MPs are seeking a short-term political advantage (which probably doesn't exist) by introducing some notion of an 'English parliament' when it's English and parliament in name only. Who scrutinises the laws? Who sits on the committees? Do we need boundary changes? Do we something other than FPTP? Do we need multi-candidate constituencies? All these things were considered carefully when setting up the Welsh and NI assemblies, and the Scottish parliament. You both seem intent on a 'fuck the Scots' style retribution for having the temerity to narrowly vote for the Union...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is this not one of the lucky times when principle and self-interest co-incide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but Cameron is trying to truss Labour up like a kipper, by showing them as anti-English. I like the way the prime ministerial mask slips, and the raw Tory vote-grabber is revealed. Let us all come together - and here's a knife in the guts, Labour scum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Compulsory voting gets people to the polling station. But, it's a poor substitute to engaging the people in the political debate such that they want to vote and do so informed on the issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
So how does the chancellor avoid a massive conflict of interest, and do we intend locking major offices of the UK state to only English mps ? (Cos that will be a major constitutional fuck up.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think there was a lot of English bashing. The yes campaign struck me as an example of civic nationalism, rather than ethnic. One striking example of that is that the vote went to anyone living in Scotland, not Scots.

What worries me about right-wing English nationalism is that it starts veering towards the ethnic kind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
The mandate is clear - 55% of Scots voted for... wait for it... no change!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
... I'm only seeing the 45% thing on social media and the context I'm seeing it in goes something like - 45% of Scots want a fairer society - so lets do something about it! For example, collections for foodbanks. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
... I'm only seeing the 45% thing on social media and the context I'm seeing it in goes something like - 45% of Scots want a fairer society - so lets do something about it! For example, collections for foodbanks. ...

---

As a non-Scottish person, it's a bit difficult to comment, but from outside, is there any element of sequitur in that at all? I can't see it.

If the SNP's supporters are now claiming that its voters alone want a fairer society, or that everybody who voted for independence did so because they wanted a fairer society, that looks from here like a secular version of sanctimonious humbug.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but Cameron is trying to truss Labour up like a kipper, by showing them as anti-English. I like the way the prime ministerial mask slips, and the raw Tory vote-grabber is revealed. Let us all come together - and here's a knife in the guts, Labour scum.

---

So different, so very different from the home life of our dear Labour Party.
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

The mandate is clear - 55% of Scots voted for... wait for it... no change!

Yep. Like it or not, that is all we need to focus on - no change. That is David Cameron's mandate, given to him by the Scottish in a free and fair election.

Thus he is entitled to give you exactly nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but Cameron is trying to truss Labour up like a kipper, by showing them as anti-English. I like the way the prime ministerial mask slips, and the raw Tory vote-grabber is revealed. Let us all come together - and here's a knife in the guts, Labour scum.

---

So different, so very different from the home life of our dear Labour Party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed:

quote:

---

There was also a lot of irritation expressed that the service of reconciliation came from St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh not Glasgow or Dundee, where the vote was for an independent Scotland, rather than Edinburgh which voted against.

---

The Service of Reconciliation was planned months ago, so I'm not sure who thinks that the way Edinburgh voted is relevant; how could it have been foreseen? Who was expressing irritation, Curiosity?

I'm only seeing the 45% thing on social media and the context I'm seeing it in goes something like - 45% of Scots want a fairer society - so lets do something about it! For example, collections for foodbanks.

But given the nature of social media, what I'm seeing and what others are seeing may well be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Cameron, Milliband and Clegg said that a "no" vote was a vote for increased powers for the Scottish Parliament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
[...] What is a Little Englander and why, quetzalcoatl, do you seem to dislike the English? Is it because we tend to vote in Conservative governments? [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
[...] What is a Little Englander and why, quetzalcoatl, do you seem to dislike the English? Is it because we tend to vote in Conservative governments? [...]

---

It's first-past-the-post that tends to vote in Conservative governments.

Throughout the supposedly right-wing Eighties, left-wing parties consistently got a majority of English votes. The Conservatives never got a majority (44% in '79, 42% in '83, 42% in '87, 42% in '92). In a proportional system, there'd have been a social democratic coalition, and if the Conservatives ever wanted to get near the levers of power, they'd have been forced to lock the yuppies in a dark room, far from view.

In effect, England's archaic voting system, designed in the Middle Ages for the 40 shilling freehold, keeps imposing neoliberal fanatics on a population that want to be a mainstream European social democracy.

It's staggering that this issue raises so little attention, and the "English are right-wing" claim has become received wisdom. As so often, what's received is anything but wise.

---

And which we decided to keep in a referendum a few years ago.

Strange how "progressives" always seem to be on the losing side of referenda isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
PR wasn't an option on said referendum!
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
As for progressives being on the losing side of referenda, PR won three successive referenda in New Zealand.


