If I was a Scot I would be more likely to vote for independence as a result of the proposed "new" measures from Gordon Brown which are clearly a panic measure from the political parties in England designed to scare the scottish electorate and a huge own goal in my view.
Only one party in England stands to lose out when independence transforms the House of Commons.
If I was a Scot I would be more likely to vote for independence as a result of the proposed "new" measures from Gordon Brown which are clearly a panic measure from the political parties in England designed to scare the scottish electorate and a huge own goal in my view.
Don't think Gordon Brown has much legislative power these days!
It has probably been mentioned before, but the Orkneys and Shetland Isles have a different cultural identity to mainland Scotland due to Scandinavian influences and past events. They also have a territorial interest in the North Sea oil fields. Their population is so low, that if they had a bit of a snifter of all of that oil the people of those islands could be very rich per head of population. I wonder what the Scottish nationalists would do if the islands voted for their independence from an independent Scotland, it is as not as far fetched an idea as one might think.
I think the one outcome of all this is that, regardless of the result next week, there is precisely zero chance of Cameron allowing there to be a referendum on EU membership after the general election if he is anywhere near government. Which he won't be.
It has probably been mentioned before, but the Orkneys and Shetland Isles have a different cultural identity to mainland Scotland due to Scandinavian influences and past events. They also have a territorial interest in the North Sea oil fields. Their population is so low, that if they had a bit of a snifter of all of that oil the people of those islands could be very rich per head of population. I wonder what the Scottish nationalists would do if the islands voted for their independence from an independent Scotland, it is as not as far fetched an idea as one might think.
my parents have an old friend that lives in edinburgh who came down to visit a few weeks ago and said there were strong rumblings amongst the islanders to seek independence if the scottish one goes through.
The Scottish Nationalists presumably couldn't stop the 28,000 Shetlanders having a vote for independence, and they would only need to claim a very small percentage of the oil wealth to be very rich for a very long time indeed. I reckon they ought to do it, and the next stop ought to be the Isle of Dogs!
I think the one outcome of all this is that, regardless of the result next week, there is precisely zero chance of Cameron allowing there to be a referendum on EU membership after the general election if he is anywhere near government. Which he won't be.
If the Scots vote the wrong way then it'll be the last referendum full stop.
Anyway I still have a feeling that the old girl will find an excuse to send in the troops and make the result of the whole thing moot. If I was Salmond I'd be more worried about keeping my head on my shoulders than the result of the referendum.
"We’re (The Guardian) being briefed now on some of the policy detail unveiled today by the Scottish party leaders of the Better Together campaign.
What it won’t do is address the West Lothian question. There are no proposals for any changes in the House of Commons, says Labour party official."
Surely it will only accentuate the democratic deficit ? The more powers which are devolved to the Scottish parliament the more Scottish MP's at Westminster will be able to vote on issues which have nothing to do with their constituencies. I don't actually believe the "West Lothian Question" is as big a problem as English Nationalist think it is, but it's starting to get silly.
Also, Didn't both sides of the referendum agree that they wouldn't announce any major policies 20 days either side of the vote ?
As someone half English & half Scottish, who chose to make Glasgow my home, this is all I have to say:
If Scotland votes for independence, then it is proposed that England, Wales, N Ireland etc will become known as the former UK.
So for fUK's sake, vote no...
This! And how will these new proposals go down? Enough to swing back a few % and get the job done or will it back fire? Down here in London it sounds like "better together" has lost its voice?
Incidentally this whole drama shows precisely how unwise Cameron has been on this and his EU referendum proposals...politicians are supposed to respond to and manage opinions and policies not duck and give the decision to whoever shouts loudest. If the Scottish bank shares drop 3% in a day over one poll imagine the disturbance if a vote on Europe looked like we were leaving.
If I lived in Scotland and thought that by voting 'Yes' I would not have to endure the Tories ever again and that I could become a citizen of one of the richest per capita countries in the world, why would I vote 'No' ? We have laughed at and mocked the Scots for a long time, ignoring their historic and, for me, genuine grievances, so why are we so surprised that a rather simplistic nationalistic flag waving fervour has taken hold?
