Scottish Independence

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Since it is much more likely the scots would vote for devo max than independence, yes the scots nats want to ask the question and the english government wants to stop them asking it. We shall see what happens.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Since it is much more likely the scots would vote for devo max than independence, yes the scots nats want to ask the question and the english government wants to stop them asking it. We shall see what happens.

Thers are plenty reporting it this way, but I just don't think it is correct.

We've had thousands of posts on the Euro crisis. I think we're agreed there is a problem! Devo max creates two nations using one currency and without a fiscal union. This is unstable. I think SNP see this as a stepping stone to full independence. It will create a "beneficial crisis" that will force Scotland out of the UK. There is a parallel with the architects of the euro seeing it as a stepping stone to a United States of Europe which they knew they wouldn't get through the ballot box. It is a ploy to force Scotland to become independent even although a majority in Scotland do not want this.

For the UK the idea of Devo Max is impossible. Just as tiny Greece has wrecked the EuroZone economies so a Devo Max Scotland risks wrecking England, Wales and NI. It would be economic suicide. No government of any nation can support policies that would see that nation's economy wrecked. The UK cannot accept this idea.

Worse still, the idea of Devo Max shames the people of Scotland. It is the parasitic option of a people prepared to trample the memory of Wallace and Bruce, a people who want to replace the freedom asserted by Arbroath with the slavery of economic dependence. Scotland is proposing a situation where if (hypothetically) all goes well with the Scottish economy then Scotland gets the benefits. However if it all goes wrong (which it would) then the UK would be obliged to pick up the bill, at least until Scotland could be cast free. It is directly comparble to Greece and the Germany. Scotland could go on a spending spree and the rest of the UK would be required to bail Scotland out just as the Germany has Greece. It is totally unacceptable. We already have the absurd situation where English, Welsh and NI students pay high academic fees so Scotland (through the Barnet Formula) can give subsidised free places (to Scottish and non-UK EU). We would be looking at a situation where the English worked longer so the Scots could retire earlier.

The question has to be a clear yes/no.

In a perfect world the referendum choice would be between independence and the abolition of the Scottish parliament, ie solving the West Lothian question.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Romanticism and jobs for the boys.

I say that as a fairly devout Welshman. I prefer the option to reduce the control of Westminster through increasing the role of Brussels.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I've always taken a strong interest in British politics, so I hope you don't mind if a dual-citizen chimes in.

The primary problem with modern Westminster appears to be a reticence to implement effective change. I've observed a lot of political "face" praising change and an awful amount of political correctness, but there's little actual reform because it appears that the three major parties always fail to reach a consensus. There's a push for change -- and therefore ideas like independence, in order to do something, indeed, anything different from the past -- in but Britain seems deadset on stagnation. I can't figure it out.

I feel that the UK's best chance for survival is a shift from centralism to federalism. Devolution was a half-hearted attempt at unity, but it failed due to a lack of proper implementation: Scotland won its own legislature, but England (not including Cornwall) doesn't appear to have enough regional pride to vote for regional legislatures rather than a "national" English Parliament. Many Tories are adamantly opposed to a federal system and for some reason cling to centralism, but since we already have devolution it seems absurd to continue along this path. Likewise, the nationalist parties (Plaid Cymru and the SNP) have to work for a United Kingdom for survival and common sense. There's no way an independent Scotland would ever prosper in the real world because London is Europe's economic engine. Historically, Scotland's never been a rich country and it was even less so prior to union because of it's relative distance from the Continent.

Scotland, however, should seek some sort of political maturity. There's nothing wrong with pulling your own way, but at the moment the SNP merely throws a tantrum every time that Westminster passes a bill. Holyrood isn't taken seriously outside of the UK and I don't expect that it will be in the future because the SNP insists upon framing Westminster as some sort of colonial orderlord. That's something that the rest of the world finds utterly laughable and will continue to do so until the country's leaders get real.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no interest whatsoever in federalism for England. We got as far as a referendum in the NE - the region most likely to support federalism, and it was decisively rejected. Indeed Berwick council actually debated whether in the event of the cretion of a NE region it would petition to leave this and join Scotland. The idea was that at least Scotland means something - NE is a joke and no-one could want to be part of it. And as for the idea of governing the people of Northumberland from a regional capital in Durham - well the insult!

The English regions are a modern construction which have no meaningful identity. There is some county identity, though in 1974 an act of cultural vandalism damaged our county structure (the changes pushed through despite the biggest ever protests in England). If we are looking at any sub-UK unit it is England - though I'm very close to saying the unit is really the UK. There is very limited interest even in an English parliament.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
There is no interest whatsoever in federalism for England. We got as far as a referendum in the NE - the region most likely to support federalism, and it was decisively rejected. Indeed Berwick council actually debated whether in the event of the cretion of a NE region it would petition to leave this and join Scotland. The idea was that at least Scotland means something - NE is a joke and no-one could want to be part of it. And as for the idea of governing the people of Northumberland from a regional capital in Durham - well the insult!

The English regions are a modern construction which have no meaningful identity. There is some county identity, though in 1974 an act of cultural vandalism damaged our county structure (the changes pushed through despite the biggest ever protests in England). If we are looking at any sub-UK unit it is England - though I'm very close to saying the unit is really the UK. There is very limited interest even in an English parliament.

My idea for federalism was simple: you have three tiers of government. At the top is Westminster, followed by the nations (England, N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales), followed by counties restored to the pre-1965 boundaries minus enclaves. Scrap the councils entirely. I feel that the sole exception to county boundaries may be the Greater London conurbation, which would just simply become Middlesex. All of the nations would retain uniformly devolved powers while ending the Scottish Question entirely, as was done in Australia.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
@laxplayer, I quite like this idea.

Scotland is now the most goverened part of the EU with more layers of government than anywhere else. It is very hard to justify this. Scotland certainly needs to peel away some of the layers, but so to an extent does the whole UK.

One of the (very few) things Tony Blair got right was the reintroduction of many of the old counties as "ceremonial counties" overlapping the "administrative counties". Maybe we could build on this and regain part of our identity. With devolved powers to three of the four home nations we need to look carefully at the boundaries. Whether Berwick remains in England or joins its football team in Scotland does matter to the people of Berwick. For that matter whether Gwent (Monmouthshire) is in Wales (as now) or England matters to the people who live there, a majority of whom voted against a Welsh Assembly.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I've also become quite obsessed with parring down inefficiency. What I would like to see happens is the creation of an authentically "British" government by keeping our traditions while bringing them into the future. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd do a lot of national reform by focusing on local organs.

I've described the system above, but perhaps not thoroughly enough. I'd make the Lords-Lieutenant the executives of the county and have them stand for election and I'd scrap the councils and the regulations for city status entirely -- any conurbation above 250,000 people automatically becomes a city with a Lord Mayor. Towns would obviously elect mayors in the way that they've done for years, but there also needs to be more flexibility in the system as you can't have council employees slapping people with fines over for something petty and unimportant. It's the same inefficiency that you see in the American "Homeland Security" Department whereby "officers" (if you can call them that) are more fixated on finding lighters than bombs (read: Why Airport Security Is Broken—And How to Fix It - WSJ.com). This basic reform would solve the question of regional independence so that local municipalities can determine what's best for them. They'd of course get their cash from the "national" legislatures, which would in turn receive funding from Westminster.

On a tangential note about local political reform, I've always thought that we should just bring the overseas territories formally into the fold. Make all of the small Caribbean islands into counties based on their present boundaries and let them send reps to their national legislature -- it stops corruption, ends any accusations of colonialism, and allows us to firmly shut the door on any remaining negative aspects of our past history.

Speaking of independence or lack thereof, I've also come to the conclusion that we should cut off Ireland and send Ulster packing back to Dublin. We need immigrants in Great Britain, and an influx of our own may perhaps be the best solution to this problem rather than introducing new people from entirely different cultures. Northern Ireland is a money pit of epic proportions that's also been a PR issue for ages, so I feel that we should drop them and focus on Great Britain entirely.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
NI is indeed a money pit, and for the UK a public relations disaster. Yet NI consistently votes for politicians whose main policy is preservation of the union. If UK was too energetic in cutting free from NI we would see the unionists set up an independent state, and that would quite possibly be a blood bath.

Curiously the Unionists could show Scotland how creating an independent nation can be made to work. It has to be something you believe in despite costs. An independent NI would of course be completely broke, but I think the unionist majority would see this as a price worth paying to avoid becoming part of the Republic. And I think support from their own sectarian group would remain firm.

If Scotland truly wants independence the arguments around what it will cost should be relegated to the background. You want your independence because you want your independence, and are willing to pay for it. IMO a meaningful campaign for Scottish independence would start with a process of Holyrood strengthening the Scottish economy by investing in finance, oil and infrastructure - with the people of Scotland paying for this through less public services. Then financial safeguards for these key industries would be set in place to be paid for with a special tax, comparable to the reunification tax paid in (West) Germany - let's say a new 10% independence tax. An agreement needs to be reached in advance with the EU, which probably requires some sort of shadowing of the Fiscal Union compact. It could be done, if the people of Scotland think the price is worth paying. It would certainly mean the average person in Scotland poorer for a generation (say 30 years) but it could be done. The Unionists in NI wouldn't think twice about paying this price (pity the Republicans!) - this is the sort of zeal for independence which is needed if a small nation is to break away. In NI for the Unionists the issue is of course driven by religion where being part of a Catholic Republic of Ireland is not compatible with their world picture.

I just don't see what would motivate the people of Scotland to value their independence so highly that it is worth a generation of poverty.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I'd then retort that Westminster has to take a stand: none of the nations of Great Britain will separate. I find the concept of a Scottish referendum to be laughable -- with a dissolution of the union, the United Kingdom is, in essence, going to impale itself economically, politically, socially and intellectually. In the United States, for example, it's firmly accepted that once a state joins the Union, it's impossible to leave and I find zero problem with telling the SNP the same.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My idea for federalism was simple: you have three tiers of government. At the top is Westminster, followed by the nations (England, N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales), followed by counties
The problem in the UK is that England is way bigger and richer than all the other put together. So the Westminster parliament is really already the English parliament and always has been. Westminster will fight you to the last MP if you try to take away its right to run England.


. We need immigrants in Great Britain,
We dont. and 75% of the population think all immigration should be banned entirely. We need 1 million new people like we need 1 million unemployed current brits, which is exactly what would happen. We have plenty of people. We do not use them well.

IMO a meaningful campaign for Scottish independence would start with a process of Holyrood strengthening the Scottish economy by investing in finance, oil and infrastructure
But while Scotland remains part of the Uk this is pretty much impossible. You have to have something which is 'yours' before you can invest in it.

I find the concept of a Scottish referendum to be laughable
The current government thinks so too, which is why they are pushing one on their terms while trying to prevent a referendum on greater powers for scotland which they would lose.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
dandelion said:
The problem in the UK is that England is way bigger and richer than all the other put together. So the Westminster parliament is really already the English parliament and always has been. Westminster will fight you to the last MP if you try to take away its right to run England.

You can't call Westminster the English Parliament, just as you can't call the United States Congress the New York/Texas/California Legislature. Westminster may be the seat of government and it is located in England, but you could in theory move it anywhere (Berwick?) and the result would be the same. A federal system would allow Scotland and Wales a proportional vote in the upper house, while allowing England a proportional vote in the lower house. Leave the MPs and a reformed Lords the chance to fight out future battles.

dandelion said:
We dont. and 75% of the population think all immigration should be banned entirely. We need 1 million new people like we need 1 million unemployed current brits, which is exactly what would happen. We have plenty of people. We do not use them well.

Yes and no. The problem is that the immigration system is completely fucked, in part due to bleeding hearts and in part due to the European Union's regulations. We need some sort of population growth to sustain our economy, but a lot of young Britons simply don't work -- including the children of immigrants. The entire system's flawed, and as long as the current status quo remains little will be accomplished in the predicable future.

I realize that this may be a controversial topic, but I think that the UK has to stop taking asylum seekers entirely until this mess is sorted out. Without stronger immigration control, we won't be able to consolidate what we have now. Great Britain's strength has always been her diversity, but the past 100 years have been traumatizing with the fall of the Empire. Arguably, we still haven't truly discovered our role in global politics. On one side, I observe a growing right-wing movement that frightens me because of it's tendency towards violence and, indeed, fascism. On the other side, I see a very strong liberal core that punishes innovation and success in order to achieve an impossible level of "equality."

dandelion said:
But while Scotland remains part of the Uk this is pretty much impossible. You have to have something which is 'yours' before you can invest in it. [...] The current government thinks so too, which is why they are pushing one on their terms while trying to prevent a referendum on greater powers for scotland which they would lose.

I'd argue that Westminster does belong to Scotland. After the Act of Union, Great Britain became one country united under one legislature in Westminster -- people in London own Parliament as much as people in Glasgow do. If you reformed the House of Lords to be a quasi-elected body, you could place a quota for English, Scottish and Welsh peers with equal voting rights. Of course, in order to have a strong and effective upper house that truly punches above the belt, we'd have to put the power of election in the regional legislatures.

In my total fantasy, the dignity of the peerage would be separated from the privilege of the peerage. Each national parliament would select 100 peers out of the existing body and send them to Westminster for life terms. Each time a peer dies, is incapacitated, or reaches the age of 70 he'll replaced by a new peer that Holyrood/Whitehall/Swansea chooses to represent them. The national parliaments will be happy to directly influence the vote in Westminster, while HM Government retains the power to make peers and control the electoral list. Everyone wins.

Of course, alas, this is all mental masturbation. We need real ideas in Westminster instead of threats of independence or further division.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The British system works by tolerating logical inconsistencies. The system has worn in over many centuries and fits. One inconsistency is compensated by another.

The West Lothian Question looks at the case where a Scottish MP can vote on (say) English education but education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish parliament (there are more quirks when Wales and NI are added in but I'm leaving these out). It is possible that a vote on English education will be passed by English MPs, but defeated by all UK MPs because of the Scottish votes. The Scottish MPs carry the day, even though the legislation does not apply in Scotland.

One solution proposed is that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on English issues. The problem with this is that it might well lead to a situation where the majority of English MPs are Conservative and the majority of English+Scottish MPs are Labour (this is actually a probable outcome achieved in about half of elections). We would therefore have enormous instabilty. So we've permitted a system where Scottish MPs have rights to vote on a range of domestic issues in England in order to avoid this instability.

The British solution is to reduce the problem. We're doing this:
* the number of Scottish MPs will be somewhat reduced and English increased so this outcome is less common. The new system will reflect population.
No it won't solve the West Lothian Question. But it may be many years in the future before it becomes a problem.

**************************
Present number of MPs:
England - 533
Wales - 40
Scotland - 59
NI - 18
TOTAL 650 - 82% of which English and 9% Scots.

Next election MPs
England - 502
Wales - 30
Scotland - 52
NI - 16
TOTAL 600 - 84% of which English and 8% Scots.

Wales and NI elect parties which tend to support the main English/UK parties in proportions that are not wildly different. The problems are not too great here. However Scotland overwhelmingly votes Labour and SNP (socialist).

Present population trends see most of the growth in England. England topping 90% of the population of the UK by 2030ish seems about right. Quirks which support Wales, Scotland and NI simply help to remove the problems of this national imbalance.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You can't call Westminster the English Parliament, just as you can't call the United States Congress the New York/Texas/California Legislature. Westminster may be the seat of government and it is located in England, but you could in theory move it anywhere (Berwick?) and the result would be the same. A federal system would allow Scotland and Wales a proportional vote in the upper house, while allowing England a proportional vote in the lower house. Leave the MPs and a reformed Lords the chance to fight out future battles.
Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory. The US government is defined by a constitution which lays out responsibilities. In the UK the house of commons decides entirely by itself who gets to do what. This is the central principle of british government, all power resides in the person of the prime minister.

The act of union when Scotland joined the UK by bribery gave the scots a minimum representation in the house of commons, which grossly overrepresented them but still meant English MPs were the great majority. This was English conquest with window dressing. The Scots agreed to give up all power over themselves in return for a few MPs and Lords.



Yes and no. The problem is that the immigration system is completely fucked, in part due to bleeding hearts and in part due to the European Union's regulations.
The funny thing about free movement of people (ie as within the EU) is that it allows them to go home. The traditional ways of sneaking into Britain all tend to be one-offs, so if you leave again you cant come back. Thus people lose contact with home and stay. Also, since people tend to go from poor countries to rich, there is less pressure withing the EU for its citizens to come to Britain.

We need some sort of population growth to sustain our economy...
We dont. We could do with a lot less people. Inviting in more is just the same as borrowing money now without knowing how to pay it back. You cant keep adding more people who all eventually will end up as liabilities to the state. Stats also show that economically speaking, immigrants tend to be neutral. They send money home and still add to the need for state services, accommodation, etc, etc.

.., but a lot of young Britons simply don't work
now your getting to the problem.

I realize that this may be a controversial topic, but I think that the UK has to stop taking asylum seekers entirely until this mess is sorted out.
Then a good start might be to stop getting involved in wars.

