.

.

Didn't find your answer?

.

Replies (68)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Ruddles
19th Sep 2014 08:22

At the very least

As already hinted at by DC, the West Lothian question needs to be settled once and for all. As a Scot, I completely agree with the idea that only English MPs should vote on wholly English matters. There is though a logical flaw - which I guess is why the issue is still with us. Should Labour get elected to Westminster, but only with the backing of Scottish seats, it may find itself unable - as the governing party in England - to pass measures relating only to English matters if Scottish votes are excluded. There must be a solution, but I've no idea what it is.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cart:
avatar
By LondonAccountant
19th Sep 2014 09:34

Why does it need a solution? If England is effectively governed by a different party than Britain it will simply be the same set up as Scotland. That those two 'governments' operate in the same parliament needn't be an issue.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 09:47

It's not that simple is it? 

It's not that simple is it?  Under our normal constitutional arrangements if the leader of one party commanded a majority in the House on UK reserved issues, while another commanded a majority on English issues, who would be Prime Minister?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Lancaster
19th Sep 2014 09:55

The alternative

I take a rather different approach to this. There should be no problem. Either we are one country, or four separate countries. We should rip up the Barnett formula, scrap the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly, and all be governed by Westminster and obey the same laws, receive the same benefits, and pay the same taxes. That would mean an end to free prescriptions and free university education and an end to Scottish taxpayers being subsidized by the rest of the UK. 

Thanks (8)
Replying to tracey2412:
RLI
By lionofludesch
21st Sep 2014 09:48

Different ?

Lancaster wrote:

I take a rather different approach to this. There should be no problem. Either we are one country, or four separate countries. We should rip up the Barnett formula, scrap the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly, and all be governed by Westminster and obey the same laws, receive the same benefits, and pay the same taxes. That would mean an end to free prescriptions and free university education and an end to Scottish taxpayers being subsidized by the rest of the UK. 

I take it Stormont will remain under your plan ?  Or is Northern Ireland just forgotten - as usual?

Instead of smugly congratulating himself on the 55% vote in his camp's favour, Cameron might well reflect on why such a sizeable chunk of the UK was even considering leaving the Union, why around half of the UK population lives in the bottom right corner of the country and why there are so many economic migrants from the rest of the UK.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 10:04

I admire your spirit but you are somewhat against the mood of the times!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Vaughan Blake1:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
19th Sep 2014 11:15

a)?

What does a) mean in the question?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Gillian Mill:
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 13:08

Direct rule?

Red Leader wrote:

What does a) mean in the question?

I thought the same, but had better things to at the time than query what the OP had in mind.

Best guess is he means abolition of Parliament and replacing it with direct rule by Her Majesty - returning us to the good old days before 1265.  I seem to recall something similar was tried in the time of Charles 1, and as we all know that led to civil war and a sticky end for him.

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
19th Sep 2014 11:43

I must admit to being curious as to ....

How Scotland can pay so much more in welfare than is achieved elsewhere in the UK. Not one person has been able to say what Scotland gives up in order to pay for the extra welfare.

Maybe we should let Scotland govern us, so that we could all benefit from their economic prowess?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Sep 2014 12:59

The welfare isn't 'given' to Scotland.  It is given to british citizens who reside in Scotland.

That said, I do find it somewhat ridiculous that we are going to pander further to Scottish demands and allow them further powers.  As has bee said, they should have to 'give up' something in order to cut tax or give free services, etc.

I strongly believe that rUK would have been better off in the very long term in the event of a 'yes' vote -unfortunately we would have probably been much worse off in the short term, so overall it's a better result for us - as long as these additional powers supposedly granted are offset by reduced funding and/or other concessions (or as I hope, never materialise)

Thanks (0)
Replying to We're_all_mad_here:
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 13:42

EU

Mr_awol wrote:

The welfare isn't 'given' to Scotland.  It is given to british citizens who reside in Scotland.

Interestingly, my understanding, at least in relation to free university places at Scottish universities is slightly different.

Free places certainly go, as you say, to British citizens resident in Scotland. But it doesn't stop there.