"We’re (The Guardian) being briefed now on some of the policy detail unveiled today by the Scottish party leaders of the Better Together campaign.
What it won’t do is address the West Lothian question. There are no proposals for any changes in the House of Commons, says Labour party official."
Surely it will only accentuate the democratic deficit ? The more powers which are devolved to the Scottish parliament the more Scottish MP's at Westminster will be able to vote on issues which have nothing to do with their constituencies. I don't actually believe the "West Lothian Question" is as big a problem as English Nationalist think it is, but it's starting to get silly.
In 2003 Foundation Trusts were being introduced into the NHS in England only and a vote was held in the Commons to introduce them. There were many English Labour MPs rebelling and Blair's majority was threatened. Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs - whose constituencies were not affected by the vote, were whipped to vote with the Government. The rebels were defeated.
In 2004 Blair's Labour Government held a vote to increase the cap on tuition fees to £3,000 per year in England only. Again, enough English Labour MPs were rebelling to threaten Blair's majority and once again the Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales were whipped into supporting the Government.
Foundation Trusts were one of the biggest changes that Blair & Brown's Labour brought to the English NHS and are still widely unpopular today. Likewise, if Blair had been defeat with raising tuition fees, it could be feasible that they'd still be capped at £1,000 today.
If I lived in Scotland and thought that by voting 'Yes' I would not have to endure the Tories ever again and that I could become a citizen of one of the richest per capita countries in the world, why would I vote 'No' ? We have laughed at and mocked the Scots for a long time, ignoring their historic and, for me, genuine grievances, so why are we so surprised that a rather simplistic nationalistic flag waving fervour has taken hold?
Eeh, perhaps because they won't be very rich for very long? The oil & gas revenue will gradually dwindle toward nothingness. (Sooner rather than later if working with the Scotttish Govt. and its taxation policies makes investing undesirable for the oil companies.) And the majority of the financial services sector will decamp south of the border because that's where their customers are. So what will be left - hydro-electricty, shortbread biscuits, whisky and some sheep? In any event, once Scottish taxation starts to bite to pay for all Salmonds plans, even if the country is well off its individual citizens won't have a pot to piss in.
I can't see how Cameron would survive a yes vote. It could be argued that he is the unlucky PM in situ when it happens, but he was elected as PM of the country and then presides over that country being split up. Duh! This is fundamental, this is elemental and it is surely not survivable for Cameron.
"We’re (The Guardian) being briefed now on some of the policy detail unveiled today by the Scottish party leaders of the Better Together campaign.
What it won’t do is address the West Lothian question. There are no proposals for any changes in the House of Commons, says Labour party official."
Surely it will only accentuate the democratic deficit ? The more powers which are devolved to the Scottish parliament the more Scottish MP's at Westminster will be able to vote on issues which have nothing to do with their constituencies. I don't actually believe the "West Lothian Question" is as big a problem as English Nationalist think it is, but it's starting to get silly.
In 2003 Foundation Trusts were being introduced into the NHS in England only and a vote was held in the Commons to introduce them. There were many English Labour MPs rebelling and Blair's majority was threatened. Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs - whose constituencies were not affected by the vote, were whipped to vote with the Government. The rebels were defeated.
In 2004 Blair's Labour Government held a vote to increase the cap on tuition fees to £3,000 per year in England only. Again, enough English Labour MPs were rebelling to threaten Blair's majority and once again the Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales were whipped into supporting the Government.
Foundation Trusts were one of the biggest changes that Blair & Brown's Labour brought to the English NHS and are still widely unpopular today. Likewise, if Blair had been defeat with raising tuition fees, it could be feasible that they'd still be capped at £1,000 today.
Precisely, two examples in over a decade. What your examples also prove is that MP’s – regardless of where their constituency is – tend to vote based on party affiliations rather than national ones.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the West Lothian Question isn’t an issue, it is – but it’s overplayed by English Nationalists in its importance and application as your examples prove. Basing your opinion on whether you want Scotland to stay or go based on the fact that their MP’s can vote on English matters seems ignorant to me as it ignores the far more pressing issues it will create for England.
