Scottish independence

[malg]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another example of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

 

[Gabriel]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another exemple of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

 

[jimharri]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another exemple of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

Best of luck later, when our resident ladies have finished making the breakfasts, the ironing and the cleaning.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another exemple of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

Best of luck later, when our resident ladies have finished making the breakfasts, the ironing and the cleaning.

You are a marked man Jim :)


But your comment just proves how capable women are, we do all you say and have full time jobs. Women get things done, Scotland are very lucky indeed

 

[jimharri]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another exemple of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

Best of luck later, when our resident ladies have finished making the breakfasts, the ironing and the cleaning.

You are a marked man Jim :)


But your comment just proves how capable women are, we do all you say and have full time jobs. Women get things done, Scotland are very lucky indeed

Multi-tasking FTW Di!

 

[Ducado]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

 

[Len Rum]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[yerwot?]

Just seen this morning that if Sturgeon gets the SNP job, then the SNP, Labour and Conservatives will all have female leaders in Scotland. Another exemple of the parties not taking Scotland seriously?

Half the electorate are female. Some of the world's greatest multinationals are led by women, it is not really an issue ........ compared to say, the lack of a socialist party, the one-sided nature of the media and the establishment, and the absolute dominance of the M25 enclave.

 

[sir baconface]

There are some posts on the 'Vow' signed by the three party leaders doing the rounds on the Cameron thread ,with some posters suggesting increased devolution for Scotland is not possible or 'fair' without addressing the West Lothian question.
Whilst in theory this might sound fair, there was no mention of any 'conditionality' in the Vow.
This Vow must have had a major impact on influencing the vote and whilst not legally enforceable, surely a promise signed by three party leaders has to be 'morally' binding.
If these three leaders Cameron, Milliband and Clegg cannot deliver collectively the votes required in Parliament to effect legislation to give the increased powers to Scotland ( without settlement of the West Lothian issue or any other conditionality) as they PROMISED , then surely all three of them should resign and a new referendum he held?

They knew each others' positions before signing but they panicked. Now it's over they suddenly realise there's an English stake in this and are reverting to party political lines.

The vow would only have been honourable if they'd reached agreement in principle behind the scenes and were now collaborating willingly. This should have included an understanding one way or the other on conditionality.

They will no doubt come over as a bunch of untrustworthy fcukers but no surprises there.

 

[TGR]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

A political masterstroke by Dave, it really is. I read an article yesterday in The Telegraph where he and Osborne planned it all out over dinner in a restaurant in Scotland last year. The key to it all was getting Salmond to agree to have one single question on the ballot paper and no Devo Max option . For this he conceded about giving the vote to 16 year olds and also the timing of the vote as he knew giving additional powers to Scotland was his trump card in the pack should he need to play it.
He really has got both Labour & the Lib Dems between a rock and a hard place.
Like him or not he is a very smart political operator.

 

[cibaman]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England.

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

 

[Len Rum]

There are some posts on the 'Vow' signed by the three party leaders doing the rounds on the Cameron thread ,with some posters suggesting increased devolution for Scotland is not possible or 'fair' without addressing the West Lothian question.
Whilst in theory this might sound fair, there was no mention of any 'conditionality' in the Vow.
This Vow must have had a major impact on influencing the vote and whilst not legally enforceable, surely a promise signed by three party leaders has to be 'morally' binding.
If these three leaders Cameron, Milliband and Clegg cannot deliver collectively the votes required in Parliament to effect legislation to give the increased powers to Scotland ( without settlement of the West Lothian issue or any other conditionality) as they PROMISED , then surely all three of them should resign and a new referendum he held?

They knew each others' positions before signing but they panicked. Now it's over they suddenly realise there's an English stake in this and are reverting to party political lines.

The vow would only have been honourable if they'd reached agreement in principle behind the scenes and were now collaborating willingly. This should have included an understanding one way or the other on conditionality.

They will no doubt come over as a bunch of untrustworthy fcukers but no surprises there.

Agreed.

