|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: whither Scotland
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure if Cameron was shocked or not by the growth of SNP, but he had the nous to exploit it for his own ends. They became the bogeyman, and English nationalism the useful drum to beat. Maybe he will now become emollient, but would SNP trust that? As much as a man trusts the rope supporting him round the neck.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The spectre of English Nationalism has been raised. It will be interesting if that can be directed into a healthy and progressive movement, or whether it will descend into the thuggery of the fringe organisations that have until now had an almost exclusive use of the term. I really, really hope that it can develop into something really positive, much as Scottish Nationalism is.
Though, such a development may result in an "English Nationalist Party" which could be a big vote loser for the Tories (but unlikely for the next few elections).
--------------------
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
|
|
Wet Kipper
Circus Runaway
# 1654
|
Posted
Perhaps Nicola should have created the ENP as branch of the SNP with the same General Election pledges/manifesto and stood in English seats - would have given somthing to all those people in the rest of the UK who were saying "why can't we vote for her?" after that 7-way debate
--------------------
- insert randomly chosen, potentially Deep and Meaningful™ song lyrics here -
Posts: 9841 | From: further up the Hill | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
but are they up to it? [SNP]
That I think is a legitimate question. In their favour, they have a wide variety of political talent which was not born, bred and fed with a silver spoon in its mouth and reared for political careers. This could make it difficult for the political establishment to read and manage them. On the other hand, it is exactly this inexperience which could, at least for an initial period, let them fall prey to some of the more savvy political animals in Westminster. The SNP will also have its work cut out in that it must at once be seen to be a constructive force, and a force that will oppose and check the Tories at every turn. Since the Tories are in government, that is not going to be an easy act to pull off.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
They have another point in their favour, which is a straight-forward nationalist narrative that they represent the soul of Scotland, being a country that is more egalitarian and enlightened than the Other Place.
There are striking similarities between their image in Scotland now and Blair's in 1997, ie, a tendency to believe that they are one thing when their policies are another. In each case, it is the belief - almost religiously held in some quarters - that they are further to the left than they actually are. The SNP are very careful to make sure their rhetoric plays up to this. They say they help the poor buy abolishing tuition fees, whereas the reality is that their higher education policy has been regressive. Their tax policy has been even worse: they have in the recent past advocated slashing corporation tax, and they have never used Holyrood's powers to raised taxes in Scotland. A truly left-wing party would have done this. I think that Sturgeon and Salmond before him know that the Scots won't like it.
The SNP are merely a tartan version of New Labour, however, it will clearly be some time before anyone figures this out.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
...and also very, very close to Rupert Murdoch.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I really, really hope that it can develop into something really positive, much as Scottish Nationalism is.
I never did reply to your comment on the other thread, so I will do so now.
My view (based on my own experiences and observations of the referendum) is that Scottish nationalism is deeply hypocritical and wilfully blind, to the extent of believing its shit doesn't stink. There is nothing exceptional about this: it is something common to all nationalisms.
I posted something of my own experiences in Scotland, which were basically negative enough to disincline me to continue living there. Here is your reply, which I intended to comment on, but other commitments got in the way.
quote:
As another Englishman in Scotland, I've not met abuse either. And, I'm much closer to the big cities where it's supposed to be worse. I do get a few "it's the fault of the bloody English" comments, but since what's clearly meant is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general I usually agree.
It does depend on the person too, of course. If you move to Glasgow from England and start making a big thing of how things are better in England you're going to get less pleasant comments. But, you'll get the same anywhere if you move there with that attitude.
Now, I was brought up in England, however, I have spent the second half of my life outside England, in Scotland and in other countries. My wife is not English (or indeed from the UK or NZ) and I have been settled here for well over a decade. So I don't think I can be accused of insularity or tactlessness. I also think that if I had an attitude as to "how things are better in England" I would probably not still be living here, or be married to my non-English wife (although I don't think you were suggesting I was like that).