In addition they also go to citizens of other EU countries regardless of residence - except (believe it or not) British citizens resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland!

So if you are an Irish citizen living in England you get a free place.  But your British next door neighbour has to pay full whack.

I am not sure whether Scottish students attending English universities get their fees paid by the Scottish government.  Does anyone know?

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By Ruddles
19th Sep 2014 14:41

University fees

johngroganjga wrote:

I am not sure whether Scottish students attending English universities get their fees paid by the Scottish government.  Does anyone know?

With a daughter about to head off to Nottingham Uni I can confirm that, sadly, that will not be the case. It would have been the one selfish reason to vote Yes, but by the time independence put in place likely to have been too late anyway.

As for the complaints about Westminster 'pandering' to the Scots, I find such language slightly insulting. This is not about giving Scotland more cash to the detriment of the rest of the UK, it is about giving the Scots more powers to do as they wish with the cash that they already have. As a quid pro quo, more powers to Holyrood can simply be matched with a reduction in powers that Scotland has in Westminster.

How that reduction is to be achieved is the matter now on the table. The smart money appears to be on a Federal system, with England having its own First Minister or equivalent. That seems a perfectly logical approach to me - and once you've gone down that route, not a great leap to further devolution within E & W(does it not work in Germany?) .

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
19th Sep 2014 23:08

Fees for Scottish students in rUK

johngroganjga wrote:

Mr_awol wrote:

The welfare isn't 'given' to Scotland.  It is given to british citizens who reside in Scotland.

Interestingly, my understanding, at least in relation to free university places at Scottish universities is slightly different.

Free places certainly go, as you say, to British citizens resident in Scotland. But it doesn't stop there.

In addition they also go to citizens of other EU countries regardless of residence - except (believe it or not) British citizens resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland!

So if you are an Irish citizen living in England you get a free place.  But your British next door neighbour has to pay full whack.

I am not sure whether Scottish students attending English universities get their fees paid by the Scottish government.  Does anyone know?

 

John, they take loans from SAAS to pay their fees in rUK universities.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:25

.

Thanks (1)
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 14:08

Your point is a very good and remarkably topical one.  The PM announced a full review of all the matters you refer to on the steps of Downing Street early this morning.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Davie0512
19th Sep 2014 14:08

Option B

Does option B mean England, Wales and Northern Ireland having a vote to remove Scotland from the UK?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:26

.

Thanks (0)
Replying to WhichTyler:
avatar
By Davie0512
19th Sep 2014 15:36

I do see your point but I disagree.

I feel a lot of people within the UK are offended/hurt that Scotland actually had this referendum in the first place. I remember watching a TV discussion a while ago and one of the main contributors was saying that he was hurt and asked why do Scots not like English people.

As a Scot myself, it made me sad that some people think that this was what the referendum was about.

Hopefully the result will create a change that benefits the whole of the United Kingdom.

 

Thanks (2)
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 14:57

The difficulty we have that Germany don't is that one of our consituent parts is over 5 times bigger than all the others put together. So what's right and proper for Scotland and Wales can't necessarily be adopted for England without further refinement.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
RLI
By lionofludesch
21st Sep 2014 09:51

Struggling

johngroganjga wrote:
The difficulty we have that Germany don't is that one of our consituent parts is over 5 times bigger than all the others put together. So what's right and proper for Scotland and Wales can't necessarily be adopted for England without further refinement.

I stuggle with your geography, John.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to MECtax:
By johngroganjga
26th Nov 2014 13:40

Population

lionofludesch wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:
The difficulty we have that Germany don't is that one of our constituent parts is over 5 times bigger than all the others put together. So what's right and proper for Scotland and Wales can't necessarily be adopted for England without further refinement.

I stuggle with your geography, John.

I meant by population not surface area.

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
19th Sep 2014 15:08

I agree, John

Hence my reference to further devolution within E & W to give a more even distribution of devolved powers.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
avatar
By neileg
19th Sep 2014 17:03

Pah!

Red Leader wrote:
Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.

On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped.

