An Independent Scotland?

Whingers, childish etc

Yes you tried, and it could have worked when the vision and detail was clearer, unfortunately it wasn't enough...Now lets move on...
 
Blank_Canvas said:
He needs to butt out. He's stood down now and should be enjoying a bit of gardening leave.
Click to expand...
Not so. He is First Minister of Scotland, and remains so until after a new SNP leader is appointed - likely not until the new year. In that position he has a responsibility to lead Scotland, and a part of that is ensuring what has been promised is enacted.
 
Bernie174 said:
Firstly Steve, you said "We refused" Devolved powers. By We, do you mean the English? If so, we have never been asked.

Moving on, as Bob pointed out, mostly correctly, there's a difference between Scots and England & Wales legislation. Yet the Scots vote on ours, the reverse does not apply. Now thats not just Criminal Legislation, it's civil as well as enabling legislation on purely English matters. So for example PCC's, which I hope will soon disappear, Scots voted on, but don't have. Likewise on the NHS, Scots MP's vote on anything to do with that, yet don't have the use for it, Scotland having it's own.
No one has suggested it's the Scot's fault, it's a historical hangover, but under Labour it's never going to go away, they have too many MP's from Scotland, so it's unlikely they could successfully object to E&W legislation successfully. But you surely know that.
Of course Scots MP's should be involved in defence and foreign policy. Depending on how Tax raising powers end up in Scotland, also on economic issues. But if Scotland for example sets it's own spending and tax raising, then why should they be involved in the same for England?
Click to expand...
Blair proposed regional assemblies for England, in part to solve the west lothian problem. It garnered little interest and when put to the region that was felt to be the most in favour, the north east, they voted massively against it 78% against to 28% for. There's been no appetite in England for regional assemblies.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
Not so. He is First Minister of Scotland, and remains so until after a new SNP leader is appointed - likely not until the new year. In that position he has a responsibility to lead Scotland, and a part of that is ensuring what has been promised is enacted.
Click to expand...

It will be November when he formally stands down. The new First Minster will take over then. He has a Deputy so taking time out isn't an issue.

However, I do recall he insisted that "he would not resign in the event of a No vote" and went on public record to say that on September 18th when he went walkabout in Buchanan Street. He was quite empathetic about the fact.

That's pretty flakey to do a complete U-Turn only 10 hours after his defeat !

I would suggest that Cameron told him he would work with Scotland but not him(Salmond) and that it was in Scotland's best interest if he went. Of course we will never know the truth of the conversation that went on between them.

For someone who was adamant that he would not resign in the event of a No vote there has to be a very good reason ?
 
jakeblu said:
Blair proposed regional assemblies for England, in part to solve the west lothian problem. It garnered little interest and when put to the region that was felt to be the most in favour, the north east, they voted massively against it 78% against to 28% for. There's been no appetite in England for regional assemblies.
Click to expand...
The crucial flaw in the plan, however, was that regional assemblies would have in no way addressed the West Lothian question because they would have had no legislative powers. The voters in the north east rightly saw that they would be nothing but pointless, expensive, toothless, unnecessary talking shops. Whatever was on offer from the Blair government, it certainly wasn't devolution.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I would suggest that Cameron told him he would work with Scotland but not him(Salmond) and that it was in Scotland's best interest if he went. Of course we will never know the truth of the conversation that went on between them.
For someone who was adamant that he would not resign in the event of a No vote there has to be a very good reason ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he was confident that he would win.
 
StewartR said:
The crucial flaw in the plan, however, was that regional assemblies would have in no way addressed the West Lothian question because they would have had no legislative powers. The voters in the north east rightly saw that they would be nothing but pointless, expensive, toothless, unnecessary talking shops. Whatever was on offer from the Blair government, it certainly wasn't devolution.
Click to expand...

[Whoops poor maths on my part.]

Your right to some extent,but they would have been more than talking shops. They would have had powers over local housing, health, and the environment probably the most important local issues. They wouldn't have tax raising powers but that function is already their locally and to change that would involve major constitutional change. It would have been a start that could have been built on
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
I think he really believed he would and failure was not an option in his minds eye. However, he did emphatically state that he would not resign in the event of a No.
Click to expand...
I don't think he could have said anything different really, to say otherwise would have been a bit foolish. I doubt many close to him would have been surprised by his resignation. And whilst I feel Cameron's a bit of a knob I doubt he would refuse to negotiate with the democratically elected first minister of Scotland. Not even he could be that arrogant.
 
Steep said:
Something's stirred up, on Friday the SNP had 25,000 members and in the last three days it's grown to 35,000, I hope it's not just a knee jerk reaction.
Click to expand...


Given we've just had a referendum - I think it's fairly safe to say it's knee jerk.

YES campaigned NO under the table but ultimately, there was simply no meat on the bones and that's what matters.