 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Different question
How do countries like Australia and Canada divide up functions between the federal/union governments and the state/provincial ones? I'm asking that rather than how the US does it because the US doesn't have a Westminster style polity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
PR wasn't an option on said referendum!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Yes, but is curious how rapidly the offer of "increased powers for the Scottish Parliament" is morphing into "reduced powers for Scottish MPs at Westminster".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The 45% I'm seeing on my social media relates to those who voted yes and don't accept the result.

---

quote:

---

They're going to carry on the fight, boycott the companies that said they'd leave if there was a yes vote and media outlets like the BBC etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Different question
How do countries like Australia and Canada divide up functions between the federal/union governments and the state/provincial ones? I'm asking that rather than how the US does it because the US doesn't have a Westminster style polity.

---

In a bit of an oversimplification, Australia followed the US constitution quite closely. Here, the Constitution grants a series of specified powers to the Federal Government, some exclusively. All other powers remain with the States. In areas where both have power to legislate, Federal legislation prevails over State to the extent of any inconsistency. A recent example concerns marriage. This was an area where both State and Federal parliaments could legislate. Federal legislation was introduced in 1961, and prevailed over existing State acts. Last year, an attempt by the ACT to introduce same sex marriage was struck out as inconsistent with the Federal legislation.

Again in an oversimplification, the Canadian system is the reverse. Specified powers are given to the provinces, and all others are matters for Ottawa. I know that Sober Preacher's Kid will disagree with me, but the old terminology was that the US and Australia are federations and Canada, like Switzerland, is a confederation.

There are tensions in each. Since WW II, the practical power of the Federal Govt here has increased; this follows the assumption from the States by the Federal Govt of wide taxation powers in 1942.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, with a much closer vote than was predicted at the start of the campaign, we have reasons to think we might get another chance relatively soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, with a much closer vote than was predicted at the start of the campaign, we have reasons to think we might get another chance relatively soon.

---

This makes me rather uneasy, and it's the same feeling of unease that I had when the Irish got told to try again on the Lisbon treaty.

There's bound to be some sort of random fluctuation in a referendum result. We see in the polls that people's voting intentions seem to swing by a few percentage points given essentially random information that has no real bearing on the matter at hand.

Signing the Lisbon treaty, or declaring independence, is an irreversible process. If the proponents of these actions are able to keep trying again until a random fluctuation takes the result over the threshold, and then stop, then the playing field is far from level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Different question
How do countries like Australia and Canada divide up functions between the federal/union governments and the state/provincial ones? I'm asking that rather than how the US does it because the US doesn't have a Westminster style polity.

---

In a bit of an oversimplification, Australia followed the US constitution quite closely. Here, the Constitution grants a series of specified powers to the Federal Government, some exclusively. All other powers remain with the States. In areas where both have power to legislate, Federal legislation prevails over State to the extent of any inconsistency. A recent example concerns marriage. This was an area where both State and Federal parliaments could legislate. Federal legislation was introduced in 1961, and prevailed over existing State acts. Last year, an attempt by the ACT to introduce same sex marriage was struck out as inconsistent with the Federal legislation.

Again in an oversimplification, the Canadian system is the reverse. Specified powers are given to the provinces, and all others are matters for Ottawa. I know that Sober Preacher's Kid will disagree with me, but the old terminology was that the US and Australia are federations and Canada, like Switzerland, is a confederation.

There are tensions in each. Since WW II, the practical power of the Federal Govt here has increased; this follows the assumption from the States by the Federal Govt of wide taxation powers in 1942.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The 45% I'm seeing on my social media relates to those who voted yes and don't accept the result.

---

There are a lot of people who are unhappy with the result. But, very few who don't accept that the result is what it is, not liking the result doesn't excuse us from working to have Scotland governed as far as possible the way we'd want it to be. Which is why a lot of the 45% are actively engaging in social justice campaign, joining the SNP or Greens to continue political activism, etc

quote:

---

They're going to carry on the fight, boycott the companies that said they'd leave if there was a yes vote and media outlets like the BBC etc.

---

The fight was never going to be stopped by a no vote. The SNP were not going to stop seeking independence, it was just going to be a generation before they got another chance at a referendum. People aren't going to suddenly decide that the Union is a good thing and Independence isn't because of a referendum result. And, with a much closer vote than was predicted at the start of the campaign, we have reasons to think we might get another chance relatively soon.

I don't think a boycott will be anything more than symbolic. But, I can understand the feelings that lead to it. I sincerely believe that project fear sold the people of Scotland a distortion of the situation, one that in places approached outright falsehood. Part of that was "businesses in Scotland will relocate south of the border and you'll all be out of work". This was reinforced by a small number of companies saying they would consider relocating, which was widely repeated in the media. The media, by and large, chose to give very little coverage to the similar number of companies who said they would stay because Independence would make no difference to the business climate, or maybe even improve it. Of course, the vast majority of businesses that simply said nothing at all were totally forgotten by everyone.

Though, we're not in a position to demonstrate the falsehoods in Project Fear. We didn't get a yes, so we won't see all those companies re-assessing where to keep their headquarters, nor the few that did move (eg: because EU legislation requires financial institutions to have head offices in the same country as their largest customer base) do so without any significant job losses in Scotland.