The general view in the North East was that this was simply another layer of bureaucracy. We were gald to see the back of Tyne & Wear and didn't want a replacement.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:26

.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
James Reeves
By James Reeves
19th Sep 2014 15:54

Bound

secondhand_22 wrote:

I wonder how the people of Yorkshire and Humber felt being effectively bound by the NE vote?

Just going by the number of people that came out onto the streets in protest, I'd say they didn't give a stuff.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jeremy28
19th Sep 2014 16:03

Why not...

have devolved Parliaments for all 4 countries, and switch the House of Lords to a directly elected house with slightly higher representation from Scotland and Wales to speak on national issues. MPs get to sit in both houses, meaning that there are more MPs per person for Scots and Welsh, which makes sense as they are more rural countries. (I think).

The PM of the UK leads from the Upper House, and may not be the FM of any of the different countries.

Gets rid of unelected Lords, and avoids another level of politics in Enland that no one wants.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By zarathustra
19th Sep 2014 16:08

Regional government

The problem with regions (such as the North East) getting their own tax raising powers is the tax base would be too small, so it wouldn't work without a subsidy from a central pot. Also if broadly socialist governments in the north put up taxes it may well accelerate flight to the south, creating an even more lop sided country. So I could only imagine it working if the outlaying regions operated low tax regimes, which might upset Mr and Mrs Average in Basingstoke as they would be subsidizing Northern "layabouts". So, despite being a proud Yorkshireman, I am not in favour of regional government for England.

Thanks (1)
By Ruddles
19th Sep 2014 16:11

Jeremy

That would get my vote (if I'm allowed one). Though I'm not quite sure on the election/distribution of MPs. Scots, for example, may continue to want an SNP administration in Scotland but prefer a Labour PM to oversee UK matters. Or are you saying that both MPs and MSPs (in Scotland's case) would sit in the Upper House?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jeremy28
19th Sep 2014 16:13

Ruddles

It's too ruddy bad. We (England) only get one choice, why should they get two? You take a manifesto as a whole and vote on it.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Sep 2014 16:49

How about ..

... make the commons the English parliament to deal with English matters and abolish the Lords and replace it with a seperate, elected, UK government to deal with UK wide issues.

We would have an English first minister and a UK primeminister, or we could get radical and call our first minister Grand High Warden of the Shires or something equally swashbuckling!

EDIT - great minds jeremy, beat me to it as we have been having real internet problems today, how pleased am I we aren't cloud based?

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
19th Sep 2014 16:48

I agree, Jeremy

Though why couldn't England also have two goes at it? MePs elected to the devolved English Parliament and MPs as elected with the other 3 countries in General Election (thus fixing the colour of the PM's tie). Obvious problem is the number of seats required to accommodate everyone but no need to duplicate the numbers (number of MPs could be much less - in theory).

I just think it's great that we're having this discussion at all. I'm optimistic that a solution will be found.

OGA - I like the idea. How about a Senate and Congress? After all, we've already nicked "Supreme Court" from them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Sep 2014 16:50

Brilliant ...

... but what we need is a star chamber so we don't waste millions of pounds and years of time trying to deport undesirables.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
19th Sep 2014 16:52

Speaking as an English resident of one of the English regions (some distance from London) there are two things I don't want to see:

another level of elected representatives (we have enough elections already)regional authorities with tax raising powers (the last thing we need are different tax rates in different parts of England) 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Counting numbers:
avatar
By User deleted
19th Sep 2014 17:03

I dunno ...

johngroganjga wrote:

Speaking as an English resident of one of the English regions (some distance from London) there are two things I don't want to see:

another level of elected representatives (we have enough elections already)regional authorities with tax raising powers (the last thing we need are different tax rates in different parts of England) 

.... if we ditch the EU and each local tax authority pays an amount to the Thing to cover national issues, governed by the OGA formula (which I will knock up on the back of a fag packet later) I think it would work - tax rates couldn't differ that much or areas would suffer a drain in talent, so the regional assemblies would have to (heaven forbid) be prudent and efficient with how they spent the tax revenues. Alternatively, the Thing to set brackets for tax so that there could be some differences , but not significant ones, between regions.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Sep 2014 16:54

Sorted ...