The point to note is that I simply have never received any of the sort of nonsense I got in Scotland elsewhere. Yes, one gets the odd remark and plenty of ragging, particularly when the cricket or rugby is on. It is always in very good humour. I can only think of one genuinely unpleasant remark in the decade I have lived here. You do not see graffiti saying "Fuck the English" here, nor have I ever been threatened with violence on account of my ethnicity (these were experiences I had in Scotland). In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. Institutions are not inevitably prefixed with "Kiwi-" or "NZ". The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are. There will soon be a referendum on whether the national flag should be changed. I don't know what the result will be. However, it is clear that most people think it a complete waste of time and money. New Zealanders will very occasionally comment like my accent or want to tell me in great length about the UK tour they had last year. That's about it. And it is not the case that New Zealanders are particularly Anglophile. Apart from the sport or a royal visit, England is not part of their consciousness, and frankly that's how I like it.
In fact, even here, the only people who do automatically make anything of my ethnicity are Scots. It is as if they are constantly scratching an itch. An example: my office recently took on a new (Scottish) hire. The person makes constant remarks. We're like this, you're like that. The English are evil. Their rugby team is evil. They stole our oil. They are mean spirited. They hate the poor. They oppress everyone and colonised and raped the world. Now, I don't particularly mind the comments. I like this person, and I don't for a second think they mean to offend. The comments are just a bit boring. However, I guess I would think about them a bit differently had I been back in Scotland and just come out of the politics lecture, having listened to a professor making rather similar points but in a more erudite and serious way. The reason is clear: in Scotland, that bilge is taken seriously by enough people to matter.
When I left Scotland, I formed the view that there was indeed anti-English racism, however, there was no genuine interest in tackling it. I reckon plenty of non-Scots in Scotland don't speak up, but are quietly uncomfortable. Of course I have no evidence for this. I doubt there is any, chiefly because no one asks. But here is an interesting fact. Opinion polling suggests that over fifty percent of ethnic Scots voted for independence in last year's referendum: this would suggest the remainder (ie, the non-Scots) overwhelmingly voted against given that Scotland demographically is overwhelmingly white Scottish.
When the EU referendum comes round, I expect the battle lines will be similar to those in 2014. In one camp there will be the establishment together with big business warning of the ramifications of a Yes vote and the disruptions it would cause. In the other camp, there will be those who say the UK will be free, we can govern ourselves, we can look beyond Europe, vote for hope over fear. Yet I very, very much doubt you will describe this as "positive". Neither would I, in point of fact.
And finally, in response to this:
quote:
is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general
This is simple scapegoating, with an unexamined logic that it's all the fault of those people south of the Border. A fair-minded person might consider the following: the "Scottish Raj" remains a recent phenomenon, the current PM's father was Scottish, the previous PM was Scottish and the PM before him had Scottish parents and was educated in Scotland, and the most salient financial issue in the UK was as a result of (disastrous) decisions made in Scotland by Scottish institutions, made possible by removal of regulation done by a Scottish chancellor. So it appears that for better or for worse Scotland is overrepresented in British political and commercial life, and its representatives prone to behaving in precisely the same way as those from other parts of the UK. Which is hardly surprising as, if one removes the emblems and the national sentiments, the English and the Scots are culturally identical.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I posted something of my own experiences in Scotland, which were basically negative enough to disincline me to continue living there.
And, we exchanged anecdotes. My experience has been very different. I experienced (and, I put that deliberately in the past tense since all those experiences are in the past) some anti-English comments - some of the worst were actually in a church I subsequently left when it became clear that the "welcome to all" had a list of exceptions that was larger than just a few members views on the English. By anecdote, people from England moving to Scotland are more likely to experience negative comments in Glasgow than Edinburgh, and out in the less populous parts of Scotland there is considerable local variation (probably reflecting population density - getting a negative comment from a few people in a city of millions is easier to dismiss than a similar comment from a few people in a town of thousands).