I can't see how Cameron would survive a yes vote. It could be argued that he is the unlucky PM in situ when it happens, but he was elected as PM of the country and then presides over that country being split up. Duh! This is fundamental, this is elemental and it is surely not survivable for Cameron.
surely not survivable for miliband as well, who's MP's are in scotland and so will have failed him, the party and has lost them something like 40 seats in one swoop.
"We’re (The Guardian) being briefed now on some of the policy detail unveiled today by the Scottish party leaders of the Better Together campaign.
What it won’t do is address the West Lothian question. There are no proposals for any changes in the House of Commons, says Labour party official."
Surely it will only accentuate the democratic deficit ? The more powers which are devolved to the Scottish parliament the more Scottish MP's at Westminster will be able to vote on issues which have nothing to do with their constituencies. I don't actually believe the "West Lothian Question" is as big a problem as English Nationalist think it is, but it's starting to get silly.
In 2003 Foundation Trusts were being introduced into the NHS in England only and a vote was held in the Commons to introduce them. There were many English Labour MPs rebelling and Blair's majority was threatened. Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs - whose constituencies were not affected by the vote, were whipped to vote with the Government. The rebels were defeated.
In 2004 Blair's Labour Government held a vote to increase the cap on tuition fees to £3,000 per year in England only. Again, enough English Labour MPs were rebelling to threaten Blair's majority and once again the Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales were whipped into supporting the Government.
Foundation Trusts were one of the biggest changes that Blair & Brown's Labour brought to the English NHS and are still widely unpopular today. Likewise, if Blair had been defeat with raising tuition fees, it could be feasible that they'd still be capped at £1,000 today.
Precisely, two examples in over a decade. What your examples also prove is that MP’s – regardless of where their constituency is – tend to vote based on party affiliations rather than national ones.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the West Lothian Question isn’t an issue, it is – but it’s overplayed by English Nationalists in its importance and application as your examples prove. Basing your opinion on whether you want Scotland to stay or go based on the fact that their MP’s can vote on English matters seems ignorant to me as it ignores the far more pressing issues it will create for England.
I don't base my opinion on the above and I actually want Scotland to stay.
The reason why it didn't make much difference between 1997-2010 is because Labour had a substantial majority, and it has failed to make a difference since 2010 as there has been barely any English-only legislation that could be threatened by non-English MPs. It might be a small point but it is a rather blatant transgression of democracy and the fact that a constitutional cock-up that has been highlighted since the 1970s still hasn't been corrected is a stain on the politicians that have passed through the House since.
I've always had a personal philosophy when approaching a status quo that causes a problem - if you were building the system from scratch, would you build it in the way the status quo is built? If the answer is no, then you're a fool for keeping the status quo unless it would be prohibitively expensive to change. No one in their right mind would, nowadays, create a nation from 4 different countries but give them all differing levels of autonomy and power over another country's matters. Northern Island is a special case, but when devolving powers to Scotland and Wales, it should have been clear at the time that such powers should also have been devolved to an English Parliament as well.
If they vote yes, and there seems to be a fair chance they might, does anyone know if it automatically means it is a binding legal commitment? Only at the moment, with the main parties falling over themselves to give them incentives to stay in the union, might they get everything they want through the back door, without having to separate, and the risks that such a move raises for both sides?
Haven't read the whole thread so apologies in advance if any of this has been covered.
It is entirely right that the people of Scotland should decide whether or not to end the union. They have been and could be again an independent state (unlike Wales which has never been a single, unified, independent sovereign state with one ruler).
If they vote yes then that's it - off they go on their own even though constitutionally it will be a nightmare. They ditch the pound sterling (no freebie guarantees from the BoE thank you very much), but they can keep the Queen as head of state (same as Australia for example) if they so wish, restore a Stewart to their own throne (if they can find a legal heir), or become a republic with President Salmond (the thought of that alone should guarantee a 'No' vote!).
But if they vote no then that should be the end of it. No more devolution of powers - no 'devo-max'. That would give them all the benefits of independance without the risk.