... given the aging population and increase in Alzheimer's this has to be the perfect solution, especially given the ancestry of this country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Sep 2014 17:18

Oh, just seen ...

... now our interweb is back on - Salmond has resigned - not entirely unexpected though.

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
19th Sep 2014 23:12

Some no doubt unwanted input from Scotland to consider

Whilst no expert on the existing settlement it is to my eye an opaque mess. The tax varying powers have never been used, I think mainly because there is a fear, perceived or otherwise, that using them would be a little like some benefits; take more via higher local tax and see a reduction in devolved funding.

I see devolution as a good idea to date poorly managed and implemented.

Step one is dealing with the West Lothian question, and I would really like those MPs elected in Scotland to offer non participation in matters at Westminster that do not impact Scotland on a no strings basis as a starting point ;initially just agree not to vote as a gesture of recognition that it not fair for them to have any say in these matters, a legal framework can then follow.

If a devolved settlement is then extended throughout the UK, if that is the popular will in England, then I am not sure that England as a single entity is correct for this purpose, the UK split into the twelve EU voting regions might give better accountability within England, insofar as I am aware there are regional differences within England but again not for me to say if this is correct for England, that is for those in England.

So a system of representation structured something like the following might work

Local community councils

Local Authorities

Twelve autonomous regional parliaments

Each region having elected representatives to a national parliament and to the EU

Some form of upper house which has a mix of regional appointees and national interest appointees.

How taxes are dealt with, which are devolved, spending responsibilities and services provision etc obviously would need looked at, but certainly this type of system might possibly bring more accountability from those we elect to those who elect them.

The next couple of years are going to be very interesting re the constitutional framework of the UK.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By adam.arca
20th Sep 2014 08:22

No thanks
DJKL, personally I welcome input from Scotland or anywhere else for that matter, but I wholly disagree with your solution.

It's possible that England as one unit in a federal UK would be disproportionately large, but 12 (twelve!!!) regional assemblies would have the effect of disadvantaging England.vis-a-vis the other nations and ensuring there was no coherent England-wide approach to anything.

With my personal anti EU hat on, I would also make the point that this type of regionalisation is exactly what Europe wants as it seeks to emasculate national parliaments and consolidate its dictatorship.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Sep 2014 10:02

Just make sure the issues are addressed

adam.arca wrote:
DJKL, personally I welcome input from Scotland or anywhere else for that matter, but I wholly disagree with your solution. It's possible that England as one unit in a federal UK would be disproportionately large, but 12 (twelve!!!) regional assemblies would have the effect of disadvantaging England.vis-a-vis the other nations and ensuring there was no coherent England-wide approach to anything. With my personal anti EU hat on, I would also make the point that this type of regionalisation is exactly what Europe wants as it seeks to emasculate national parliaments and consolidate its dictatorship.

It is of course up to the English to put forward an arrangement for England and I would mention  you would only have 9 regions within England; there are already 12 EU electoral regions in the UK , the currently devolved parts make up three of the twelve. However there are possibly parts of England who have felt disadvantaged and unrepresented and you may well now find pressure for more regional control.

To ignore voters and  take them for granted is to have inflicted on the parties what the voters of Scotland just did to Labour; whilst No prevailed Labour are now firmly in the grinder as are Liberals and Conservatives, the latter having less to lose. They either deliver the promise or face serious damage in 2015 re Westminster and 2016 re Holyrood, failure by the three could sweep the SNP into seats both at Westminster and Holyrood. Yes, there are large numbers here that do not forgive the damage the SNP have done, but if the SNP can retain even a part of the newly discovered hidden Scottish electorate going in to the  elections in 2015 then  SNP MP's may be seen in real numbers in Westminster.

England has its own issues and to ignore electoral reform would I think, long term, be damaging; then again I cannot read the runes very well re English politics so I may be looking at the issue with a very Scottish mindset.

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
20th Sep 2014 10:50

I doubt any extra powers are going to Scotland so it will be

 I doubt any extra powers are going to Scotland so it will be resolved over time anyway.  The majority of the no voters were the older Generation in Scotland so that will have an affect in years to come.  The Union lost Glasgow and other Labour old stronghold areas around Glasgow.