My conclusion from the anecdotes? That there is anti-English racism in Scotland. And, of course, that has fed into some of the Scottish Nationalist support. But, also that it isn't as prevalent as some people (and, I'm mostly thinking about what I've seen in English 'newspapers' here) would make out. It's a problem that the SNP need to address, and have been doing so (they did, after all, manage to convince a lot of non-ethnically-Scottish voters to vote 'Yes' to independence and actively support their campaign).
In contrast, English nationalism has a massive image problem with a very prominent racist element. In the context of the election result where my comment was originally posted, what I was saying was that England needs a nationalist party that isn't based heavily on racism and ethnicity. Which probably means that the people in England need to develop an understanding of identity that is "people who live in England" rather than "people who are English".
I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but time's running out ... I'll get back to it later today.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I'll look foward to it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. ... The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are.
Well, of course, New Zealand is a very different country than Scotland (or, in many ways, than anywhere else in Europe). The vast majority of the population are recent immigrants, and they know it. So, for them, I can see nationality and ethnicity not being big issues. I had assumed that there would be some residual national identity like you get in the US (with American-Irish, American-Italian etc) but from your post that was a mistaken assumption.
I would suggest that it is very likely that the remaining Maori population would have very different views on national identity, ethnicity etc. And, if those views aren't being reported in the media then perhaps there is something seriously wrong and the apparent "ethnicity isn't an issue" feeling you are getting is hiding a bigger issue. I can't imagine NZ is free of the hypocrisy and willful blindness to the true smell of the nations shit that characterises any other human society.
But, that isn't really central to my point. We're here to discuss Scotland.
quote:
When I left Scotland, I formed the view that there was indeed anti-English racism, however, there was no genuine interest in tackling it. I reckon plenty of non-Scots in Scotland don't speak up, but are quietly uncomfortable. Of course I have no evidence for this. I doubt there is any, chiefly because no one asks. But here is an interesting fact. Opinion polling suggests that over fifty percent of ethnic Scots voted for independence in last year's referendum: this would suggest the remainder (ie, the non-Scots) overwhelmingly voted against given that Scotland demographically is overwhelmingly white Scottish.
I don't know of anyone who would deny there is anti-English racism in Scotland, or indeed bigotry directed at other minority groups. Nor do I know anyone who doesn't think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed. That seems like a massive straw man to me.
Yes, the polls (both before and after the referendum) clearly showed greater support for independence from those who identified as Scottish than those who didn't. I'm not sure why anyone would find that surprising. I don't know if any of those polls took residence into account - ie: how many of the "non-Scottish" respondents who said they were/did vote 'no' considered themselves permanent residents of Scotland, rather than people on short term employment contracts expecting to move elsewhere in a few years? But, I'm sure most people not expecting to live permanently in Scotland would be more inclined to vote 'no', or probably join the 15% who didn't vote at all. Also, the polls showed that support for independence was weaker among more affluent social groups, and again I expect that a large proportion of the not-ethnic-Scots in Scotland would be in those social groups, they are often in Scotland because they got a job there, usually one that was paying better than whatever job they could get in England (or wherever). Again, that would somewhat skew the poll results.
Now, from personal anecdote. I wasn't in Scotland in the weeks running upto the referendum, but had been there for most of the campaign. Much of my interaction with people at the time was via social-media, including threads here on the Ship, by necessity. I know several English-born people who were activists in the 'Yes' camp, and many who voted 'Yes'. And, that's where a lot of the English-born people I know are in academia, and academia in general was less supportive of independence (the questions asked in the conversations in the lab included UK research council funding, which was largely ignored in the campaigns). Now, I know it's anecdotal, but a lot of English-born people in Scotland saw independence as a good thing, which if they saw it motivated by anti-English racism would be an odd thing to do. I'm one of them, if you hadn't realised.
So, I'm not really disputing the evidence you present. I just don't see it as convincing support for the argument you are presenting. I don't think anti-English racism dominated, or even significantly influenced, the referendum result.