---

Some of the 45-ers who are appear on my social media feed aren't quite as reasonable about this as you. The first conspiracy theory about the election being fixed appeared in less than a day.

Given that some of the vote was driven by concerns about the way Scotland is run and the impact of some of this government's less than marvellous policies and a desire to get rid of Trident, then of course some of the 45-ers are going to get involved in projects that seek to do something about that. They'll be working alongside people who voted yes who want the same thing.

Much as I dislike him, I feel for Cameron slightly on this. There is real resentment about the Barnett formula as the allocation of money isn't necessarily about need. Oher parts of the country could also do with some extra funding as well to provide infrastructure, jobs, additional care for the elderly, cheaper prescriptions etc.

And if Scotland gets a better deal over powers, then Wales and NI should get the same. And if they get the same, so England should get similar. The West Lothian question has been rumbling on for 40 years. IIRC, it was the votes of Scottish MPs that made tution fees for the rest of the UK possible. That ain't on. There has to be a way of expressing a desire to get a better deal for your part of the country without sounding like a member of Britian First or the EDL.

Cameron's mistake is trying to do it all at once. He should have just given Scotland what was promised ASAP and then sorted out the other things.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There has to be a way of expressing a desire to get a better deal for your part of the country without sounding like a member of Britian First or the EDL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There has to be a way of expressing a desire to get a better deal for your part of the country without sounding like a member of Britian First or the EDL.

---

Not if you're English. If the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Jamaican, Chinese, etc. communities demand better conditions for themselves then that's Quite Right and Good, but if the English do it then they're Nasty Evil Racists and Xenophobes. That's just how it is in modern Britain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There has to be a way of expressing a desire to get a better deal for your part of the country without sounding like a member of Britian First or the EDL.

---

Not if you're English. If the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Jamaican, Chinese, etc. communities demand better conditions for themselves then that's Quite Right and Good, but if the English do it then they're Nasty Evil Racists and Xenophobes. That's just how it is in modern Britain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not if you're English. If the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Jamaican, Chinese, etc. communities demand better conditions for themselves then that's Quite Right and Good, but if the English do it then they're Nasty Evil Racists and Xenophobes. That's just how it is in modern Britain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence my suggestion to hand back powers to reconstituted county councils to foster more of a civic rather than ethnic nationalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Notably the SNP makes sure to convey that being Scottish is simply a matter of living in Scotland and sharing its values

(emphasis mine)

---

quote:

---

Notably the SNP makes sure to convey that being Scottish is simply a matter of living in Scotland and sharing its values,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The amount of times I've been called a racist/xenophobe for saying that I don't mind who comes to live here so long as they commit to sharing our values rather than keeping their own.......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The amount of times I've been called a racist/xenophobe for saying that I don't mind who comes to live here so long as they commit to sharing our values rather than keeping their own.......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
SPK, I think we have agreed in the past that your theory of a close resemblance between our constitutions is one not taught here, nor, AFAIK, in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Clearly we need to start a Hampshire Devo-Max campaign immediately Matt!

---

 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly! It would re-kindle the electorate's interest in democracy and politics, and I would hope cultivate more community involvement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
SPK, I think we have agreed in the past that your theory of a close resemblance between our constitutions is one not taught here, nor, AFAIK, in Canada.

---

You were also informed by orfeo that your purported distinction between a federation and a confederation exists only in your own mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
You did so. Check Oblivion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly! It would re-kindle the electorate's interest in democracy and politics, and I would hope cultivate more community involvement.

---

In principle I agree with this. And then I look at the calibre of local politicians and what they do with the power they currently have and the thought of giving them more power suddenly seems totally crazy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly! It would re-kindle the electorate's interest in democracy and politics, and I would hope cultivate more community involvement.

---

In principle I agree with this. And then I look at the calibre of local politicians and what they do with the power they currently have and the thought of giving them more power suddenly seems totally crazy.

---

Then stand yourself - or persuade a friend to.

---

quote:

---

But sharing values and keeping one's own are not mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, fine. I think Canada is probably just on the federal side of the federation/confederation divide. Presumably I thought that years ago as well.

I also think, though, that you entirely wrong to say that the Australian Constitution has more in common with the British North America Act than with the American Constitution. The Australian Constitution was consciously and explicitly based on the American Constitution, not on the Canadian model.

There are some things common to all the systems because they are all drawn on UK precedent, but it was a deliberate decision by the chief architect of the initial drafts of our constitution to combine features of the American Constitution with the Westminster system of government. That is why, for example, we have an elected Senate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I could go on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The amount of times I've been called a racist/xenophobe for saying that I don't mind who comes to live here so long as they commit to sharing our values rather than keeping their own.......

---

Problem is, many of your values are (as we've discussed on many, many occasions) almost diametrically opposed to mine. And yet here we are, living the same country.