Within hours all parties where trying to undo the vow.  I hope I am wrong.  I agree with all the UK being looked at.   Mind you I know people who changed their mind to a no because of these promises ( which they had no right to promise without the electorate and should have been worked out 2 years ago ) they are already starting to realise that the promises are being put off and regret their vote. 

Rights or wrongs they made those promises.  I predict they won,t happen and labour will be hit so hard in Scotland in the 2015 elections ED won.t need to worry about losing sits in Scotland it will happen anyway.  This would mean you would have no Scottish MPs voting on English matters that only effect England.  SNP's policies are not to vote on English only matters that have  no effect on Scotland in any way.

Living in Glasgow I have never in all the years I have lived here seen Labour this unpopular. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to raj1234:
avatar
By Mr_awol
22nd Sep 2014 13:29

Youth will mellow though

I know a lot of Scots who would have voted yes upon leaving school/college/uni but now see sense.  I don't, therefore, agree that the 'older' generation who you say voted against independence will be 'replaced' as such - there may well be a new batch of youth voting "yes" but many of today's "no" voters could well have moved their votes then.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
20th Sep 2014 11:16

What gives you that opinion?

Within hours all parties where trying to undo the vow.  

I see the opposite. The government is breaking it's neck to keep Scotland happy in order to keep Scotland in the Union, and the rest of the UK are just being dragged along in the wake of all this, with no say in the matter at all.

I agree something needs to change, but the methods being employed are not very democratic.

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Sep 2014 11:40

Gordon's speech

Have just listened to Gordon Brown's speech, it was  more than party political, far more.

The paper placed with the House carries the signatures of Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and Brown, and that latter is important as to what it  implies.. Brown placed a marker that he expects the party leaders to honour the commitment he made on their behalf, to me there was a hidden undercurrent that if Milliband wavers his life within his party could be threatened.

Brown hinted that his support is behind what is right for Scotland and that he would support that, by implication if his own party does not match in action what has been promised then Labour has a real problem in Scotland and I would not discount Scottish Labour withdrawing from the UK Labour Party Whip if their colleagues down south do not back them. With no automatic backing from Scottish Labour the overall UK party position is very damaged.

Cameron has to steer a devolution settlement with UKIP and some of his backbenchers causing him issues, Labour are really in the grinder re this and the only mainstream party that comes out of this intact re their beliefs are the Liberal Democrats. who support a federal UK anyway.

The issues have not gone away re the vote, the discussions have now just fanned out throughout the UK.

 

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
20th Sep 2014 12:10

Dragged along?

I see it a little differently.I listened to someone on TV this morning - don't know who but he seemed to be an apolitical expert - on the subject. His view is that England is crying out for devolved change, there being no successful western country that is governed so centrally as the UK, and England. What the referendum has done is provide the catalyst - in chemistry terms, to provide the necessaary activation energy to get the reaction going. So far from being dragged along, I see the rest of the UK benefitting from the Scottish vote.

I did though start to thnk a little further. If power in England was in fact devolved into say 12 regions, with similar devolved powers such as those granted to Scotland, that could give the impression of Scotland being seen as little more than a 13th region in the UK. Thus diluting the sense of Scotland as a nation, and strengthening the resolve of those that will undoubtedly be continuing to campaign for an inedependent Scotland. Of course, I can't see power in England being devolved to the same extent as in Scotland - separate powers over taxation, edcuation fees etc would in my view just create one unholy mess.

Lots of discussion to be had!

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Crouchy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Sep 2014 13:03

12 Regions for all of UK

Ruddles wrote:

I see it a little differently.I listened to someone on TV this morning - don't know who but he seemed to be an apolitical expert - on the subject. His view is that England is crying out for devolved change, there being no successful western country that is governed so centrally as the UK, and England. What the referendum has done is provide the catalyst - in chemistry terms, to provide the necessaary activation energy to get the reaction going. So far from being dragged along, I see the rest of the UK benefitting from the Scottish vote.