Great Britain's strength has always been her diversity
Frequently Britains strength has been her navy. Because of the huge population we pretty much have no choice but to remain dependant on foreign trade.

On the other side, I see a very strong liberal core that punishes innovation and success in order to achieve an impossible level of "equality."
Since inequality is increasing not decreasing the liberals arent being very effective.


If you reformed the House of Lords to be a quasi-elected body, you could place a quota for English, Scottish and Welsh peers with equal voting rights
You could, but we have one already effectively. England has the greatest population so outvotes everyone else. (oh, and incidentally only about 5% of the population think the current arrangements for the house of lords are satisfactory)

In my total fantasy, the dignity of the peerage would be separated from the privilege of the peerage. Each national parliament would select 100 peers out of the existing body and send them to Westminster for life terms.
then you would have the great majority of the population of the british isles subject to the minority. That is even less democratic than the arrangemwnt we have now.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I am a native Californian. my middle name is the Scot name for "Lord". i have been to Scotland once. It the Scots want independence, they should get to vote for it, just as the people in Puerto Rico get to do so every four years. My best to the Scots and their future. i will support them either way they vote. But i will NOT eat haggus. yuck.
 

laxplayer

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Posts
85
Media
1
Likes
155
Points
278
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
dandelion said:
Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory.

I think your local council would disagree.

dandelion said:
The act of union when Scotland joined the UK by bribery gave the scots a minimum representation in the house of commons, which grossly overrepresented them but still meant English MPs were the great majority. This was English conquest with window dressing. The Scots agreed to give up all power over themselves in return for a few MPs and Lords.

I wouldn't describe the Act of Union as a conquest of Scotland, but rather a merger despite firm evidence of blatant corruption leading up to the vote. You can't hold 18th c. voting practices to modern standards, and repealing the act to retroactively fight political fraud is a fruitless campaign with no winners except for dead men. Don't forget that Scotland wasn't the only independent nation to be scrapped by the creation of Great Britain: there is no Kingdom of England. The trick is to ensure a better balance in the future so as to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

dandelion said:
The funny thing about free movement of people (ie as within the EU) is that it allows them to go home. The traditional ways of sneaking into Britain all tend to be one-offs, so if you leave again you cant come back. Thus people lose contact with home and stay. Also, since people tend to go from poor countries to rich, there is less pressure withing the EU for its citizens to come to Britain.

I agree, my friend.

dandelion said:
We dont. We could do with a lot less people. Inviting in more is just the same as borrowing money now without knowing how to pay it back.

Well, yes, you do given the present status quo. We have a massive social entitlement bill to pay every year and, frankly, a negative birth rate. Even if you could send home every "bad egg" immigrant -- or even deport chavs on the doll to Australia (har, har) -- you'd still need someone to cover the pensioners.

dandelion said:
Then a good start might be to stop getting involved in wars.

Fair enough.

dandelion said:
Frequently Britains strength has been her navy. Because of the huge population we pretty much have no choice but to remain dependant on foreign trade.

Even with a smaller population, you'd still have to depend on foreign trade. The theoretical removal of 20,000,000 people wouldn't automatically yield a vibrant domestic manufacturing economy to rival the likes of China, and Britain's industrial trade has been under severe pressure since the late 19th c.

dandelion said:
then you would have the great majority of the population of the british isles subject to the minority. That is even less democratic than the arrangemwnt we have now.

No, it's merely an indirect election rather than the autocratic system of appointments that we have now. If anything, it's a great compromise: your MSPs elect the upper house at Westminster off a list of peers made by governments stretching back to the early 1960s -- I'm excluding the hereditary peers here, though they would be equally eligible to run in my fantasy land -- to ensure a lively body that protects the interests of its citizens. If anything, it's a far more equal system than a directly elected upper house, which could be prone to English domination.

Jason said:
The British system works by tolerating logical inconsistencies. The system has worn in over many centuries and fits. One inconsistency is compensated by another.

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting to throw out tradition or many of these established systems. I'm just suggesting that we should streamline the new stuff to make it work within a modern world. If the old system has already been tampered with in certain parts and it's dysfunctional (like the '74 counties/councils), then we shouldn't be afraid to scrap it. We should look to the past for inspiration, while maximizing the effectiveness of new reform.

Jason said:
Present population trends see most of the growth in England. England topping 90% of the population of the UK by 2030ish seems about right. Quirks which support Wales, Scotland and NI simply help to remove the problems of this national imbalance.