And, of course, the Better Together people had "support" from bigotted idiots too. I don't know of anyone in that camp who were not wishing the Orange Lodge would just shut up.
quote:
When the EU referendum comes round, I expect the battle lines will be similar to those in 2014.
The issues in a referendum on the EU will be different. At present the lines being drawn appear to be business in favour of staying in for economic reasons, and the likes of UKIP in favour of leaving for what mostly (to me) seem motives related to fear of losing British cultural identity. But, I suspect that a lot of the characteristics of 'prject fear' will be deployed in the campaign, and some of the visionary rhetoric as well - it's just that at present both sides are in a position to do both.
quote:
And finally, in response to this:
quote:
is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general
This is simple scapegoating, with an unexamined logic that it's all the fault of those people south of the Border. A fair-minded person might consider the following: the "Scottish Raj" remains a recent phenomenon, the current PM's father was Scottish, the previous PM was Scottish and the PM before him had Scottish parents and was educated in Scotland, and the most salient financial issue in the UK was as a result of (disastrous) decisions made in Scotland by Scottish institutions, made possible by removal of regulation done by a Scottish chancellor. So it appears that for better or for worse Scotland is overrepresented in British political and commercial life, and its representatives prone to behaving in precisely the same way as those from other parts of the UK. Which is hardly surprising as, if one removes the emblems and the national sentiments, the English and the Scots are culturally identical.
Yes, you are right about the "Scottish Raj". Though I wouldn't want to get ethnic about things (eg: is someone born and raised in England, within the English public school system, 'Scottish' just because that's where his father was born?). Also it seems unreasonable to blame the current economic depression on the failure of one financial institution headquartered in Scotland - it was one of several financial institutions to fail, as part of an international financial crisis, and though RBS is headquartered in Scotland it is a UK-wide, and beyond, bank.
But, seriously, who ever claimed that being born in Scotland or having Scottish ancestry makes someone perfect and invulnerable to making stupid mistakes?
Regardless of where MPs are from, Westminster as a Parliament is still dominated by English, indeed SE English, issues and concerns. The UK financial institutions are still centred around London (even those headquarted elsewhere are enthralled by the square mile). There is an idea that what's good for London is good for the UK, and I think that's false. I would welcome anything that weakens the power of Westminster, with corresponding increased powers to the regions in the UK - which, of course, includes Scotland.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. ... The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are.
Well, of course, New Zealand is a very different country than Scotland (or, in many ways, than anywhere else in Europe). The vast majority of the population are recent immigrants, and they know it. So, for them, I can see nationality and ethnicity not being big issues. I had assumed that there would be some residual national identity like you get in the US (with American-Irish, American-Italian etc) but from your post that was a mistaken assumption.
I would suggest that it is very likely that the remaining Maori population would have very different views on national identity, ethnicity etc. And, if those views aren't being reported in the media then perhaps there is something seriously wrong and the apparent "ethnicity isn't an issue" feeling you are getting is hiding a bigger issue. I can't imagine NZ is free of the hypocrisy and willful blindness to the true smell of the nations shit that characterises any other human society.
Ethnic identity is very important to Maori (and this country's media's reporting of it is fairly accurate). However, it is never overweening nor does it (leastways in my experience) prevent them taking people as they find them.
Hypocracy and racism exist here too of course - but IMHO at a lower level due to there being less nationalist sentiment.
quote:
I don't know of anyone who would deny there is anti-English racism in Scotland, or indeed bigotry directed at other minority groups. Nor do I know anyone who doesn't think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed. That seems like a massive straw man to me.
My point is that racism in Scotland is higher than it would otherwise be precisely because of nationalism. That is what nationalism does, and so I find my own experiences unsurprising. Accordingly I dislike the tendency to describe Scottish nationalism as a purely positive force by ascribing it attributes such as civic nationalism, political engagement, political renewal and so forth. This view of it sets up an interesting variation on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by setting up the pretence that "true" Scottish nationalism does not countenance the darker side of all nationalisms.