Yes (not just SNP) worked hard. Really hard - to round up every man and his dog with no political history and that can only be a good thing but even then - two thirds of Scotland didn't buy into it.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
I doubt he would refuse to negotiate with the democratically elected first minister of Scotland. Not even he could be that arrogant.
Click to expand...

I suspect, but don't know of course, that's exactly what he did.

It's not arrogance, it's political pragmatism.
 
jakeblu said:
Your right to some extent,but they would have been more than talking shops. They would have had powers over local housing, health, and the environment probably the most important local issues.
Click to expand...
But the whole problem was that these sorts of issues are already managed at a local level. The regional assemblies were going to add an extra level of bureaucracy, but they weren't going to take any control away from Westminster.
jakeblu said:
It would have been a start that could have been built on
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe. Unfortunately we'll never know. The way they were presented, it wasn't enough of a start, and there was no obvious commitment or enthusiasm for the building.
 
simon ess said:
I suspect, but don't know of course, that's exactly what he did.

It's not arrogance, it's political pragmatism.
Click to expand...
To refuse to negotiate with the democratic elected leader of the ruling party is not pragmatism but downright bloody arrogance. Despite that I would be surprised if that is what has happened and if it had I doubt Salmond would have gone so quietly
 
jakeblu said:
To refuse to negotiate with the democratic elected leader of the ruling party is not pragmatism but downright bloody arrogance. Despite that I would be surprised if that is what has happened and if it had I doubt Salmond would have gone so quietly
Click to expand...

We'll probably need to agree to disagree on this one Steve.

I imagine that Salmond is actually quite principled. A small fish in a big pond who saw his chance and failed, but basically principled.

I also imagine Cameron calculating the mood of his party and his strategies for the next election.

Edit: Oh, just to add - I do think Salmond has achieved something worthwhile and may well re-emerge.

Edit again: And that's part of Salmond's calculation.
 
Last edited:
Blair proposed regional assemblies for England, in part to solve the west lothian problem. It garnered little interest and when put to the region that was felt to be the most in favour, the north east, they voted massively against it 78% against to 28% for. There's been no appetite in England for regional assemblies.
Click to expand...

No of course there's no appetite for regional assemblies. But we have never been asked if we want an English Parliament. Which is what we need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
heard on the radio this morning that the CEO in manchester thinks that the north of england should have the same devolved powers as cameron is promising scotland (assuming of course he keeps the promise) - it'd be intersting to see where or how they'd draw the north south line (and if the north gets them what about the south west, east anglia etc) - that way madness lies imo that would be a road back to lbeing lots of teeny squabling states
 
As I've said many a time. Just separate around the greater metropolitan area, including Home Counties and then the rest of the UK can live happily ever after and not be ruled by Westminster. Problem solved quickly and easily, including wealth distribution.
 
dejongj said:
As I've said many a time. Just separate around the greater metropolitan area, including Home Counties and then the rest of the UK can live happily ever after and not be ruled by Westminster. Problem solved quickly and easily, including wealth distribution.
Click to expand...

But where would it be ruled by ? - and also most of the current crop of idiots politicians come from outside the greater met area anyway so we'd still be stuck with them. The problem isnt london per se its ruling a large area from a seat concentrated in a small one.
 
big soft moose said:
But where would it be ruled by ? - and also most of the current crop of idiots politicians come from outside the greater met area anyway so we'd still be stuck with them. The problem isnt london per se its ruling a large area from a seat concentrated in a small one.
Click to expand...


Well exactly. That is for them to sort out. They'll be begging to go back to London based governance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
big soft moose said:
heard on the radio this morning that the CEO in manchester thinks that the north of england should have the same devolved powers as cameron is promising scotland (assuming of course he keeps the promise) - it'd be intersting to see where or how they'd draw the north south line (and if the north gets them what about the south west, east anglia etc) - that way madness lies imo that would be a road back to lbeing lots of teeny squabling states
Click to expand...

Quite so. Leese is not a person to take any notice of. The last thing required is Milliband's idea of English devolution. That would only result in the creation of more Labour enclaves. In any case regional "government" was Prescott's big idea that got the thumbs down last time round.
Personally I don't see the problem in arranging English votes for English laws. Just invite the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs to leave the chamber and don't allow them through the lobbies. Job done and no cost.

Of course one can easily see why that wouldn't suit Milliband. But trying to argue for allowing non-English MPs to vote on English only legislation is untenable. Even some of his own MPs are onboard with that. What I'm enjoying is watching Labour argue against it.
 
Another easy solution would be to allow everyone to vote for everything. Much easier than these little enclaves of unequal rights. After all they are work with the best intentions for us and on our mandate don't they?
 
chadders said:
Quite so. Leese is not a person to take any notice of. The last thing required is Milliband's idea of English devolution. That would only result in the creation of more Labour enclaves. In any case regional "government" was Prescott's big idea that got the thumbs down last time round.
Personally I don't see the problem in arranging English votes for English laws. Just invite the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs to leave the chamber and don't allow them through the lobbies. Job done and no cost.

