UK Defence Forum

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A new front definitely now being opened (a little skirmish already fought during the IMB's journey thru the Parliament), with Keir Starmer on manoeuvres:
" is to commit Labour to delivering a new wave of devolution across the UK as he seeks to head off demands for Scottish independence"

In a keynote speech on Monday [according to The Telegraph]

It makes sense. Labour have to be able to say something about Scottish Independence and there's not much of a middle ground between respecting Scots right to self-determination and keeping the union together. That means trying to find a way to kick the whole thing in to the long-ish grass is probably the least worst option. Though I don't think that punting the whole thing in to the question of constitutional reform will please anyone on either side of the debate it at least puts the Tories and SNP on the same side on the issue and Labour can maybe use that to rekindle some support in Scotland... Maybe.

Pseudo wrote: punting the whole thing in to the question of constitutional reform will [not] please anyone on either side

When William Hague was looking into that reform, was it more a scoping exercise so that if/ when work would start it would be possible to make sure that interrelated issues would be tackled whole, not just in part?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:When William Hague was looking into that reform, was it more a scoping exercise so that if/ when work would start it would be possible to make sure that interrelated issues would be tackled whole, not just in part?

It's a good while ago, so I might be misremembering but I thought that Hague's interest in reforms were more or less limited to House of Commons procedures and the like.

Pseudo wrote: more or less limited to House of Commons procedures

Like English votes only on England matters?
AKA rebalancing devolution
- my memory on this fades as well, but it was fairly high profile at the time

Seeing as it was Labour that started the rot let us see if anything has changed!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Like English votes only on England matters?
AKA rebalancing devolution
- my memory on this fades as well, but it was fairly high profile at the time

I don't remember EVEL being much of an issue back then at the turn of the millennium, but it was a good while ago so my memory might not be that reliable. I think that it was more along the lines of strengthening select committees and the like, trying to claw a bit of power from the government back to the Commons.

Which is basically exactly what a leader of the opposition tries to do when the government has a ~180 seat majority, though for some reason they become a lot less keen on the idea when the tables are turned.

Pseudo wrote: strengthening select committees and the like, trying to claw a bit of power from the government back to the Commons.

- didn't dare to pepper both halves of the quote with a smilie; hence two of them, but at the end

Looks like the Starmer devolution initiative is getting the 'right' quarters nervous:
"The SNP have dismissed the plans as "constitutional tinkering" ["]

Maybe the result of the 2014 Indy ref should have been fully respected. End the pretence ,,, Wave goodbye to Devolution!

Scimitar54 wrote:End the pretence ,,, Wave goodbye to Devolution!

Rather simplistic, if I dare say so (permission?) as it is as simple as who gets what
-The Scottish government [by no means the only party in the devolution dialogue] says a Westminster "power grab" is under way, because any responsibility which is not specifically reserved should automatically come to Holyrood, but
- the UK government says what is happening in January represents "the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution".

Will it not be funny that when we get as far as the Scottish elections
- Nicola Sturgeon will be campaigning to demand a new independence referendum as "the only way to protect the Scottish parliament from being undermined and its powers eroded".
- while the Conservatives will undoubtedly be campaigning in those upcoming May elections to keep the UK - and its internal market - intact... as we have heard some other party in intensive 'contact' with them to say over the last four years or so

Scimitar54 wrote:Maybe the result of the 2014 Indy ref should have been fully respected. End the pretence ,,, Wave goodbye to Devolution!

Erm what? The result of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum was mostly fully respected, I think that there's a bit of ill-feeling amongst some secessionists who feel that the promises of further devolution made toward the end of the campaign haven't been fulfilled to their liking. That said, I don't think that beyond yourself there's much desire for the sort of post hoc redefinitions that the 2016 EU membership referendum saw.

Not in the UK as a whole and not for the many Scots who were denied a vote (who live in the rest of the UK. I do not remember being asked for whether I wanted the NHS to be turned into Regional Health Services.

Scimitar54 wrote:Not in the UK as a whole and not for the many Scots who were denied a vote (who live in the rest of the UK.

