Re: Scotland (Political Thread)
Posted: 30 Dec 2020, 08:34
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
How about, for a start, the pro-Union campaign ditching the concept of "Project Fear" as a campaign strategy and concentrating on the benefits of remaining as part of the Union. Had Remain taken that strategy, then I suspect that we would probably still be part of the EU (though it would have required fine judgement over just how honest they should be over the eventual aims of full political integration - a fact that is less important in the Union as we start from a point of full political integration and that objective has never been concealed).whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
A good point, but, unfortunately, rejected so emphatically by the North-East in a regional referendum in 2004, that future referenda for the other regions were abandoned. IIRC, the feeling at the time was that it was an attempt to divide up England into bits that a) would not have the "clout" of a single voice and b) could be set against each other. Many felt that England as a whole should have it's own Parliament (introducting a form of Federalism and solving the mid-Lothian question at the same time) which would then organise and administer the English regions. A lot of people also seem to have been very concerned at the cost (and utility) of the extra levels of Government that would have been introduced, as all the existing levels would have been retained.Pseudo wrote:I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
Indeed, and that referendum was Dominic Cummings' first success in his attempt to divide and destroy the UK.Caribbean wrote:A good point, but, unfortunately, rejected so emphatically by the North-East in a regional referendum in 2004, that future referenda for the other regions were abandoned.Pseudo wrote:I think that the union would be in a very different place if there'd been English regional devolution, if only because it would have meant Scotland being in the same boat as a number of English regions in their complaints about the central government. The SNP could have hardy claimed that Scots are being victimised if the First Minister of the North West England assembly is complaining about the same thing.whitelancer wrote:The problem is how to go about strengthening the union.
I completely agree that English regional devolution wasn't going to happen, I'm just making the point that if it had the calls for Scottish secession would likely be a lot weaker.IIRC, the feeling at the time was that it was an attempt to divide up England into bits that a) would not have the "clout" of a single voice and b) could be set against each other. Many felt that England as a whole should have it's own Parliament (introducting a form of Federalism and solving the mid-Lothian question at the same time) which would then organise and administer the English regions. A lot of people also seem to have been very concerned at the cost (and utility) of the extra levels of Government that would have been introduced, as all the existing levels would have been retained.
I think that if you're going to devolve power to regions then you need to give those regions a way of kicking back against government overreach that doesn't involve regional assemblies going toe to toe with central government. With that in mind, I'd propose a tripartite upper house with say 35% being elected by regional assemblies to represent their interests, 35% being appointed to represent professions, industries, unions, NGO's and other groups that are vital to the economic and social interests of the nation, and the final 30% being directly elected under a proportional system. That would get the upper house down to around 450 members. I'm not sure that I'd want to give the chamber a lot of power over legislation, but maybe some sort of veto power on domestic legislation that could only be invoked by a vote of two-thirds of the members with that including over half of the directly elected members might be beneficial.Perhaps it's time to re-visit the idea, this time with a better thought-out strategy of replacing intermediate levels of local Government (maybe by re-organising County and District-level Councils into a single level) with regional assemblies (rather than adding them as an extra level) and an overall English Parliament, coupled with a reduction in the size of Westminster and a reform of the Upper House into a form of Senate, with different constitutional responsibilities and democratic representation.
I think that with a decent level of regional devolution you could easily cut the Commons down to 500 members. I'd also be in favour of switching over to the alternative vote as the method of electing MP's. I'm not keen on losing the direct constituency responsibility that would happen in a proportional system, or having two classes of MP's as happens under mixed systems, but I am keen that MP's should (in the vast majority of circumstances) require over half of voters to express a preference for them.Westminster would remain as a much smaller body that has reponsibility for matters of national significance, primarily security (in all it's forms - military, cyber, food, energy, internal and external) and foreign affairs, along with a co-ordinating function between the regions.