Of course one can easily see why that wouldn't suit Milliband. But trying to argue for allowing non-English MPs to vote on English only legislation is untenable. Even some of his own MPs are onboard with that. What I'm enjoying is watching Labour argue against it.
Click to expand...

So am I - the defence of the indefencible.
 
chadders said:
Quite so. Leese is not a person to take any notice of. The last thing required is Milliband's idea of English devolution. That would only result in the creation of more Labour enclaves. In any case regional "government" was Prescott's big idea that got the thumbs down last time round.
Personally I don't see the problem in arranging English votes for English laws. Just invite the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs to leave the chamber and don't allow them through the lobbies. Job done and no cost.

Of course one can easily see why that wouldn't suit Milliband. But trying to argue for allowing non-English MPs to vote on English only legislation is untenable. Even some of his own MPs are onboard with that. What I'm enjoying is watching Labour argue against it.
Click to expand...
Not sure why it wouldn't suit Milliband other than the obvious difficulties involved in creating a two tier legislature. Its worth repeating here again that the labour governments of 1997/2001/2005 had majorities in England
 
Last edited:
indeed, but currently most of the labour seats are not - under that system as things stand the conservatives would have a majority without needing coalition partners
 
big soft moose said:
indeed, but currently most of the labour seats are not - under that system as things stand the conservatives would have a majority without needing coalition partners
Click to expand...

Correct - it is a question of numbers. Take away the 41 Scottish labour MP's who vote with the other labour MP's in Westminster on English only matters and the labour party stand to be outvoted. That is a very weak position to be in.
 
arclight said:
Correct - it is a question of numbers. Take away the 41 Scottish labour MP's who vote with the other labour MP's in Westminster on English only matters and the labour party stand to be outvoted. That is a very weak position to be in.
Click to expand...
In this parliament yes but in 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour held a majority in England alone regardless of the Scots and Welsh MPs. I see no reason why a future Labour government wouldn't hold a majority again
 
indeed - but mr milliband is not, as far as we know, a time lord therefore its what's happening in this parliment, and what he thinks will happen in 2015 which will predicate whether he'd favour the set up or not
 
StewartR said:
I like it. Scots MPs can vote on English issues and English MPs can vote on Scottish issues. What could be fairer?
Click to expand...

isnt that what we had prior to the original devolution of power and the setting up of scots parliment and welsh assembly.

Perhaps the answer is a seperate english parliment to deal with internal issues, based in say birmingham with the same devolved powers as welsh and scots, and westminster to confine their activity to foreign policy, defence and other such matters as affect the whole GB
 
Perhaps the answer is a seperate english parliment to deal with internal issues, based in say birmingham with the same devolved powers as welsh and scots, and westminster to confine their activity to foreign policy, defence and other such matters as affect the whole GB
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you, but of course Polititians won't. I mean what do you say to a former backbench MP? "Can I have fries with that please".

My only concern would be why employ yet another layer of MP's? I'd want less, not more.

More sensible is Westminster, for as you say defence etc, and MP's sit there for that. Each Country in the Union has it's own parliament, made up of the MP's who aren't sat in Westminster, except when they are needed there for Union business.

Reform of the HoL, get rid of politically appointed Lords, and only award peerages to people of independent politics who have done good in the community, who's task in life would be to beat some sense into politicians.

Simples and Sorted, now one of those HoL places.......?
 
don't forget, all this costs money...our money! Keep it simple and safe and don't provide them excuses to cream off our pounds....Keep it simple, everyone votes for everything...
 
jakeblu said:
Not sure why it wouldn't suit Milliband other than the obvious difficulties involved in creating a two tier legislature. Its worth repeating here again that the labour governments of 1997/2001/2005 had majorities in England
Click to expand...


That kind of result can't be relied on, particularly next year. If he's not bothered then he's giving every indication of being reluctant.

You're repeating yourself. What is it they say about investments?

"Past performance is no indication of future returns". He's obviously not as confident as you'd like him to be.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
I like it. Scots MPs can vote on English issues and English MPs can vote on Scottish issues. What could be fairer?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the recent Independence referendum in Scotland. Try selling that solution to the Scots.
 
jakeblu said:
In this parliament yes but in 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour held a majority in England alone regardless of the Scots and Welsh MPs. I see no reason why a future Labour government wouldn't hold a majority again
Click to expand...

Trouble is that has time has gone by there has become less and less difference between Lab and Con. In that scenario it is hard to see any party being elected with a large majority.
 
StewartR said:
I like it. Scots MPs can vote on English issues and English MPs can vote on Scottish issues. What could be fairer?
Click to expand...
big soft moose said:
isnt that what we had prior to the original devolution of power and the setting up of scots parliment and welsh assembly.
Click to expand...
chadders said:
Did you miss the recent Independence referendum in Scotland. Try selling that solution to the Scots.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I bother trying satire. It's wasted on this audience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top