Interesting times. I'm hoping for a narrow 'no' vote, followed by the promised devolution of powers which might set a precedent not just for Wales, but perhaps for other cities or regions of the UK. I think the 'nation state' is becoming obsolete; a lot of services and economic initiatives are better run at a more local level, while nation states are incapable of dealing with the world's bigger problems - global warming, international finance, increasing inequality, terrorism. So I believe simultaneously in devolution of power (for example to the London Mayor) and aggregation of power, (for example in the EU).
Interesting times. I'm hoping for a narrow 'no' vote, followed by the promised devolution of powers which might set a precedent not just for Wales, but perhaps for other cities or regions of the UK. I think the 'nation state' is becoming obsolete; a lot of services and economic initiatives are better run at a more local level, while nation states are incapable of dealing with the world's bigger problems - global warming, international finance, increasing inequality, terrorism. So I believe simultaneously in devolution of power (for example to the London Mayor) and aggregation of power, (for example in the EU).
Interesting approach. You could certainly argue that certain parts of the UK face challenges that others do not. For me, I'd be interested in what happens if there is a slim 'yes' majority, say 52-48 for example. Yes Salmond would get what he wanted, but he'd have next to half the population against that decision. His margin for error would be very small. I suppose you then argue what sort of voting system you use etc. However, because this is such a contentious one, if you place your faith in first past the post, then it could make for a hellish ride if it does squeeze through.
For me, all this adds to the weight of the practical arguments being put forward for Scotland to stay. The point about the Shetland Orkney Isles is also very valid, and in fact, if the Scots did break away, they can have no grounds to complain if this was a knock on affect.
What annoys me is that the Yes campaign insists they can keep the £. The fact is they can't, it belongs to the Bank of England...which they don't want to be part of. For example its the BOE who decide interest rates and if Scotland are not part of the UK then they wont have our interest rates as that is set in £ sterling, and hence they will not have our fiscal policy. So where do they go? Euro? they need to ask permission and have fiscal adherence to join, which they don't have. The final solution is to have their own currency, but what do they align it to? For me, and I'm part Scottish through my gran-dad, they should vote NO and stick with the union, they wont have a the fiscal power to survive on their own. However if they go, we should let them and see how they get on, but there should be NO fiscal, economic, or defence help. They choose their bed, let them lie in it.
They can use the pound (or any internationally traded currency) and they do want access to the BoE - the three main UK political parties have said they won't give them that access.
Yup, THIS!
Just like Jersey, Gibraltar and a few others around the world who aren't controlled by Westminster but still uses our currency... And in the case of Jersey, wealthy with it too!
Haven't read the whole thread so apologies in advance if any of this has been covered.
It is entirely right that the people of Scotland should decide whether or not to end the union. They have been and could be again an independent state (unlike Wales which has never been a single, unified, independent sovereign state with one ruler).
If they vote yes then that's it - off they go on their own even though constitutionally it will be a nightmare. They ditch the pound sterling (no freebie guarantees from the BoE thank you very much), but they can keep the Queen as head of state (same as Australia for example) if they so wish, restore a Stewart to their own throne (if they can find a legal heir), or become a republic with President Salmond (the thought of that alone should guarantee a 'No' vote!).
But if they vote no then that should be the end of it. No more devolution of powers - no 'devo-max'. That would give them all the benefits of independance without the risk.
Wait until Mel Gibson makes a film about Owen Glendower. Then there will be trouble..........
Comments
If Scotland votes for independence, then it is proposed that England, Wales, N Ireland etc will become known as the former UK.
So for fUK's sake, vote no...
I thought we all assisted (along with BP nationalized at the time) for the development of that industry.
I wonder what the Scottish nationalists would do if the islands voted for their independence from an independent Scotland, it is as not as far fetched an idea as one might think.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/uk-scotland-independence-shetland-idUKBREA3F0SH20140416
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html
I reckon they ought to do it, and the next stop ought to be the Isle of Dogs!
http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2010/10/22/the-isle-of-dogs-declares-independence-from-the-uk/
Anyway I still have a feeling that the old girl will find an excuse to send in the troops and make the result of the whole thing moot. If I was Salmond I'd be more worried about keeping my head on my shoulders than the result of the referendum.