Scottish nationalism is often described as "civic" rather than "ethnic". At best, this is what (I'm sure) many nationalists genuinely wish it to be. At worst, it is nothing more than a sales pitch. American nationalism can genuinely be described as "civic" as it coalesces around an idea. By contrast, Scotland is a country with a history stretching back over a millenium, with very clearly defined borders, history and ethnicity. Nationalist identity in Scotland coalesces around those things instead. The independence debate would not be happening but for this history. Were Scotland to become independent, it would immediately become an old-fashioned nation state. Its values would in reality be defined by its single dominant ethnic group. It makes no difference whether or not this group did so on explicitly racist grounds: the effect would be the same. When Alex Salmond refers to Glasgow as "freedom city" or makes a "freedom declaration at Arbroath Abbey, he is deliberately referencing key events in the history the state that was previously ruled by that ethnic group. Everyone knows it strikes a chord, but no one really wants to consider precisely what notes the chord contains.
So hardly a straw man. But there is another reason why this matters so much.
Over the last twenty to thirty years political discourse in the UK has become increasingly nationalistic. From the 70s, the Scottish nationalists. In the 80s, Thatcher and her British nationalism. Since the 90s, increasingly English nationalism. I think this has had a disastrous effect on political debate. It has prevented constructive British engagement in the EU and, right now, is preventing a proper discussion on the pros and cons of EU membership. For left-wingers it has caused an enormous distraction as one of their traditional powerbases (Scotland) turns in on itself. The quality of the debate on the independence referendum has been praised to the skies. I actually found it shrill and of rather lower quality than one would find in the average GE. The Better Together camp fought a relentlessly negative campaign. However, more troublingly to me at least were the claims made by the Yes campaign concerning Scotland's use of sterling and its membership of the EU. They were ludicrously, factually wrong, but the febrility of the debate allowed an awful lot of people to be misled. Given that they were based on the White Paper (produced by the SG) I think the SNP deserves severe criticism.
(BTW, I seem to remember a shipmate who described himself as some sort of legal advisor to the SNP. He believed the UK had no constitution. Legally speaking, that's just a nonsense, so perhaps the Yes campaign were just poorly advised - but I would find that surprising if it were true).
Finally
quote:
But, seriously, who ever claimed that being born in Scotland or having Scottish ancestry makes someone perfect and invulnerable to making stupid mistakes?
Not me. The point I am attempting to refute is that people from Scotland had no involvement in these things. In fact they had a disproportionately large involvement. It is lazy to claim that All These Bad Things were Done to Us by Other People.
quote:
Regardless of where MPs are from, Westminster as a Parliament is still dominated by English, indeed SE English, issues and concerns.
England hardly presents a monolith of public opinion any more than Scotland. In each country they vary and mostly overlap. And I think it is more accurate to say that public debate tends to be dominated by London rather than the South East. London provides just over 10% of commons MPs, most of whom are in opposition. The rest of the HoC ought to be able to do something.
quote:
The UK financial institutions are still centred around London (even those headquarted elsewhere are enthralled by the square mile). There is an idea that what's good for London is good for the UK, and I think that's false. I would welcome anything that weakens the power of Westminster, with corresponding increased powers to the regions in the UK - which, of course, includes Scotland.
This I can agree with. It occurs to me that 100 years ago Scotland probably ran itself as just about everything government did was organised at the local level, apart from taxes and defence. Once again I draw a comparison with NZ - it is much easier for politicians in a polity of 4 or 5 million to keep in touch with what the public want than in one of 60 million. On that basis I imagine devolution across the UK, or the returning of powers to local authorities would deliver better government, all other things being equal. Furthermore, the UK has become overly dependent on a financial services sector that is not to be relied upon. Of course it should be remembered that this dependence has come about because that financial sector (including the disproportionately large financial sector in Scotland) have mostly been very profitable.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I certainly think one very strong line of attack for the SNP will be simply: "You have no mandate to do that north of the border."