I did though start to thnk a little further. If power in England was in fact devolved into say 12 regions, with similar devolved powers such as those granted to Scotland, that could give the impression of Scotland being seen as little more than a 13th region in the UK. Thus diluting the sense of Scotland as a nation, and strengthening the resolve of those that will undoubtedly be continuing to campaign for an inedependent Scotland. Of course, I can't see power in England being devolved to the same extent as in Scotland - separate powers over taxation, edcuation fees etc would in my view just create one unholy mess.

Lots of discussion to be had!

 

It is 12 EU voting regions for the UK as a whole at present. England has 9, Wales 1, Northern Ireland 1, Scotland 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
20th Sep 2014 12:24

Agreed, Ruddles

I am not against change, and I do think change is needed.

It would not be fair, or democratic, to give Scotland extra powers and deny the rest of the UK to have those same powers, but that cannot be done overnight and needs very careful planning to keep us as a union, and prevent regions working against each other, especially where powers to set taxes are involved.

I am against rushing into a quick fix that causes more problems than it solves. You only have to read Sarah's comment to see that many expect Scotland to have it's extra powers yesterday, not today, or tomorrow, but instantly, and that is driving the government into instant decisions that will affect the whole UK, not just Scotland.

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
20th Sep 2014 15:51

That is not my comment Shirley

The likes of Gordon Brown is making these statements today to win sits in 2015 and win Glasgow back . Those No voters who seemed to be shipped in to George square last night obviously believed the saltire flag belong to them because they were burning it last night and ripping it up. Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy not a word about it . I was pointing out something from an outside politic view looking around me . The Scots wanted devo max on the ballot box in the first place . This should have been trashed out 2 years Ago and not because they were losing in polls . Loads of people agree they should not have made the promises and they were not in the position to do so . I am simply pointing out to change the vote and win they made those promises wrongly in my view but they still made them and people changed their vote . Personally in my view the referdendum should have been made illegal . Because this was done after the postal votes where already in . At all points I have said the whole of the UK needs to trash it out . But a timetable was put forward by labour wish they should not have done . I believe Scots will get impatient . I was observing the fact that Scotland's largest city and surrounding voted for independence which is a labour strong hold. Personally I believe Ed and Cameron will both lie to England as well. There is only one thing Ed is interested in and this jobs for the boys . I think Ed Miliband has no more interest in what would be good for the UK then I have a. Whole in my head . But I hope and would love to be proved wrong that they will both act for the good of the whole of the UK . So we both want the same thing .

Edited spelling tying on Iphone

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
20th Sep 2014 14:32

Flags

Simple - the burning of ANY flag is contemptible. Just as I'm sure that the majority of Yes voters would want to distance themselves from the distasteful actions of a minority of separatists, I would have nothing to do with those flag-burning idiots who only bring shame on both Scotland and the UK. I'm not normally a flag-waver but in 2012 I waved the Union Jack in London and in 2014 I waved the Saltire in Glasgow - with equal pride.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By User deleted
20th Sep 2014 14:31

The ideas of DJKL ...

... are broadly in line with my own.

Devolved power is what is needed, under Thatcher we were going that way, Brown and Blair dragged everything back for Brown to micro mis-manage from Westminster.

The 12 EU regions is a good idea, but I would say that doesn't mean mean Scotland and Wales would be disadvantaged on a national assembly, I for one don't see why it has to be one region one vote - the national assembly could be comprised of say 60 seats, no reason why Scotland could not have 10, to match the @15% of the population residing there - they could choose those how they liked, they may want to sub-divide into Borders, Central, Highlands, Shetland/Orkney and Western Isles and have 2 from each, or 2,4,2,1,1 - up to them - I would favour weighting on population basis, seems fairest to me.

I think it is right that local issues are addressed at a local level. There should be a national overview, so infra-structure, utilities, education, law and order, defence, etc should be planned and have requirements/targets set at a national level, but delivery should be left to those best placed to decide.  

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
20th Sep 2014 14:31

I agree, Shirley

As we know only too well in tax, rushed legislation too often leads to bad legislation. Nevertheless, the promises have been made and Westminster has to show that it is at least putting the wheels in motion for change, even if we have to wait some time to see those changes implemented. Patience, they say, is a virtue. Let's just see how virtuous the Scottish are!

Thanks (0)

Pages