So insisting that incomers "share our values" while allowing existing citizens to have whatever the hell values they like... that's hypocritical, at the very least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by seeking sister

quote:

---

But sharing values and keeping one's own are not mutually exclusive.

---

That's not quite true, and that is where policies of so-called multi-culturalism have failed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why is it not a problem when the SNP (as quoted by seekingsister) says it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond resigning is another element in the mix ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly! It would re-kindle the electorate's interest in democracy and politics, and I would hope cultivate more community involvement.

---

In principle I agree with this. And then I look at the calibre of local politicians and what they do with the power they currently have and the thought of giving them more power suddenly seems totally crazy.

---

Then stand yourself - or persuade a friend to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by seeking sister

quote:

---

But sharing values and keeping one's own are not mutually exclusive.

---

That's not quite true, and that is where policies of so-called multi-culturalism have failed.

---

Why isn't it true? I'm from the United States, where people whose great-grandparents were born in American still claim to be Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans. They celebrate cultural traditions using words they can't even understanding in a language they don't speak. They also have enormous American flags hanging in their front yards and say it's the greatest country in the world.

The reason multiculturalism has failed is that England has failed to make any effort to integrate immigrants. In the US and Canada, both countries with many immigrants, within a generation people say they are American or Canadian and are basically indistinguishable from the rest of the country in terms of values. This is done through education and a strong sense of national identity that is constantly reinforced in every interaction with the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm from the United States, where people whose great-grandparents were born in American still claim to be Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans. They celebrate cultural traditions using words they can't even understanding in a language they don't speak. They also have enormous American flags hanging in their front yards and say it's the greatest country in the world.

---

quote:

---

The reason multiculturalism has failed is that England has failed to make any effort to integrate immigrants.

---

quote:

---

In the US and Canada, both countries with many immigrants, within a generation people say they are American or Canadian and are basically indistinguishable from the rest of the country in terms of values.

---

quote:

---

This is done through education and a strong sense of national identity that is constantly reinforced in every interaction with the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The amount of times I've been called a racist/xenophobe for saying that I don't mind who comes to live here so long as they commit to sharing our values rather than keeping their own.......

---

Problem is, many of your values are (as we've discussed on many, many occasions) almost diametrically opposed to mine. And yet here we are, living the same country.

So insisting that incomers "share our values" while allowing existing citizens to have whatever the hell values they like... that's hypocritical, at the very least.

---

Then why is it not a problem when the SNP (as quoted by seekingsister) says it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I agree that successive UK governments have done precious little to positively integrate immigrants but it is not just up to governments is it?

...

The sad fact is that we still have politicians who would rather swallow their own tongue rather than admit that it is their torpor and inaction that has brought about this situation, and they seem equally clueless and spineless about making a start to change things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly! It would re-kindle the electorate's interest in democracy and politics, and I would hope cultivate more community involvement.

---

In principle I agree with this. And then I look at the calibre of local politicians and what they do with the power they currently have and the thought of giving them more power suddenly seems totally crazy.

---

Then stand yourself - or persuade a friend to.

---

Where I live you could stick a red rosette on a donkey and people would vote for it. The whole of local government is run by a cabal of Labour politicians who, if anything, are less representative than the ones in Westminster!

Am I being lame for not trying to stick it to the man? Maybe. But I think a lot would have to change about local politics before I could back delegating more power to town and city halls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Orfeo

I'm not sure why you're having problems reconciling my first and last paragraphs.

What I'm saying is that yes, Governments do have a role in promoting integration and that their inaction thus far has been one of the biggest factors in the acceptance of non-integration of some immigrants.

But while a government can encourage we do have to accept that some immigrants seem unwilling to mix.

---

quote:

---

But while a government can encourage we do have to accept that some immigrants seem unwilling to mix.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Where I live you could stick a red rosette on a donkey and people would vote for it. The whole of local government is run by a cabal of Labour politicians who, if anything, are less representative than the ones in Westminster!

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: I used to pull his leg, say "You've just made a good case for voting Conservative".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I could go on.

---

Yes, you could. While resolutely ignoring the point that we know from our own history books that the UK and USA were used as the models, not Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by seeking sister

quote:

---

But sharing values and keeping one's own are not mutually exclusive.

---

That's not quite true, and that is where policies of so-called multi-culturalism have failed.

---

Why isn't it true? I'm from the United States, where people whose great-grandparents were born in American still claim to be Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans. They celebrate cultural traditions using words they can't even understanding in a language they don't speak. They also have enormous American flags hanging in their front yards and say it's the greatest country in the world.

The reason multiculturalism has failed is that England has failed to make any effort to integrate immigrants. In the US and Canada, both countries with many immigrants, within a generation people say they are American or Canadian and are basically indistinguishable from the rest of the country in terms of values. This is done through education and a strong sense of national identity that is constantly reinforced in every interaction with the government.

Scotland comes across as more welcoming to ethnic minorities than England has been lately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

If the Scottish Parliament isn't given significant new powers, then the referendum result will be that no-body got what they were told they were voting for.

