Scotland (Political Thread)

For discussions on politics and current events.

Scottish Independence?

Political Independence (Retain Monarchy)
6
7%
Full Independence (No Monarchy or Commonwealth)
13
16%
Stay In The United Kingdom
61
75%
Emigrate To Ireland
1
1%
 
Total votes: 81

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by R686 »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I am confident that our elected leaders will focus :?: on the challenge, do a good job :roll:
... and if not, will be voted out by the great majority that values the Union more than they seem to
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by jedibeeftrix »


User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Caribbean »

whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
How about, for a start, the pro-Union campaign ditching the concept of "Project Fear" as a campaign strategy and concentrating on the benefits of remaining as part of the Union. Had Remain taken that strategy, then I suspect that we would probably still be part of the EU (though it would have required fine judgement over just how honest they should be over the eventual aims of full political integration - a fact that is less important in the Union as we start from a point of full political integration and that objective has never been concealed).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Caribbean »

Pseudo wrote:
whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.
A good point, but, unfortunately, rejected so emphatically by the North-East in a regional referendum in 2004, that future referenda for the other regions were abandoned. IIRC, the feeling at the time was that it was an attempt to divide up England into bits that a) would not have the "clout" of a single voice and b) could be set against each other. Many felt that England as a whole should have it's own Parliament (introducting a form of Federalism and solving the mid-Lothian question at the same time) which would then organise and administer the English regions. A lot of people also seem to have been very concerned at the cost (and utility) of the extra levels of Government that would have been introduced, as all the existing levels would have been retained.

Perhaps it's time to re-visit the idea, this time with a better thought-out strategy of replacing intermediate levels of local Government (maybe by re-organising County and District-level Councils into a single level) with regional assemblies (rather than adding them as an extra level) and an overall English Parliament, coupled with a reduction in the size of Westminster and a reform of the Upper House into a form of Senate, with different constitutional responsibilities and democratic representation.

Westminster would remain as a much smaller body that has reponsibility for matters of national significance, primarily security (in all it's forms - military, cyber, food, energy, internal and external) and foreign affairs, along with a co-ordinating function between the regions.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

Caribbean wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.
A good point, but, unfortunately, rejected so emphatically by the North-East in a regional referendum in 2004, that future referenda for the other regions were abandoned.
Indeed, and that referendum was Dominic Cummings' first success in his attempt to divide and destroy the UK.
IIRC, the feeling at the time was that it was an attempt to divide up England into bits that a) would not have the "clout" of a single voice and b) could be set against each other. Many felt that England as a whole should have it's own Parliament (introducting a form of Federalism and solving the mid-Lothian question at the same time) which would then organise and administer the English regions. A lot of people also seem to have been very concerned at the cost (and utility) of the extra levels of Government that would have been introduced, as all the existing levels would have been retained.
I completely agree that English regional devolution wasn't going to happen, I'm just making the point that if it had the calls for Scottish secession would likely be a lot weaker.
Perhaps it's time to re-visit the idea, this time with a better thought-out strategy of replacing intermediate levels of local Government (maybe by re-organising County and District-level Councils into a single level) with regional assemblies (rather than adding them as an extra level) and an overall English Parliament, coupled with a reduction in the size of Westminster and a reform of the Upper House into a form of Senate, with different constitutional responsibilities and democratic representation.
I think that if you're going to devolve power to regions then you need to give those regions a way of kicking back against government overreach that doesn't involve regional assemblies going toe to toe with central government. With that in mind, I'd propose a tripartite upper house with say 35% being elected by regional assemblies to represent their interests, 35% being appointed to represent professions, industries, unions, NGO's and other groups that are vital to the economic and social interests of the nation, and the final 30% being directly elected under a proportional system. That would get the upper house down to around 450 members. I'm not sure that I'd want to give the chamber a lot of power over legislation, but maybe some sort of veto power on domestic legislation that could only be invoked by a vote of two-thirds of the members with that including over half of the directly elected members might be beneficial.
Westminster would remain as a much smaller body that has reponsibility for matters of national significance, primarily security (in all it's forms - military, cyber, food, energy, internal and external) and foreign affairs, along with a co-ordinating function between the regions.
I think that with a decent level of regional devolution you could easily cut the Commons down to 500 members. I'd also be in favour of switching over to the alternative vote as the method of electing MP's. I'm not keen on losing the direct constituency responsibility that would happen in a proportional system, or having two classes of MP's as happens under mixed systems, but I am keen that MP's should (in the vast majority of circumstances) require over half of voters to express a preference for them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:introducting a form of Federalism
I am among the many you mentioned, but how about you?
Caribbean wrote: a reform of the Upper House into a form of Senate
much better than the 'stuffing with cronies' which is not only eating into the respect for the upper chamber, but also its functioning
Caribbean wrote: Westminster would remain as a much smaller body that has reponsibility for
Yep, I think I listed the core departments on the previous page, but nothing wrong with your list (I think IR will address national resilience = the what; and the 'how' should then follow)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Cooper »

