Share this content
Tags:

REPLAY: Election 2015 panel chat

7th May 2015
Share this content

Join us and fellow panellists at 12.45pm for a chat on the party's respective policies, and again at 9.30pm to keep tabs on the count as results come in through the night. 

To participate in the chat and interact with the panellists, simply type your comments into the text box below.

Let us know if you have news on any accountancy candidates - or if you are one yourself!

Live Blog General election 2015
 
window.cilAsyncInit = function() { cilEmbedManager.init() }; (function() { if (window.cilVwRand === undefined) { window.cilVwRand = Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000); } var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; var domain = (document.location.protocol == 'http:' || document.location.protocol == 'file:' ) ? 'http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com' : 'https://cdnslssl.coveritlive.com'; e.src = domain + '/vw.js?v=' + window.cilVwRand; e.id = 'cilScript-97ab3a90a3'; document.getElementById('cil-root-stream-97ab3a90a3').appendChild(e); }());

Tags:

Replies (70)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By johnjenkins
11th May 2015 14:49

@DJKL

Why should there be a transfer of power. Scotland is part of the UK. With respect I think you have misjudged the election results. The SNP have taken no notice of the referendum to stay with the UK. (why oh why did our leaders make stupid promises to keep Scotland in the UK I do not Know). Further more the Tories only got a majority because of the Labour/SNP threat. Many people I spoke to were going to vote UKIP until the threat became real. As for the EU. It's only DC who thinks he can negotiate a better deal on immigration - a lost cause methinks. I don't want Scotland to leave the UK, however I object to them being able to do whatever they want using the threat of leaving as leverage.

Thanks (1)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
11th May 2015 15:23

@johnjenkins

johnjenkins wrote:

 

Why should there be a transfer of power. Scotland is part of the UK. With respect I think you have misjudged the election results. The SNP have taken no notice of the referendum to stay with the UK. (why oh why did our leaders make stupid promises to keep Scotland in the UK I do not Know). Further more the Tories only got a majority because of the Labour/SNP threat. Many people I spoke to were going to vote UKIP until the threat became real. As for the EU. It's only DC who thinks he can negotiate a better deal on immigration - a lost cause methinks. I don't want Scotland to leave the UK, however I object to them being able to do whatever they want using the threat of leaving as leverage.

With respect I am not sure you understand the result of the election looked at from North of the border, doing nothing is not a viable option unless you want to hand ultimate victory to the Nats.

You ought to maybe berate Westminster for not having a grown up discussion over the issues, discussion a few years ago might have headed the issue of at the pass, Westminster refused that discussion.. Some people up here are trying to prevent independence but quite frankly we do not have a chance without some form of substantial transfer of fiscal power- there is a clear decision to be made, have the discussion and save the Union or ignore the issue and break the Union.

And if the latter start building even more houses down South as a fair number of UK citizens relocate South pre A day; I am already eyeing up Cumbria/Westmorland/Yorkshire

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th May 2015 14:54

@Locutus

I don't think there can be any other way to form a government. However a PR House could be a better option than the House of Lords.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th May 2015 15:54

@DJKL

What discussion? What is there to talk about? What issues? We are either one or separate, there cannot be any inbetween. The EU have tried and failed.

You are making the distinction by saying "look at the result from North of the border". We don't say "we look at it from South of the border or from the English point of view".

There seems to be an ever growing trend that those that say they are being discriminated against are the ones doing the discriminating.

There you go threatening again. "If you don't get substantial fiscal power, this and that will happen".

Why not eye up Peterborough (the fastest growing city in the UK) or Milton Keynes? Don't just go for the pretty places.

Thanks (0)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
11th May 2015 16:46

@johnjenkins

johnjenkins wrote:

What discussion? What is there to talk about? What issues? We are either one or separate, there cannot be any inbetween. The EU have tried and failed.

You are making the distinction by saying "look at the result from North of the border". We don't say "we look at it from South of the border or from the English point of view".

There seems to be an ever growing trend that those that say they are being discriminated against are the ones doing the discriminating.

There you go threatening again. "If you don't get substantial fiscal power, this and that will happen".

Why not eye up Peterborough (the fastest growing city in the UK) or Milton Keynes? Don't just go for the pretty places.

I am not sure where my threat is manifested?

Re tried and failed,a fair number of countries have differential taxes e.g Sweden runs local income tax as well as national income tax, there is no difficulty with the concept.

I am more than happy for Scotland to remain part of the UK and more than happy for my taxes to be set at Westminster. I am however realistic enough to know that this position is not what my fellow citizens up here want and I know that if there is no discussion/ transfer of fiscal powers there will be a division of the UK, irrespective of my wishes. No threat, mere recognition of the awful position those UK citizens living in the North now face, irrespective of their political viewpoint.

To get the polling in Scotland in perspective there was a great deal of tactical anti SNP voting but to no avail. I voted in Edinburgh North & Leith against my politics but to try to keep the SNP out, a large number of people I know did likewise, picking the party most likely to challenge . We were not helped by Cameron, every time he opened his mouth on the danger of Labour/SNP he drove votes into the hands of the SNP, thanks Dave; turned out your vote down South but increased the SNP support up here, some Unionist.