That is untenable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The amount of times I've been called a racist/xenophobe for saying that I don't mind who comes to live here so long as they commit to sharing our values rather than keeping their own.......

---

But sharing values and keeping one's own are not mutually exclusive. This may be why people have taken your view more negatively.

---

quote:

---

It feels like you're saying that politicians have to take responsibility for not making other people take responsibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

Leeds, for example, has one of the largest Polish communities outside Poland; there are areas of north London with substantial Greek communities, etc. This has been going on for generations - look no further than the area of Cardiff called CANTON or find out about the Somali community in the north-east.

These and many other groups have made every effort to integrate into day-to-day British life and we, and they, are the richer for it.

The exception is moslem immigrants, especially from Pakistan and Bangladesh: by and large there has been a complete lack of integration, older people have made little if any effort to learn English, and the community as a whole have sought to preserve the way of life they had back in their original country, rather than adapting to UK norms and mores. Worse still, newer groups of moslem immigrants have seen that these groups have kept to their own areas and have behaved in a similar fashion, so now we have distinct areas with Somali, Albanian and other moslem country groupings - all signally failing to integrate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

We should also be honest and state that some of the indigenous inhabitants in England don't really want ethnic minority Muslims to 'integrate', if this means living and educating their children alongside large numbers of Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
... If immigrants are expected to adapt to the majority culture, the majority culture must adapt to immigrants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
... If immigrants are expected to adapt to the majority culture, the majority culture must adapt to immigrants.

---

Why?

For some years, back in the 1970s, I lived in a foreign country. I accepted that that was their country, where things were done their way, and that I was not entitled to expect or insist that things be done my way rather than theirs, even in contexts where I, and most other people, objectively would have though the host society was seriously wrong.

Also, it's a standard and universal rule that you don't get involved in the politics of your host country. It is not your place to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:


Also, it's a standard and universal rule that you don't get involved in the politics of your host country. It is not your place to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by piglet:


One or two friends on FB who voted "yes" have pinned a blue-and-white badge to their profile pictures with "45" in it; if the boot had been on the other foot, would they (and he) be complaining? I think not.

As Boris Johnson put it in the Telegraph: what part of "no" doesn't Salmond understand?

---

quote:

---

The SNP is now the third largest party in the UK - a 66% rise in membership in less than a week.

Some people are energised by this result, not deflated. It's surprised me, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
It's called denial

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
... A lot of Yes voters believe the momentum was, and still is, heading towards independence. The SNP is now the third largest party in the UK - a 66% rise in membership in less than a week.

Some people are energised by this result, not deflated. It's surprised me, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
(And it seems like a two tier citizenship, if you are a dual national we can always take it away.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

That's an interesting and significant development, but I wonder if it's more a symptom of what could turn out to be a suppurating rift that having the referendum has scarred across Scottish society. On the assumption - unprovable but almost certainly correct - that all those who have recently joined the SNP voted 'yes' last week, this does not demonstrate a swing in Scottish opinion. It is more likely to indicate a fiercer division between the 45% and the 55% than existed before the whole process started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by piglet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond resigning is another element in the mix ...

---

... except he doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "resign".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
... A lot of Yes voters believe the momentum was, and still is, heading towards independence. The SNP is now the third largest party in the UK - a 66% rise in membership in less than a week.

Some people are energised by this result, not deflated. It's surprised me, too.

---

That's an interesting and significant development, but I wonder if it's more a symptom of what could turn out to be a suppurating rift that having the referendum has scarred across Scottish society. On the assumption - unprovable but almost certainly correct - that all those who have recently joined the SNP voted 'yes' last week, this does not demonstrate a swing in Scottish opinion. It is more likely to indicate a fiercer division between the 45% and the 55% than existed before the whole process started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, as the panda at Edinburgh zoo isn't pregnant after all there's little space for expansion of the Conservative Party in Scotland, which is limited to the number of pandas in the country. Apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by piglet:


One or two friends on FB who voted "yes" have pinned a blue-and-white badge to their profile pictures with "45" in it; if the boot had been on the other foot, would they (and he) be complaining? I think not.

As Boris Johnson put it in the Telegraph: what part of "no" doesn't Salmond understand?

---

Would you expect people who believed in independence last Thursday to stop believing in it after the referendum? Would Labour voters stop believing in Labour if their party lost an election?

A lot of Yes voters believe the momentum was, and still is, heading towards independence. The SNP is now the third largest party in the UK - a 66% rise in membership in less than a week.

Some people are energised by this result, not deflated. It's surprised me, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I think that if the Westminster politicians don't deliver the full package of promises they made which saw people choosing to vote No to independence, they might well face the same scenario again in 20 years time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well Ruth Davidson is regarded as having had a good campaign, so let's wait and see...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well Ruth Davidson is regarded as having had a good campaign, so let's wait and see...