 

[Len Rum]

Strange how history repeats itself:
Neville Chamberlain 1938 - 'I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler'.
First Minister of Scotland 2014 - 'I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by the the leaders of the three main parties'.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

What piece of paper?

 

[Len Rum]

What piece of paper?

Obviously a details man.
In the case of Chamberlain the blank piece of paper that was supposed to represent the Munich treaty signed by Hitler.
In the case of the First Minister of Scotland the front page of the Newspaper that had the signed 'Vow' printed on it.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Allowing 16 and 17 years to vote was a scandal which I hope is never repeated on these shores ever again.

They are old enough to enlist in the army and if called upon place themselves in harms way for the rest of us, old enough to get married and raise a family......

but for some reason considered not old enough to be allowed to directly vote and influence their own future?

I would suggest that not allowing them to vote and to leave the 'blue rinse brigade' to decide on the future of Scotland would have had serious consequences and the fall out would have lasted for a generation

 

[malg]

Absolutely nothing wrong with 16 year olds voting.

 

[west didsblue]

It appears that the Tories are going to let the act go through Parliament and add amendments to it with regards to the West Lothian Question, it's really a Challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems to scupper the bill, they will be caught between a rock and hard place, scupper it and they will be annihilated in Scotland let it through and they will never be able to govern in England no wonder Ed is panicking

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England.

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

Perhaps England's 9 regions should individually be given the same autonomy as Scotland, Wales and NI rather than England as a whole. In that way, there wouldn't be a single dominant sub-national area.

 

[TGR]

Allowing 16 and 17 years to vote was a scandal which I hope is never repeated on these shores ever again.

They are old enough to enlist in the army and if called upon place themselves in harms way for the rest of us, old enough to get married and raise a family......

but for some reason considered not old enough to be allowed to directly vote and influence their own future?

I would suggest that not allowing them to vote and to leave the 'blue rinse brigade' to decide on the future of Scotland would have had serious consequences and the fall out would have lasted for a generation

If you are old enough to work and pay tax then you should be old enough to vote to have a say how those taxes are used.

 

[cibaman]

First of all IF that is what the Tories are going to do then it's quite clearly wrong because major constitutional change in England should not be passed as a fag packet amendment to the Scottish devo max bill.
On Major constitutional change you must try at first to get consensus agreement from as many parties first and then put the issue to a vote. If you don't do that then each party could simply when in office reverse the constitutional changes made by it's predecessor .
The same process should have been gone through for the Scottish devo max issue, but it wasn't. It was indeed a fag packet vow signed by the three party leaders and as such they should commit to pass it without condition ,or if they can't then face the consequences.
The Tories may do what you are suggesting for electoral and political advantage but it would be wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The problem is that there isn't an obvious solution given the dominant size of England.

The idea of a federal structure including an English parliament is superficially appealing. But apart from the horrendous cost, it just wouldn't work because the English Parliament would be too dominant. In the longer term perhaps more powerful than the UK parliament. Decisions taken by the English parliament, acting solely in the interests of England, would inevitably impact on the smaller countries. And they would have no say on it. The Union only really works if the smaller countries get more out of it than pro rata to their size. Eventually a federal UK would break up because it wouldnt be worth it for the smaller countries.

The other approach of a two tier House of Commons where only English MP's vote on English matters is inherently unstable. Fine if the government has a majority of both UK and English seats, a complete nightmare if it doesn't. It wasn't too much of a problem when matters were largely centralised and when voting patterns in Scotland weren't that much different to the rest of the UK. But with devo max and 1 Scottish tory MP v 40 Scottish labour MP's its a recipe for stalemate.

Perhaps England's 9 regions should individually be given the same autonomy as Scotland, Wales and NI rather than England as a whole. In that way, there wouldn't be a single dominant sub-national area.

Who would set income tax rates in England, or would we have 9 different rates? 9 different VAT rates, corporation tax rates? Who would run the NHS in England, or would it be broken into 9?

There are some things that work best at a regional level but not everything. I've argued that an England parliament would be too dominant in a federal structure. But a federal structure without England as an entity goes too far in the opposite direction.