I understand your argument and it's very... "Yes, Minister" in nature if you will, but shouldn't we try to patch the problem now rather than wait for the future? I don't feel as if these quirks are tolerable when you have over a million people who'd look upon the dissolution of the Union with favor.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory.
I think your local council would disagree.
No, actually councillors complain of powerlessness, and it is reportedly very hard to get anyone to stand for office because the job is pretty pointless. One good reason to stand is if you happen to have a forthcoming planning problem, or something of the like, and want to influence the outcome. This is of course forbidden, but is probably still one reason for standing. Probably the other is to get in with a local political party so you have a chance at a real elected position as an MP. Mostly what councils do is administration and argue about which service to cut.

Or as another example, there are creeping parking charges spreading across the country. Councils have the option to put in place charges, and it is always opposed by locals. However councils do it because they get to keep some of the money and spend it on their pet projects. So what is really happening is westminster has decided to impose national road parking charges, but likes to put the blame on councils for introducing them.

I wouldn't describe the Act of Union as a conquest of Scotland, but rather a merger despite firm evidence of blatant corruption leading up to the vote. You can't hold 18th c. voting practices to modern standards
Are you saying I should judge things by 18th century standards? Is that why such odd ideas seem to come out of the US? I am looking at what happened then by modern democratic standards, and it was simply a bought and paid for takeover.


Even with a smaller population, you'd still have to depend on foreign trade. The theoretical removal of 20,000,000 people wouldn't automatically yield a vibrant domestic manufacturing economy to rival the likes of China, and Britain's industrial trade has been under severe pressure since the late 19th c.
I'm not sure how far we need to reduce the population to be able to feed ourselves, never mind have nice new chinese phones. At least half.

shouldn't we try to patch the problem now rather than wait for the future?
What you are suggesting sounds like giving Luxembourg a veto over what the Eu does. The EU is set up to give vetoes in some critical areas but generally works on proportionate representation but a large majority needed to pass something. So maybe impose a 75% threshold for the commons to pass a law? That would shake them up!
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand your argument and it's very... "Yes, Minister" in nature if you will, but shouldn't we try to patch the problem now rather than wait for the future? I don't feel as if these quirks are tolerable when you have over a million people who'd look upon the dissolution of the Union with favor.

What a quaint idea! Naked idealism! This suggests a view that problems have solutions!

The West Lothian Question has no solution. We can comprehend a central state with a single parliament (like France) or a federal state with regional governments everywhere (like Germany or the USA). But there are enormous problems with a system where some areas have a federal tier and others do not, and where the authority of the regional authorities are different in each region.

The system works with consensus. We need the political makeup of the whole UK to mirror that of England. Almost always England will elect a Conservative government. We need the whole UK to vote Conservative. With a bit of luck after the disastrous socialist experiment of the twentieth century voters will avoid voting socialist. In the end we have to trust in the good sense of the people.
 

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
just a quickie looks like the rbs debit should be paid off before the end of 2012. so when the debit is paid off is rbs how does this affect the scottish independence issue now. or does rbs now become a british bank again ?.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
RBS is still making losses - this is one seriously poorly bank. Now RBS is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It is raising money from private investors through issuing preference shares, and therefore repaying the UK government.

The RBS shares are in effect piggy-backing on the UK's AAA credit rating and low bond yields. The markets know that if it all goes wrong the UK government will again save the bank (it has no choice) so they are seeing the shares as guaranteed by the UK government. The process may be completed very soon indeed, and certainly by the end of 2012. I imagine the government is ecstatic. It means a lot of money coming into the treasury (perhaps funding investment) and suddenly the bonuses paid to RBS bosses become someone else's problem.

RBS is a Scottish registered business and in the event of devolution it would be Scotland that owns it. RBS is larger than the whole Scottish economy. There is no possibility of Scotland bailing it out if it gets in trouble as the UK has done - I suppose it would be an IMF bailout. The immediate problem is that the shares which are being seen by the markets as de facto guaranteed by the UK government would suddenly be seen as not guaranteed. They would become almost valueless overnight.

What I think we now have is a situation where Scottish independence would precipitate a collapse of RBS, which in theory means that an independent Scotland would start life with the IMF in charge. I think however the international community - the IMF and UN - would in this circumstance tell the UK that it could not ratify Scottish independence. A separation that leads to the instant economic collapse of a new nation is in no-one's interest.