---

Ruth Davidson may only have been 12 when Mrs T fell from power. As many people have pointed out, including me a few pages back on this thread, there was a time when Scotland used to send a number of Conservative MPs to Westminster. The way Mrs T treated Scotland when she was in office has done for any hopes Ruth Davidson may have until some other issue comes along tectonic enough to change that. It's hard to imagine anything that could do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
On the other hand, the number of Conservative seats in Scotland has declined steadily for over *thirty years*. 22 seats in 1982, I think. It's not a blip or a downturn, is it? They are just... gone.

What kind of a grassroots organisation do they have now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
(And those necessary swings above might well be blown away by far higher turnout in the next GE; not that that is guaranteed.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
The pre-referendum vow made by Cameron, Miliband and Clegg stated that there would be heads of agreement by St Andrews Day (30 Nov 2014) and draft legislation by Burns Night (25 Jan 2015)

Name-checking St Andrews Day and Burns Night (plus flying the Saltire over Downing Street) may have seemed a good idea in the pre-referendum panic, but they are now obliged to deliver by those very memorable dates. Slippage is going to be more obvious than if they had chosen less significant dates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
The pre-referendum vow made by Cameron, Miliband and Clegg stated that there would be heads of agreement by St Andrews Day (30 Nov 2014) and draft legislation by Burns Night (25 Jan 2015)

Name-checking St Andrews Day and Burns Night (plus flying the Saltire over Downing Street) may have seemed a good idea in the pre-referendum panic, but they are now obliged to deliver by those very memorable dates. Slippage is going to be more obvious than if they had chosen less significant dates.

---

Very foolish of them to set such a timetable. Heads of Agreement need an agreement. All the SNP needs to do is go slow, keep raising points and so forth - bang goes the timetable. And if the first date is missed, the draft legislation date will probably be missed also. Never, ever promise a process over which you have no control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I think that if the Westminster politicians don't deliver the full package of promises they made which saw people choosing to vote No to independence, they might well face the same scenario again in 20 years time.

---

If we don't see rapid progress on delivery of additional devolved powers (ie: a detailed description of those powers and a clear, short timetable) then I think even 20 years will be a long time before pressure for independence leads us to another referendum - and, last minute promises from Westminster isn't going to save the no campaign a second time. And, by rapid I'm thinking before Christmas - which basically means very similar commitments in the manifestoes for both Conservative and Labour since we're realistic enough to know that nothing will actually reach the floor of the House before the general election. If the manifestoes of either party lacks a commitment to further devolved powers they might as well just kiss any chances of a good election result in Scotland good bye. Even Labour will struggle if they don't commit to increased devolved powers.

On the other hand, deliver significant devolved powers to Scotland within a couple of years and I think independence will be in the long grass for significantly longer than 20 years. Unless an in/out referendum pulls Scotland out of the EU kicking and screaming and digging in our heals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Why aren't you prepared to give as much time for Westminster to give you those powers as you were prepared to give to post-referendum negotiations in the event of a "Yes" vote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The big one is independence negotiations would require several parallel discussions with different national and international organisations - the Westminster government, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You mean I have to be consistent? But, if I was consistent that would rule out any chance for a career in politics. Not that I actually want or am considering such a career I hasten to add.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent Alert
Has anyone commented on the curious coincidence that there's 45% and the '45?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Small point: the '45 was a dynastic struggle for the throne of the United Kingdom between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians i.e. nothing to do with Scottish nationalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Just because they didn't get independence, why would the SNP delay the delivery of more powers? It's not as if the UK government is going to say Drat! See we've slipped a bit - tell you what, how's about another referendum?

No party hoping to form a majority after the next Scottish parliamentary election is going to turn away enhanced devolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Because its actual goal is not to make the existing union work better for Scotland, it is to win the next referendum on independence, based on the belief that the union doesn't work for Scotland and that Westminster politicians simply can't be trusted to do what they promised. [tangent] because, you know, they're English. [/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Just because they didn't get independence, why would the SNP delay the delivery of more powers? It's not as if the UK government is going to say Drat! See we've slipped a bit - tell you what, how's about another referendum?

No party hoping to form a majority after the next Scottish parliamentary election is going to turn away enhanced devolution.

---

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've been through a number of these referendums in Canada. After each one, the losing independentistes acted like right idiots, trying to make the federation fail in order, they hoped, to create a case in the next referendum. And there's always a next referendum.

So the straight answer to your question "Why would..." is "for political advantage in the short term, and to bolster the case for independence in the longer term by "showing" that UK leaders can't be trusted to keep their word."

The SNP has a lot of reasons to drag out the negotiations, and if possible to make them fail. It has none at all that I can see for facilitating an agreement in the shortest time possible.