They'll be right - a sort of reverse West Lothian question. It'll make things very awkward for the Tories.
But last week's election was to form a parliament for the entire UK, not its constituent parts. How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.<snip>
I wanted to pick up on this because I think it lies near the heart of what is in fact a UK wide issue, which also lies near the heart of some of the issues raised in the discussion between Alan and Cod.
My own impression, from a part of England that is about as far physically and culturally from London as you can get, is that there are many aspects of legislation where the primary shaping force seems to have been the broadly urban South East. Often it seems to have revolved around those whose business/work interests are in London, but who live in the home counties (indeed that name carries its own message, I think). This dominance is largely unconscious from the London/Home Counties pov, but that does not make it easier to live with.
The problem arises then when a government which has a UK wide remit passes 'uniform legislation' which is in fact detrimental to extensive areas of the country and disproportionately favourable to or focussed on those areas which form their electoral base. It is intensified when (since 1979) there has been an increasing move towards the centralisation of government power and the marginalising of local authorities.
With Scotland, historical factors, and a continuing sense of national identity have provided a focus around which this dissatisfaction has been able to coalesce. This has been harder for English regions to do - though it will be interesting to see what happens around the ideas of greater autonomy for places which agree to directly elected mayors.
Scotland has not as a whole always sat uneasily with the Union, and, even now, not all Scots are uneasy with the Union per se, but like a good number in the rest of the UK, they are uneasy with the London/Home Counties dominance. Linguistically (as a Scots-descended, English Home Counties born and raised resident of Cumbria - just to declare my biases) I find it interesting that (to go back a bit) Norman Tebbit's instinctive test for British nationality was support for the English cricket team.
This unconscious London/Home Counties dominance is not just about 'big' issues of national policy, but can be seen in much more detailed ways such as rules for schools admission policies (where schools in my area have to jump through admissions hoops which are irrelevant outside urban areas), and ideas for the sale of social housing (which take no account of the extent to which in our region the loss of council housing, and the restriction on house building in the national park has already led to a major problem of affordable housing for people who need/want to work in the area, and communities where it is common that a third of the housing is used for second homes or holiday lets).
So long as this shape of Westminster politics continues, and particularly where the governing party governs in a way which seems to show little or no concern for the regions in which it has no political stake, then the cry "You have no mandate to do that here" will continue to have resonance, and in Scotland that resonance will continue to strengthen a separatist nationalism.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
BroJames, being something akin to a Federal system is new to the UK, and will take quite some time before people* are accustomed to differing powers being exercised by Holyrood and Westminster. One course the UK may wish to consider is a change to a system such as operates in Canada, and the creation of separate provinces for the north and west of England as well as Scotland and Wales. But the idea that because Scotland returned only 1 Tory member to the UK Parliament, Westminster cannot pass legislation uniform across the entire country, is just plain wrong.
*It was a common complaint of the High Court Justices here, in the days before the Australia Act that the members of the UK Privy Council Judicial Committee had no idea of the concept of a federal system and this was apparent in the opinions the Committee expressed - see eg Philip Ayres biography of Sir Owen Dixon.
[ 29. May 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Of course, Westminster can pass UK wide legislation, except where it's devolved, but I think they will be treading carefully, as memories of the hated poll tax die hard. But surely so much is devolved now, and more is on the way. But Cameron will be wary of stoking the demand for another referendum.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, Westminster can pass UK wide legislation, except where it's devolved, but I think they will be treading carefully, as memories of the hated poll tax die hard. But surely so much is devolved now, and more is on the way. But Cameron will be wary of stoking the demand for another referendum.
My post was in general answer to the foreshadowed cry from the SNP that Cameron had no mandate from Scotland and therefore could not legislate for it (a bit of an exaggeration, I know). Cameron may need to tread softly to appease those who lost the referendum last year, but that is a political point. Legally, Westminster has the power to do so.
The poll tax is not seared into my memory as it may be to those in Scotland.
[ 29. May 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