The fact that the Scot's still think, after 300yrs, that they'd be better off with the Continental Euro trash in Brussels, shows that the Union isn't worth saving.

If they don't feel British after 300yrs, they never will, time to be shot of them.

Let the EU bankroll them instead of the rUK bunging them £10bn a year to keep them afloat and dishing out their 'free stuff' they so like to boast about.

..That £10bn+ could be spent elsewhere, on people that might actually fucking appreciate it.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Compare that with the total block grant after adjustment for devolved taxes intake and devolved welfare expenditure, for the last four years:
17,801.4
18,853.8
21,298.7
29,909.4... call that £30 bn, between friends.
Your blurb
Cooper wrote:the rUK bunging them £10bn a year
seems to be based on rather old notes; protest!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

Cooper wrote:The fact that the Scot's still think, after 300yrs, that they'd be better off with the Continental Euro trash in Brussels, shows that the Union isn't worth saving.

If they don't feel British after 300yrs, they never will, time to be shot of them.

Let the EU bankroll them instead of the rUK bunging them £10bn a year to keep them afloat and dishing out their 'free stuff' they so like to boast about.

..That £10bn+ could be spent elsewhere, on people that might actually fucking appreciate it.
I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by inch »

Could someone inform me apart from the obvious and real headache/ problem of basing our nuclear subs ,(not quite sure how we get round that one unless we base them with the Americans across the Atlantic tbh ?) ,from just letting Scots go ,bring back all manufacturing ships etc south of boarder ,let them create their own Scots pound ( not tide to UK pound ) at all ,till they obviously want the euro anyway and not pay them anymore cash and we can let them trade south of boarder just like EU does and if they want to travel south they can travel/ work on a points based system just like everyone else .and let them do there own defence , would that be so bad or not ?

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Cooper »

Pseudo wrote: I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.
No, the seeds of the UK's eventual break up were sowed in the original Act of Union in 1707, by agreeing to let them keep their unique legal & educational systems. It was a stupid decision that would always be a roadblock to them feeling fully 'British'.

Those two entities ensured that there would always be a sense 'of other' about them.

The Education angle meant they could control the national Scottish identity narrative (exploited to the full by the SNP over the last 15yrs) in the young and the legal side meant they would have the power to challenge any attempt to weaken Scotland's unique position.

You only have to look at the number of people from the legal & eductional professions that now make up the leadership of the SNP, to see what I'm talking about.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