And maybe you can take a dispassionate view of  things, to say, in effect,take it or leave it, maybe you do not have the internal struggle some of us might face; easy to maybe be blase when your identity is not on the line; are you first British and then both Scottish and English? Independence leads to a choice which I do not really want to have to make.

And why is your line drawn at a regional  split re fiscal tax jurisdiction/gathering? The principle is established with Council Tax and Rates so it is surely not the principle just the change in detail/scope to which you object. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th May 2015 18:02

What I object

to is being held to ransom and that is what devolution does. It's nothing to do with passion. it's to do with money. 

I have always been British and never considered myself as English, maybe I should start.

It is a foregone conclusion that Scotland will be independent within the next 10 years (perhaps even 5). So lets stop pussyfooting around and get on with it. That way we can get out of the EU and start to really grow.

If we have to take in 60,000 asylum seekers I'm sure we can put up with a few Scots.

Thanks (1)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
12th May 2015 09:24

Really nothing more to say then

johnjenkins wrote:

to is being held to ransom and that is what devolution does. It's nothing to do with passion. it's to do with money. 

I have always been British and never considered myself as English, maybe I should start.

It is a foregone conclusion that Scotland will be independent within the next 10 years (perhaps even 5). So lets stop pussyfooting around and get on with it. That way we can get out of the EU and start to really grow.

If we have to take in 60,000 asylum seekers I'm sure we can put up with a few Scots.

Cannot see any "ransom" threat emanating from Scotland to be any different to that from the UK towards the EU.

Our difference of opinion here boils down to one of us thinks that to negotiate is the correct way to resolve differences/disputes the other labels it ransom. I suspect there is really nothing more to say.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th May 2015 09:51

You have missed

the point entirely DJKL. Scotland is part of the UK so IMHO devolution shouldn't have even come into the equation. It should have been a straight forward in or out. The same with Wales and Northern Ireland. Do us English talk about opting out of the UK? Yes, of course things pertaining to a particular country can be negotiated, but to have free prescriptions in one part of the UK and not the other is not on.

Now the EU. We are part of the EU and as such have to accept freedom of immigration. If we decide that we can no longer cope with this EU principle then (there is no negotiating on this point) we have to decide what to do and we will in a referendum (forced on the Tories by UKIP). The difference being that if we decide to stay in we will accept the conditions. It would appear that although Scotland want to stay in the UK (although the SNP think otherwise) they want all the goodies that go with being independent. That is not on.

Thanks (1)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
12th May 2015 10:54

Prescriptions-that is it!!!

johnjenkins wrote:

the point entirely DJKL. Scotland is part of the UK so IMHO devolution shouldn't have even come into the equation. It should have been a straight forward in or out. The same with Wales and Northern Ireland. Do us English talk about opting out of the UK? Yes, of course things pertaining to a particular country can be negotiated, but to have free prescriptions in one part of the UK and not the other is not on.

Now the EU. We are part of the EU and as such have to accept freedom of immigration. If we decide that we can no longer cope with this EU principle then (there is no negotiating on this point) we have to decide what to do and we will in a referendum (forced on the Tories by UKIP). The difference being that if we decide to stay in we will accept the conditions. It would appear that although Scotland want to stay in the UK (although the SNP think otherwise) they want all the goodies that go with being independent. That is not on.

 

Prescriptions as a differential is not on,  this is the great divide, you cannot be serious.

There is a distinct legal system, a distinct education system even a different number for the monarch (Scotland does not use a number re Elizabeth) yet the issue is prescription charges - big picture politics here then.

I despair. Given you appear  to wish to be out of the EU it is obvious that you ought to get rid of Scotland first to lessen the votes of those who might wish to remain in the EU (no idea total UKIP votes in Scotland but it was not many)

I  really think we now need to draw this conversation to a close,  frankly it is pointless.

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
12th May 2015 19:49

Mr JJ

johnjenkins wrote:

 Do us English talk about opting out of the UK?

To a lot of people outside England, England is the UK.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JC
12th May 2015 12:50

Simple - rUK doesn’t want disruption or to pay anymore …

@DJKL – Prescriptions are just symptomatic of the underlying problems which run far deeper

We seem to have a problem here – we would love Scotland to remain as part of the Union but not at any price

On the one hand Scotland DID NOT vote for independence - but on the other they DID vote for more powers and money from the UK

Therefore the upshot of these two results means that Scotland wants to remain part of the UK so that rUK can carry on paying their bills – surely there can be no other interpretation of these two results which are both the will of the Scottish people

Therefore it is decision time because in reality these two wishes are probably mutually exclusive and rUK is fed up with the whole thing

Unfortunately in the eyes of many in rUK you cannot have it both ways (eat ones cake and have it) – of course everyone wants complete freedom to do as they please and have others underwrite their bills for them, but is that actually the real world – and at what point does the payer (rUK) become disenchanted with getting nothing back except a continuous stream of complaints about how unfairly Scotland have been treated?

I am afraid the issue is that rUK doesn’t want the uncertainty of this never ending threat (yes it is a 'threat') of Scottish independence (as they say in Canada – NeverEndum) and rehashing perceived grievances or to keep paying Scotland bills – end of story; especially as Scotland seems to have come to regard it as their right to be bribed to remain in the Union and conjure up ever more demands

Scotland clearly views rUK as a ‘cash cow’ to satisfy this constant stream of demands - therefore the best thing all round is to call it a day and invite Scotland to go their own way and make a clean break

Having independence will allow them to have complete control over their affairs with nobody else to blame – so get on with it!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th May 2015 14:46

As you quite rightly

say DJKL Scotland have different systems to England. So my view is, instead of increasing powers and underwriting the cost, to let Scotland have independence. Then watch your prescription charges go up.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th May 2015 12:19

@mwngiol

Don't you mean that to a lot of people outside the UK there is no UK, just England. Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th May 2015 13:09

Actually

johnjenkins wrote:

Don't you mean that to a lot of people outside the UK there is no UK, just England. Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Actually to a of people outside the UK there is no understanding at all. Especially Americans, who seem to think that the UK is just another name for England.

What I meant was that a lot of Welsh, Scottish, N Irish feel that the London based press, which trumpet themselves as British, have such an English bias that the Americans might as well be correct. A lot of nationalism which I've encountered could actually be better described as being 'anti British media obsession with England'. Rightly or wrongly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th May 2015 14:50

Although this is

"off post" it's quite interesting. A lot of people don't consider that Ireland is two distinctive countries, although they are aware of the troubles, but they presume that is between the Catholics and Protestants. When an Irish accent is heard it's always "are you Irish"

So if it wasn't for Northern Ireland we would all be British. You can't be UKish.

I'm not sure of my history but I suppose England would have been Britian. Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England would be Great Britain (little isles included).

Now, as for the Union with Scotland, wasn't it James who came down and unified us?

Thanks (0)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
14th May 2015 11:22

James VI/ I

johnjenkins wrote:

"off post" it's quite interesting. A lot of people don't consider that Ireland is two distinctive countries, although they are aware of the troubles, but they presume that is between the Catholics and Protestants. When an Irish accent is heard it's always "are you Irish"

So if it wasn't for Northern Ireland we would all be British. You can't be UKish.

I'm not sure of my history but I suppose England would have been Britian. Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England would be Great Britain (little isles included).

Now, as for the Union with Scotland, wasn't it James who came down and unified us?

Yes James VI / I in 1603. However the bloodline of the Stewart line is really not that strong post the adoption of the succession of George I  via Sophia of Hanover if my memory serves me correctly. (Nothing like  the old Scottish Higher History paper (a distinctive education system) to instil useless facts re European history)

The only reason George got the nod over many others with a more direct claim was he happened to be a Protestant.

I always thought Great Britain was England, Wales and Scotland? The term Britain certainly goes back a fair time. Claudius , the Roman Emperor, named his son Britannicus, presumably to commemorate his invasion, so the term must go back towards the celtic heritage of the UK (who themselves may have been from Iberia)- immigration is certainly not a new thing re the UK.  (Interesting book about the "Tribes of Britain" by David Miles  is available, it explores the historic migration trends)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th May 2015 09:34

wahey

looks like electioneering has already started for next time. Devolution for all major cities. This is going to be a disaster. Anything done for political reasons will always be. So we will soon have a MNP an NNP and perhaps even a BNP (Birmingham National Party).

If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By JC
14th May 2015 11:14

Nicola Sturgeon – here we go again …

What was it one said about negotiation versus threats/blackmail

‘.. one of us thinks that to negotiate is the correct way to resolve differences/disputes the other labels it ransom ..’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4439642.ece

'.. Nicola Sturgeon has warned David Cameron that Scots could demand another independence referendum if he does not agree to her call for more powers for the Scottish parliament.

The SNP leader claimed yesterday that her party’s triumph north of the border in the general election meant that it had a mandate to seek sweeping new capabilities for Holyrood.

She will put her shopping list in front of Mr Cameron tomorrow. It includes control over the minimum wage, national insurance contributions, welfare, business taxes and equality policy.

In a highly partisan speech in the Scottish parliament yesterday, Ms Sturgeon warned the prime minister that, if he did not listen, he could face another Scottish referendum. He repeated his position at the weekend that there would be no second referendum.

The Scottish first minister said: “I can’t impose a referendum against the will of the Scottish people, but nor can David Cameron rule out a referendum against the will of the people. It will be the people who decide ..'

What 'will of the people' certainly not rUK who are excluded - and once again rUK gets no say in the matter

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th May 2015 16:07

Just had a look on wiki

It's surprising how little I knew but then I was flicking elastic bands through most of my schooling. Little wonder I had a soar bum[***].

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
15th May 2015 07:53

Apparently ...

There is a petition doing the rounds for the northern counties of England to join Scotland!

Why don't the petitioners just move to Scotland? 

Thanks (0)

Pages