Because its actual goal is not to make the existing union work better for Scotland, it is to win the next referendum on independence, based on the belief that the union doesn't work for Scotland and that Westminster politicians simply can't be trusted to do what they promised. [tangent] because, you know, they're English. [/tangent]

John

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Small point: the '45 was a dynastic struggle for the throne of the United Kingdom between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians i.e. nothing to do with Scottish nationalism.
Sorry, Kwesi, but that simply is not correct. True, the Stuarts wanted to recover all the kingdoms. But in both the '15 and the '45, it was obvious to start in Scotland so as to harness nationalist sentiment and resentment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Enoch

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Small point: the '45 was a dynastic struggle for the throne of the United Kingdom between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians i.e. nothing to do with Scottish nationalism.
Sorry, Kwesi, but that simply is not correct. True, the Stuarts wanted to recover all the kingdoms. But in both the '15 and the '45, it was obvious to start in Scotland so as to harness nationalist sentiment and resentment.

---

Enoch, I’m surprised you link the ’15 and ’45 to Scottish nationalism rather than a dynastic struggle shaped by the course of the reformation in the British Isles. Surely, the reason why the rebellions were raised in northern Scotland was because it was remote from the centre of military power in the lowlands and England and an area of opposition to a religio-political settlement that had established a presbyterian and Calvinistic hegemony in Scotland that had marginalised and oppressed Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. It was an odd nationalist movement, was it not, that found itself in Derby! The battle of Culloden was fought between combatants whose fault lines were hardly ethnic. It is notable that Scottish nationalism has not looked to the Jacobites for its heroes, but an earlier generation: Wallace and Robert de Bruis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...one of the big pluses for the independence campaign was the evidence from our Parliament that our politicians can be better than what we see from down south.

re: your tangential comment. Most people I know don't think Westminster politicians can't be trusted because they're English. They can't be trusted because they're politicians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...one of the big pluses for the independence campaign was the evidence from our Parliament that our politicians can be better than what we see from down south.

re: your tangential comment. Most people I know don't think Westminster politicians can't be trusted because they're English. They can't be trusted because they're politicians.

---

If Scottish politicians are percieved as better than those in Westminster, then that last sentence basically boils down to "...because they're English politicians". Which is essentially what John said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...one of the big pluses for the independence campaign was the evidence from our Parliament that our politicians can be better than what we see from down south.

re: your tangential comment. Most people I know don't think Westminster politicians can't be trusted because they're English. They can't be trusted because they're politicians.

---

If Scottish politicians are percieved as better than those in Westminster, then that last sentence basically boils down to "...because they're English politicians". Which is essentially what John said.

---

Except that some Scottish politicians are being excoriated, particularly Labour ones, e.g. Brown, Darling, Murphy, Reid, and so on, who are seen by some as having propped up the union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some people may not have voted no because of the last minute offer of limited devo-max, but because they believe in the union and think we need less borders not more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some people may not have voted no because of the last minute offer of limited devo-max, but because they believe in the union and think we need less borders not more.

---

Well, if the polls are to be believed then the base support for the "no" vote was about 45% - that's more or less what it hovered around for much of the run up to the campaign, and during the campaign itself. Some bursts above that, but rarely lower. So, I think it's reasonably safe to take that 45% as those who have ideological commitment to the Union, never thought the risks were worth it, or always expected further devolved powers in the not too distant future (which had been on the cards for a while, with nothing specific about exactly what powers and on what timetable) and considered that enough of a step at this time. The extra 10% who pushed it up to 55% on the day were basically convinced by the arguments of "Better Together" (or at least informed enough to finally decide). Some would be primarily convinced by Project Fear, some by the devolved powers carrot. No way of knowing the proportion, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some people may not have voted no because of the last minute offer of limited devo-max, but because they believe in the union and think we need less borders not more.

---

Well, if the polls are to be believed then the base support for the "no" vote was about 45% - that's more or less what it hovered around for much of the run up to the campaign, and during the campaign itself. Some bursts above that, but rarely lower. So, I think it's reasonably safe to take that 45% as those who have ideological commitment to the Union, never thought the risks were worth it, or always expected further devolved powers in the not too distant future (which had been on the cards for a while, with nothing specific about exactly what powers and on what timetable) and considered that enough of a step at this time. The extra 10% who pushed it up to 55% on the day were basically convinced by the arguments of "Better Together" (or at least informed enough to finally decide). Some would be primarily convinced by Project Fear, some by the devolved powers carrot. No way of knowing the proportion, of course.

---

OK so if it's 45:45 with 10% to play for, to restate the question asked above by someone else, how soon after Yes gets over the 50% line in a one-off referendum poll is the new independent Scottish government going to allow the No 45%'s request for another referendum?

With everything so finely balanced presumably the "neverendum" is going to have to cut both ways?

Or does the music stop for the last time when independence is voted for? And, if so, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Tubbs wrote:

The internal argument probably goes sometbing like this:

Politicans that do things that I approve of = Properly Scottish.

Politicans that do stuff that I disapprove of = Not properly Scottish. Corrupted by the Westminister machine.

I haven't heard that myself. I have heard people criticize a Scot like Gordon Brown for propping up the union; and I was just making that point, since some people seem to be saying that it's English politicians who are getting flak. They probably are, but so are the Scottish ones who defended the union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on, on the unionist side. But say it out loud: almost half of the voting population of one of the constituent nations of the UK, does not want to be in the UK.