What it won’t do is address the West Lothian question. There are no proposals for any changes in the House of Commons, says Labour party official."
Also, Didn't both sides of the referendum agree that they wouldn't announce any major policies 20 days either side of the vote ?
And how will these new proposals go down? Enough to swing back a few % and get the job done or will it back fire?
Down here in London it sounds like "better together" has lost its voice?
Incidentally this whole drama shows precisely how unwise Cameron has been on this and his EU referendum proposals...politicians are supposed to respond to and manage opinions and policies not duck and give the decision to whoever shouts loudest. If the Scottish bank shares drop 3% in a day over one poll imagine the disturbance if a vote on Europe looked like we were leaving.
We have laughed at and mocked the Scots for a long time, ignoring their historic and, for me, genuine grievances, so why are we so surprised that a rather simplistic nationalistic flag waving fervour has taken hold?
In 2004 Blair's Labour Government held a vote to increase the cap on tuition fees to £3,000 per year in England only. Again, enough English Labour MPs were rebelling to threaten Blair's majority and once again the Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales were whipped into supporting the Government.
Foundation Trusts were one of the biggest changes that Blair & Brown's Labour brought to the English NHS and are still widely unpopular today. Likewise, if Blair had been defeat with raising tuition fees, it could be feasible that they'd still be capped at £1,000 today.
So what will be left - hydro-electricty, shortbread biscuits, whisky and some sheep? In any event, once Scottish taxation starts to bite to pay for all Salmonds plans, even if the country is well off its individual citizens won't have a pot to piss in.
This is fundamental, this is elemental and it is surely not survivable for Cameron.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the West Lothian Question isn’t an issue, it is – but it’s overplayed by English Nationalists in its importance and application as your examples prove. Basing your opinion on whether you want Scotland to stay or go based on the fact that their MP’s can vote on English matters seems ignorant to me as it ignores the far more pressing issues it will create for England.
The reason why it didn't make much difference between 1997-2010 is because Labour had a substantial majority, and it has failed to make a difference since 2010 as there has been barely any English-only legislation that could be threatened by non-English MPs. It might be a small point but it is a rather blatant transgression of democracy and the fact that a constitutional cock-up that has been highlighted since the 1970s still hasn't been corrected is a stain on the politicians that have passed through the House since.
I've always had a personal philosophy when approaching a status quo that causes a problem - if you were building the system from scratch, would you build it in the way the status quo is built? If the answer is no, then you're a fool for keeping the status quo unless it would be prohibitively expensive to change. No one in their right mind would, nowadays, create a nation from 4 different countries but give them all differing levels of autonomy and power over another country's matters. Northern Island is a special case, but when devolving powers to Scotland and Wales, it should have been clear at the time that such powers should also have been devolved to an English Parliament as well.
Only at the moment, with the main parties falling over themselves to give them incentives to stay in the union, might they get everything they want through the back door, without having to separate, and the risks that such a move raises for both sides?
It is entirely right that the people of Scotland should decide whether or not to end the union. They have been and could be again an independent state (unlike Wales which has never been a single, unified, independent sovereign state with one ruler).
If they vote yes then that's it - off they go on their own even though constitutionally it will be a nightmare. They ditch the pound sterling (no freebie guarantees from the BoE thank you very much), but they can keep the Queen as head of state (same as Australia for example) if they so wish, restore a Stewart to their own throne (if they can find a legal heir), or become a republic with President Salmond (the thought of that alone should guarantee a 'No' vote!).
But if they vote no then that should be the end of it. No more devolution of powers - no 'devo-max'. That would give them all the benefits of independance without the risk.
For me, all this adds to the weight of the practical arguments being put forward for Scotland to stay. The point about the Shetland Orkney Isles is also very valid, and in fact, if the Scots did break away, they can have no grounds to complain if this was a knock on affect.
Just like Jersey, Gibraltar and a few others around the world who aren't controlled by Westminster but still uses our currency... And in the case of Jersey, wealthy with it too!