Cooper wrote:
Pseudo wrote: I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.
No, the seeds of the UK's eventual break up were sowed in the original Act of Union in 1707, by agreeing to let them keep their unique legal & educational systems. It was a stupid decision that would always be a roadblock to them feeling fully 'British'.
Maybe, but for seeds to grow they have to be fed and while I'd contend that in the modern era what did most to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK was the introduction of the poll tax, I think that there are plenty of ways to encourage a more cohesive union and national sports teams and leagues would have been a very effective way.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote:the introduction of the poll tax
Why would the same 'thing' have been a divisive 'devise'?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Pseudo wrote:the introduction of the poll tax
Why would the same 'thing' have been a divisive 'devise'?
Could you clarify your question, that's a bit too cryptic even for me. :lol:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Why would a national measure be the decisive wedge?
- I am well aware of all the various cross-pulls at the time,
- but why single that one out (despite the reaction, which is a different 'fact')?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why would a national measure be the decisive wedge?
- I am well aware of all the various cross-pulls at the time,
- but why single that one out (despite the reaction, which is a different 'fact')?
It was introduced in Scotland a year before England and while the disruption and civil unrest it created in Scotland had no political impact in government, when it was introduced in England the disruption and civil unrest it caused led to the downfall of Thatcher and eventual abolition. Essentially, I'd say that Scots felt like they were being used as canaries in the coal mine and then ignored when they started dying of methane poisoning.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote: Scots felt like they were being used as canaries in the coal mine and then ignored when they started dying of methane poisoning.
I had forgotten about that step-wise one year difference
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

on devolution (the Gvmnt is mobilising to defend the Union? says Raab), is the Starmer/Brown commission more than an electoral manoeuvre, to try and stave off a majority in Scotland that would lead to (even more intensive) bickering over Indyref2; to have or not to?

If Starmer, now reasserting Labour’s blanket opposition to a second referendum, is successful in the above 'staving off' operation, we might still get (as a result from 'the' commission) Federal Britain as Labour's official policy
Devolution no more more being 'just' a Scottish question, picked up that The Sunday Times has done an in-depth piece on this. Oh boy, off to supermarket must go (to get one)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by S M H »

As one that lives just south of the border. I think the rest of the the UK should have a vote about the Barnet formula. Then better still let the mad screaming Wee Jimmy have her wish. Her and the Scottish Nationalist maffa get her way. Then watch the free poscrjptions and higher per head spending disappear. This will be the reality as they sacrifice public spending to comply with European Union fiscal rules. That's if a independent Scotland meets the requirements for rejoining the EU. So let the SNP have the indy 2. Should the Scots want independence so be it. But using the threat of rolling indipendance polls to extract as much as possible. Devo max was the thoughts of Scottish Nationalist that I know but they now have be sidelined by the present leadership.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

S M H wrote:This will be the reality as they sacrifice public spending to comply with European Union fiscal rules. That's if a independent Scotland meets the requirements for rejoining the EU.
A
I will watch that one - how they will get around it - if a new prospectus comes out.
S M H wrote: Devo max was the thoughts of Scottish Nationalist that I know but they now have be sidelined by the present leadership.
Leadership changes are not unheard of
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the Gvmnt is mobilising to defend the Union? says Raab
Now the rumour has it who has been tasked (this is the strategy bit?) to save the Union: Michael Gove and Oliver Lewis, Lord Frost’s deputy in the Brexit negotiations; prompts three personal observations:
1 Lord Frost, because of the Whisky Association connection of the old may have been conflicted (and would have fought the battle on both sides :) )
2 Well, the Brexit deal is a contract beauty to behold... will keep unravelling for a decade?
- if this thing looks like starting to take the same course, we will need a better contract (AKA a written constitution)
3 Gove & Cummings were going to kill the 'bloated Civil Service' . Looks like that has been put on hold, or perhaps a failure will produce much lessened ranks, anyway ;)


About tactics, Daniel Capurro of The Telegraph writes today
"
A key plank is pushing London hard for a referendum, by requesting a Section 30 order, a part of the Scotland Act that allows Holyrood to pass laws normally reserved to Westminster, while pressing ahead with referendum legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That would force a constitutional showdown"... italics added
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by clinch »

Westminster should agree to a second referendum but on the condition that the divorce settlement is agreed first. This agreement should include Scotland accepting a Barnett formula share of the UK's debts.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scotland (Political Thread)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

clinch wrote:agreement should include Scotland accepting a Barnett formula share of the UK's debts.
... payback time
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply