Scottish Independence.....

With their role reduced, Gordon Brown will become the last 'heavy weight' Scottish parliamentarian.

How else is a Scottish MP going to come to prominence with so many of the UK avenues blocked to them? It's ineviatble. No Scottish MP will be able to hold high office again in the UK (or one representing a Scottish constituency i should say). In truth, the quality of governance in the UK is likely to suffer, but Scottish politicians will be forced back over the border to make their name in the smaller theatre of Scotland

Ultimately over time (as I do think that independence is inevitable) there will be a merging of Scottish Labour and the SNP into a democratic socialist party, as the Scottish Labour party will need to be allowed to throw off its English 'new labour' baggage if its to become relevant north o the border.

I note incidentally that Brown has moved to put distance between the "three promise makers" and himself as the "promise keeper". I'm already interpreting this to mean he thinks they won't deliver it, and he doesn't want the association with the treachery. I can understand why he calls them the "promise makers" but what entitles him to describe himself as the "promise keeper". What job has he been promised? I suspect we're about to find out. Is there an NGO/ Qango job going to be created? Is there some kind of commission reporting to Downing Street and Holyrood? Is he contemplating winning the job of First Minister? He says he isn't interested in the latter, but then every politician who ever ran for high office always said they weren't interested in doing so and had no ambitions in that area etc
 
There's plenty of food for thought in some of the posts above.

Another question would be what happens if the English, Welsh and Northern Irish vote to loosen ties with the EU but the Scots vote in favour of staying in?

Might some of yesterday's No voters, if faced with the choice, prefer to stay in the EU rather than the UK, and switch to the Yes camp?

And might fear of a break-up with Scotland persuade the rest of the UK to choose to stay on in Brussels?
 
Grey said:
Another question would be what happens if the English, Welsh and Northern Irish vote to loosen ties with the EU but the Scots vote in favour of staying in?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is another example of what might transpire and could cause legal and constitutional complications.
As I understand it, under devo-max Westminster maintains control of Defence and Foreigh Affairs for the whole of the UK. So if the Scots -- recognised as more favourable towards EU than their English compatriots -- vote in favour in the proposed In/Out referendum of 2017 whilst England votes for exit, what happens then?
 
The Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots get far too much structure funding to vote against the EU, the English however, might take a different view

If ultimately the UK votes to come out of the EU (which they won't) then the Scottish leadership will simply call an election in Scotland, or the SNP will turn the next round of elections into asking for a mandate to seek a quick re-run of the independence vote on a pro-EU ticket. The Scottish liberal party will have to support them, and even their votes alone would be enough to carry the day on last weeks maths. It would put the Scottish Labour party in a very tight spot, but they'll basically fall in behind the will of the people (in their language). In reality what they'd be saying is they didn't think they could win a No vote under these conditions, and being on the wrong side of the vote would be terminal to them for a generation

A united Scotland party of the left would emerge, Scotland would vote 66/33 in favour of indepednence and a swift move to full European integration.


I'm not sure how another scenario might pan out concerning a budget proposal? Does the Chancellor have to produce two budgets? If Scottish MP's are to be excluded from voting on an English budget, then a budget speach could be defeated. The opposition then calls for a 'no confidence' vote in which case the Scottish are now allowed to defeat that motion, and we have a stalemate. Not good. You might of course use the 'pairing' arrangement currently in place for absent MP's but that would require co-operation. Don't see it happening

Despite what Miliband said, this is almost certainly going to fracture in line with narrow party views and both sides look to position themselves and the Scots get caught in the middle

Cameron is going to find it hard work to get the Barnett formula past his own back benchers with addressing West Lothian. The West Lothian question is an undefendable position for Labour to sustain, but there aren't an easy fixes either in terms of working out where the boundaries lies and what structure emegres

There seems to be a temporary fetish for federalism at the moment, but I'm not so sure that the body that isn't indeed of reform/ abolition isn't the top-tier. All this talk of a so-called 'English parliament' is just the status quo.

What does Germany do? They're federal republic made up of former nation states like Baveria, Brandenberg, Saxony, Hanover, Westphalia etc They have a lot more automnomy at regional level NUTS2 don't they? Does the federal government act as the oversight and monitoring with primacy over issues like foreign policy and defence

Cameron is going to find himself arguing for powers to be returned to him from Brussels whilst also drawing the line at the level that extends the devolution of power to the regions. As is so often the case, its about individual fiefdoms. Cameron and the UK government aren't any higher level democrats, they just want more for themselves
 
It's ironic that a country that wants the "freedom of independence" would heartily roll over to an increasing lack of independence within the eu

Warbler. I think the uk would just about vote to stay in the eu as it stands but further centralisation will tip the balance. One thing is for certain. We would not vote to join it
 
clivex said:
I think it will be many years now and I believe that the whole issue of being a nation state will continue to fade . Nationalism just seems a bit naff. Economies are too interconnected these days and will be more so
Click to expand...

Urm......

I think you've got a complete misread on this. Along with religion, there have been few concepts more capable of motivating and bringing people together than nationalism. If you're able to channel it through a degree of perceived economic injustice too, then you have a very powerful tool for moving people.

You need to realise Clive that not every issue in the world is about economics or framed through the prism of business. If you think nationalism is dying as a concept then you're very likely to be well off the mark.

It rears it's head in two major way

1: Independence movements
2: A growth of nationalist votes

I see no let up in either, albeit I do share your view on the legitimacy of nation states in some regards, and certainly the issue of whether we need the sorts of governments we have, as far too often they govern through the narrow interests of their own body politik
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
It's ironic that a country that wants the "freedom of independence" would heartily roll over to an increasing lack of independence within the eu

Warbler. I think the uk would just about vote to stay in the eu as it stands but further centralisation will tip the balance. One thing is for certain. We would not vote to join it
Click to expand...

It's a point Farage made

I'm not sure that centralisation necessarily moves the needle in so far as the number of people who monitor the latest directive are few and far between. It's when the popular media are able to seize on an inflammatory issue (Latvian muderers being the latest) and play that in such a way as to suggest that the EU is at fault

My own suspicion is that the EU debate will fall into an argument about how many jobs will be lost or not, and that this will ultimately decide how we vote. If the population can be convinced that leaving the EU will cost 1 million plus jobs, we'll blink

It would of course be helpful to the Cameron camp if they had an alternative block to join, but they haven't.

So far as we can see, the American's aren't interested in an Atlantic bridge, and there's little appetite within western Europe (well northern europe is perhaps becoming the more relevant newer dvision) to go back to the days of Maastricht and admit that perhaps our populations have never really taken to the east
 
I think it's dying. Most definitely. If as would appear to be the case, cities such as London are the template (and few would argue it's possibly the worlds most progressive centre)then the future is going to be very different. Mobility is greater than ever and boundaries naturally disappear. Now that failed ideologies have been out to bed , prosperity is increasing right round the world which is the key to suppressing nationalism.
 
Warbler said:
It's a point Farage made

I'm not sure that centralisation necessarily moves the needle in so far as the number of people who monitor the latest directive are few and far between. It's when the popular media are able to seize on an inflammatory issue (Latvian muderers being the latest) and play that in such a way as to suggest that the EU is at fault

My own suspicion is that the EU debate will fall into an argument about how many jobs will be lost or not, and that this will ultimately decide how we vote. If the population can be convinced that leaving the EU will cost 1 million plus jobs, we'll blink

It would of course be helpful to the Cameron camp if they had an alternative block to join, but they haven't.

So far as we can see, the American's aren't interested in an Atlantic bridge, and there's little appetite within western Europe (well northern europe is perhaps becoming the more relevant newer dvision) to go back to the days of Maastricht and admit that perhaps our populations have never really taken to the east
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no chance that a million jobs would be lost through leaving the eu. The eu would have to keep free trade with the uk (as it does with other countries) because we are their biggest market. Simple as that. It's a clear argument that should reassure voters

So why would any jobs "disappear"? No reason at all.

The counter argument is that if we had been in the euro.....

Depends what integration is on the agenda.
 
I do find the federalism argument quite persuasive. It's all very well to talk of only English MPs voting on English matters but the fact is that someone in Manchester will feel that his view is more represented by the MP for West Lothian than the MP for Henley. We already have the country divided into regions for European elections and with only a small amount of tinkering it's easy to create:
London (assembly in London)
South West (Bristol the largest city/town)
South East (Southampton)
East (Luton)
Midlands - combined East and West Midlands - (Birmingham)
North West (Manchester)
North East - combined North East and Yorkshire+ - (Leeds)
Abolishing or downsizing county councils and giving the main cities enough clout within the regions would effectively avoid an extra layer of government and its financial overhead and, if the regions have enough devolved powers, it should be possible to reduce the number of Westminster MPs and associated civil service.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
I think it's dying. Most definitely. If as would appear to be the case, cities such as London are the template (and few would argue it's possibly the worlds most progressive centre)then the future is going to be very different. Mobility is greater than ever and boundaries naturally disappear. Now that failed ideologies have been out to bed , prosperity is increasing right round the world which is the key to suppressing nationalism.
Click to expand...

Not sure what Guardian reading, lovey dovey, candy-floss world you live in Clive, but I'm afraid you're miles away from understanding how nationalist tensions arise. The very uneven distribution of propsperity that you celebrate is what gives rise to nationalism, it doesn't supress it, quite the opposite, it grows it. Region/ Country/ or Peoples 'X' perform well, Region/ Country/ or Peoples 'Y' performs badly, it's only a matter of time before someone in the weaker area whips up the people in storm of self-justifying retribution and they crudely unite under a nationalist banner to declare their own bonding whilst using as a vehicle to identify their common enemy. Try critically reading John Rauls sometime as he's an apologist for unequal growth and you can quickly see how it starts to fester resentment

In any event, you'd still have to explain why the world adds a new country every year to its roster from what it had in 1900 to what it has today.

Basically there isn't shred of evidence that I can see to support your theory. The trend has been for more, and smaller countries rather than monolithic creations.

Again, there is another contradiction in your swipe at out dated structures as you see it. The first thing that happened when political unions were cast aside is that nationalist movements, and intra-nationalist movements within the countries concenred, took root and became the natural point of identity. Indeed, we're seeing another one pan out in Ukraine at the moment. It's almost biological in terms of cellular division
 
Last edited:
We are not talking about countries throwing off the Soviet Union of Tito but what we are facing now. Within democracies how many secession states have been created? Ireland for one and Slovakia. I might have missed something but we are not looking at many others I'm sure

And this despite years of talk in Italy Spain Belgium etc etc etc

My point is that those movements in those countries do not seem to have much momentum at this present time. It seems to be a trend and for all it's faults the eu is probably a reason why.
 
I think you're arguing against yourself a bit now

The EU is a centralised redistributive organ. It's why so many free market lemmings hate it

You saw a brief snippet as to how quickly nationalist tensions can rise very quickly in Greece

The point I'm making is that economic injustice (genuine or imaginary, it doesn't always matter which) feeds nationalism. It's right up there alongside religion.

What you're clearly saying here is that greater prosperity is the key to arresting nationalist tendancies.

"prosperity is increasing right round the world which is the key to suppressing nationalism".

What I'm suggetsing is that this greater prosperity doesn't suppress nationalism, but the distribution of that prosperity does. If it's uneven and promotes division, then it naturally creates grievances and especially so if there is a perception of cause and effect. This kind of fertile environment becomes a breeding ground for rabid nationalism. So how do we dampen this fire down? We redistribute - the EU. It's not the generation of wealth therefore that suppresses nationalism, but the way we organise to ensure that its distributed

It's a similar concept to how the welfare benefit system works for those who have the most to lose in society and not those at the very bottom who would otherwise turn to widespread civil disorder to survive
 
Well by allowing Greece into the euro and thus in a roundabout way, wealth was redistributed by allowing them better borrowing terms then their economy justified, a monster and a disaster was created

I can see the justification on social grounds for aiding regions within the eu but whether it is the right long term policy I doubt

There are two attitudes towards having a wealthy neighbour . Envy or admiration. The other week a leader of Manchester council said that they do not envy London at all but feel its a huge advantage being close to a world class city (his words) and it was up to them to take advantage and learn from the success. Top man I thought and right attitude.

I also read today someone in the observer blaming the yes vote on thatchers policies of nit contininung to subsidise bankrupt industries (my words of course). And I thought...whatever
 
I think you're wrong about Belgium and Spain.

Belgium is virtually two countries now, the only bit of cement holding it together is Brussels, which neither side wants to let go of. The main separatist party runs the regional government in Flanders and is the largest party in Belgium.

And Spain is definitely fragile. The Catalonians will be holding an (illegal) referendum soon and have not stopped campaigning. It's true that Basque violence has stopped but it would be a mistake to think that Basque nationalism is therefore on the wane.

This is why Rajoy and others were warning that EU membership would be difficult to obtain for an independent Scotland, they don't want the same thing happening closer to home.

Many of the separatist movements see Europe as giving them a realistic opportunity of going it alone. In their view a strong Europe which takes care of currency and trade arrangements reduces the need for large centralised nation states and provides a framework in which smaller entities can pursue their own economic and cultural goals.
 
They have been saying that for decades though. No closer.

I think trade arrangements take care of themselves these days. They are not difficult but currency? Well.....

Probably too generous in to salmond in many ways when I thnk about it. Pretty shoddy to not have had answer to the currency issue and the threat of debt was stupid. He got away with it because Cameron and co went for the emollient approach. A certain other prime minister and chancellor would have spelt it out very firmly
 
Ed Milliband in bother now. Just seen transcript of his appalling interview on the BBC. If he wont answer the West lothian question then hes going to be battered on that very point from now until election day. The trouble is...there is only one answer

What makes this even worse is that he must surely have seen this coming.

The whole business should have been put to bed at the time of original devolution of course.

In the Observer yesterday there was a very arrogant , condescending and frankly confused piece by the ever waffling Will Hutton on this point. Sort of summed up the attitude of much of labour to this issue
 
Labour's only got themselves to blame, and Miliband's assertion that he isn't going to be driven by narrow political interests will go down as one of his more laughable pieces of political contradiction. I can't remember what it was he said yesterday, but I thought it was astute of the BBC to edit it into their summary as the person who did the commentary had clearly done the scenario building I had and realised that Miliband had committed himself to something he was never going to deliver

There are some legitimate concerns over the west Lothian issue, and he's right to say it needs looking at in greater detail, as does the whole of the devolution idea, but until he can prove that a demand exists elsewhere in England, he can only throw regional assemblies into a manifesto mincer and see what gets churned out. Even then, he needs to reconcile it with existing agencies

The really big gaff Labour made (and they didn't realise it at the time) was campaign against AV. That is going to come back to haunt them
 
Last edited:
Labour have no chance of winning the next election anyway..the Rotherham stuff alone will sort that out

its time they got Prescott in as leader..and get people to actually vote for a labour party..not the wishy washy bollix that Miliband presides over
 
What detail does he need to know?

Pretty simple isn't it?

The english electorate are finally fully aware of the issue and now it won't go away. They will not accept Scottish most voting on purely english issues anymore than they would accept Australian mps doing the same. Simple

It should have been addressed years ago.

Secondly they emphatically do not want regional assemblies with another load of expense fiddling representatives

Sort it out
 
Northerners do not want to be ruled by London and the Home Counties. There hasn't been a Tory MP in Manchester since 1987. It's just not a goer for an English subset at Westminster.
Maybe you could cut assemblies down to 3 (London & SE, SW & Midlands and North) but, by cutting out the County Councils and reducing the power, responsibility and Civil Service overhead of central government, it's perfectly possible to introduce regional assemblies without much extra administrative overhead.
 
regional assemblies looks to me like glorified local councils...the smaller you make something the more open to situations like Rotherham occurring imo

i don't really agree with making power regions smaller to be honest..its costly.

Look at the Police commissioner debacle..a pointless post that costs money..gain = nothing

we see these situations happening..then want even more of it

what we need is a party in power thats in touch with country as a whole..thats the real problem
 
EC1 said:
regional assemblies looks to me like glorified local councils...the smaller you make something the more open to situations like Rotherham occurring imo

i don't really agree with making power regions smaller to be honest..its costly.

Look at the Police commissioner debacle..a pointless post that costs money..gain = nothing

we see these situations happening..then want even more of it

what we need is a party in power thats in touch with country as a whole..thats the real problem
Click to expand...

I largely agree with that. Ultimately the most vital decision making (foreign policy, economy, etc etc) has to be made on a national scale. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Westminster, you would rather people of the calibre of Darling Osbourne and Lawson than some fat pissed up local councillor who couldnt operate a cash point

There is another issue with localised power. It can all be a bit cliquey and as ever in such situations there is a lack of scrutiny. Witness the Scottish parliament building fiasco. The larger the pool in media, politics and other centres of power, the wider the pool of talent but also the less chance they spend rather too much time at each others dinner parties
 
Back
Top