I am among the many you mentioned, but how about you?Caribbean wrote:introducting a form of Federalism
much better than the 'stuffing with cronies' which is not only eating into the respect for the upper chamber, but also its functioningCaribbean wrote: a reform of the Upper House into a form of Senate
Yep, I think I listed the core departments on the previous page, but nothing wrong with your list (I think IR will address national resilience = the what; and the 'how' should then follow)Caribbean wrote: Westminster would remain as a much smaller body that has reponsibility for
Your blurbCompare that with the total block grant after adjustment for devolved taxes intake and devolved welfare expenditure, for the last four years:
17,801.4
18,853.8
21,298.7
29,909.4... call that £30 bn, between friends.
seems to be based on rather old notes; protest!Cooper wrote:the rUK bunging them £10bn a year
I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.Cooper wrote:The fact that the Scot's still think, after 300yrs, that they'd be better off with the Continental Euro trash in Brussels, shows that the Union isn't worth saving.
If they don't feel British after 300yrs, they never will, time to be shot of them.
Let the EU bankroll them instead of the rUK bunging them £10bn a year to keep them afloat and dishing out their 'free stuff' they so like to boast about.
..That £10bn+ could be spent elsewhere, on people that might actually fucking appreciate it.
No, the seeds of the UK's eventual break up were sowed in the original Act of Union in 1707, by agreeing to let them keep their unique legal & educational systems. It was a stupid decision that would always be a roadblock to them feeling fully 'British'.Pseudo wrote: I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.
Maybe, but for seeds to grow they have to be fed and while I'd contend that in the modern era what did most to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK was the introduction of the poll tax, I think that there are plenty of ways to encourage a more cohesive union and national sports teams and leagues would have been a very effective way.Cooper wrote:No, the seeds of the UK's eventual break up were sowed in the original Act of Union in 1707, by agreeing to let them keep their unique legal & educational systems. It was a stupid decision that would always be a roadblock to them feeling fully 'British'.Pseudo wrote: I tend to think that one of the most significant ways that intranational animosities have been kept alive over the years is through having separate national sports teams and leagues. I don't think that there'd be much support for Scottish secession in Glasgow if Celtic and Rangers were in the UK Premier League.
Why would the same 'thing' have been a divisive 'devise'?Pseudo wrote:the introduction of the poll tax
Could you clarify your question, that's a bit too cryptic even for me.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why would the same 'thing' have been a divisive 'devise'?Pseudo wrote:the introduction of the poll tax
It was introduced in Scotland a year before England and while the disruption and civil unrest it created in Scotland had no political impact in government, when it was introduced in England the disruption and civil unrest it caused led to the downfall of Thatcher and eventual abolition. Essentially, I'd say that Scots felt like they were being used as canaries in the coal mine and then ignored when they started dying of methane poisoning.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why would a national measure be the decisive wedge?
- I am well aware of all the various cross-pulls at the time,
- but why single that one out (despite the reaction, which is a different 'fact')?
I had forgotten about that step-wise one year differencePseudo wrote: Scots felt like they were being used as canaries in the coal mine and then ignored when they started dying of methane poisoning.
Devolution no more more being 'just' a Scottish question, picked up that The Sunday Times has done an in-depth piece on this. Oh boy, off to supermarket must go (to get one)on devolution (the Gvmnt is mobilising to defend the Union? says Raab), is the Starmer/Brown commission more than an electoral manoeuvre, to try and stave off a majority in Scotland that would lead to (even more intensive) bickering over Indyref2; to have or not to?
If Starmer, now reasserting Labour’s blanket opposition to a second referendum, is successful in the above 'staving off' operation, we might still get (as a result from 'the' commission) Federal Britain as Labour's official policy
AS M H wrote:This will be the reality as they sacrifice public spending to comply with European Union fiscal rules. That's if a independent Scotland meets the requirements for rejoining the EU.
Leadership changes are not unheard ofS M H wrote: Devo max was the thoughts of Scottish Nationalist that I know but they now have be sidelined by the present leadership.
Now the rumour has it who has been tasked (this is the strategy bit?) to save the Union: Michael Gove and Oliver Lewis, Lord Frost’s deputy in the Brexit negotiations; prompts three personal observations:ArmChairCivvy wrote:the Gvmnt is mobilising to defend the Union? says Raab
... payback timeclinch wrote:agreement should include Scotland accepting a Barnett formula share of the UK's debts.