If you think that is going to go away overnight, you are just telling yourself a nice story.

Equally, anyone who thinks we'll have independence in the very short term is also dreaming.

But still: the momentum is towards independence, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

But still: the momentum is towards independence, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Enoch, I’m surprised you link the ’15 and ’45 to Scottish nationalism rather than a dynastic struggle shaped by the course of the reformation in the British Isles. Surely, the reason why the rebellions were raised in northern Scotland was because it was remote from the centre of military power in the lowlands and England and an area of opposition to a religio-political settlement that had established a presbyterian and Calvinistic hegemony in Scotland that had marginalised and oppressed Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. It was an odd nationalist movement, was it not, that found itself in Derby! The battle of Culloden was fought between combatants whose fault lines were hardly ethnic. It is notable that Scottish nationalism has not looked to the Jacobites for its heroes, but an earlier generation: Wallace and Robert de Bruis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Independence support grew steadily throughout the build up to the referendum. It's higher now than it has ever been, and people expressed it in their votes. 45% of people - almost half - want out of the UK.

Almost half.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Cross-referring to another thread, is the argument above that that none of the 45% only decided in the booth when they got to the polling station and all are 100% truly committed to Scottish independence, but at least 10% of the 55% are half-hearted, chicken-livered unionist running-dogs, a variant of the 'no true Scotsman' argument? It's certainly no more convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:


45% is a fair way from "almost half" in an election. 55% is very substantially more in electoral terms than half.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
From a country where there have been quite a few referendums, including one in my State for carving off a portion to form a new state, the margin is a substantial one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
From a country where there have been quite a few referendums, including one in my State for carving off a portion to form a new state, the margin is a substantial one.

---

Did those campaigning on the 'status quo' side of the referendum move the goalposts a few days before the vote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:


Anything above 60% - 40% is normally described as "clear", anything below 55 - 45 as "close". If it is a "close" for a progressive idea (as opposed to a last stand issue for conservatives), you can normally expect a rematch in some form within five years if the result is not very quickly absorbed into parliamentary politics. In such a case, you can find that the balance of opinion can easily shift by 15% within a few years. Obviously, the Swiss political system is radically different from the UK's, but I would hazard that if Westmi/onster doesn't quickly agree to some very substantial transfers of power, the issue of independence will be back with a vengeance before too long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it could go either way. This could be the high point for independence, or it could be just a stepping stone. The comparison with Quebec may be instructive, though the impression I get there is that it is more about language and culture than about politics there than it is in Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Independence support grew steadily throughout the build up to the referendum. It's higher now than it has ever been, and people expressed it in their votes. 45% of people - almost half - want out of the UK.

Almost half. And that's not been a steady thing over the years - it grew over the last 2 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it was no big surprise that in the run up to the coming general election the SNP doesn't get a place in televised debates,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it was no big surprise that in the run up to the coming general election the SNP doesn't get a place in televised debates, with three Greens also excluded from the chance to express their policies in these debates. But Nigel "I have an MP because he defected from the Tories" Farage gets on the podium. Once again, the UK political system sidelines Scotland and Wales.

BBC News.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Since she doesn't field candidates outside Scotland, it would strike me as profoundly wrong if the rest of us should have to experience election propaganda from Nicola Sturgeon. After all, even if she were to succeed in impressing me, I could not vote for her or her party.

I am, though, persuaded by the argument that if Noxious Nigel gets a place in the national debate, it is unfair not to give the Greens a voice as well. That seems incontrovertible. It's either both or neither.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
At the last general election, the Green Party fielded candidates in fewer than half of the UK's parliamentary constituencies. I'm not sure that qualifies one to participate in a national debate if the other parties present are fielding candidates in nearly all of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
If so, the two most legitimate bases are either the votes in the last general election or the composition of Parliament after the point when there will be no more by-elections

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
At the last general election, the Green Party fielded candidates in fewer than half of the UK's parliamentary constituencies. I'm not sure that qualifies one to participate in a national debate if the other parties present are fielding candidates in nearly all of them.

---

quote:

---

previously they could rely on a large vote without needing to do much work to secure it.

---

quote:

---

It looks like sour grapes to me. She has been forced out

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The irony is that, constitutionally speaking, Holyrood is just a branch office of Westminster. It has no sovereignty of its own. Its powers derive entirely from Westminster, and they can, as a matter of law, be altered, enlarged, reduced, or removed entirely simply by amending the Scotland Act. It has seldom been mentioned - if at all - that Holyrood had no power to hold a consultative referendum on Scottish independence, still less a binding one. Westminster had to empower it to do so. The referendum result is not binding on Westminster - and would not have been were it a yes. There was no legal obligation on Westminster to allow the referendum, and there is no obligation on it to hold another one, regardless of political developments

---

quote:

---

I note that Nicola Sturgeon is engaging in some shit-stirring of her own. She wants Scotland to be able to veto a British exit from the EU should England (and therefore the UK overall) vote in favour of withdrawal.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0