There's a significant practical issue with that which basically boils down to: How do you define a Scot? Is it someone born in Scotland, someone who's parents were born in Scotland, someone with Scottish a grandparent?

I do not remember being asked for whether I wanted the NHS to be turned into Regional Health Services.

It hasn't. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries which that means that the NHS is the national health service of four countries.

Wales is not a country, and never has been. At best, its a nation (a cultural group with a distinctive language) that was annexed into England in 1536 as part of the Kingdom of England.

Unlike Scotland and England, there is no Bank of Wales, no Welsh currency and no seperate Welsh judicial system. As it was annexed into England, this is why there is no Welsh representation on the Union Flags of 1707 and 1801. And no representation on the Royal Standard either.

Northern Ireland is not a country either, its six counties of the Ulster province of the island of Ireland that are under the jurisdiction of the Crown, following their decision to break from the Irish Free State in 1922 and rejoin the UK.

SKB wrote:Wales is not a country, and never has been

Not so fast! Gruffydd was the only Welsh king ever to rule over the entire territory of Wales, from about 1057 until his death in 1063 and the whole of Wales recognised the kingship.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Not so fast! Gruffydd was the only Welsh king ever to rule over the entire territory of Wales, from about 1057 until his death in 1063 and the whole of Wales recognised the kingship.

Yes! I knew that The British History Podcast was worthwhile because I recognise that name and Gruffydd when you mentioned it. Thanks, bud.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Gruffydd was the only Welsh king ever to rule over the entire territory of Wales

So Wales was once on a par with Strathclyde, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex is what you are saying? Do we recognise them as countries these days?

Sorry - couldn't resist

apropos

ever

these days?

Caribbean wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Gruffydd was the only Welsh king ever to rule over the entire territory of Wales

So Wales was once on a par with Strathclyde, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex is what you are saying? Do we recognise them as countries these days?

Sorry - couldn't resist

You say it like it's a bad thing. If we recognised Northumbria with it's borders during Aldfrith's reign it'd knock Scottish secession on the head pretty swiftly.

SW1 wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -boom.html

It's undoubtable that there'll be a post-pandemic boom. There's been a decent amount of effort put in to keeping people solvent, so once people feel safe it's likely that they'll be more than happy to go out and spend money. How long that boom will be sustained for is another matter and I think that's more or less going to come down to how uncertain people are about their post-Brexit prospects. An extreme example being that if they think that they might lose their job they're not going to be spending as much money as they would if they think that their job is secure.

SW1 wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -boom.html

could not agree more with the summary comment, at the end:
"Looking at their sometimes shambolic handling of the Covid crisis I cannot confess to being overly optimistic about their ability to seize the time.

But they are the same folks who urged us to go for Brexit in the first place.

They will never be forgiven — indeed they will go down in history in ignominy — if they fail us a second time."

I think it’s the best articulated view point that I’ve seen with thoughts largely in line with my own.

I think the biggest point and one that will bring the biggest change is the proving out of the digital revolution. It highlights that much of our “trade” with the Far East region will be digital in nature. There will be more balance in local manufacture there and here, but where the IP for that originates will be more diverse. It will change travel patterns. People will commute less often and more irregularly over longer distances. That will have make for interesting changes in air and rail travel in the uk and elsewhere.

But it should allow people in areas that have lost out for decades to London and the south east to be able to encourage people to stay and have careers and that in itself will generate more local “ecosystems” to use a fluffy word.

If the industrial revolution resulted in a migration from the countryside to the city the digital revolution will in part reverse that.

The political calendar is set; will the pandemic bend to it?

"extension [?] of furlough from April for another month. After all, with May’s elections looming, would ministers really want mass redundancy notices arriving a few weeks beforehand?"
- assuming opening up starting in early March

‌

Could be a bit of of a problem, having Lords lording over us;
As BBC's Ben Wright puts it after the nomination of a single minister to be responsible with the relationship with 'Europe':
" there will be a single minister responsible to parliament for EU relations - although of course he'll be answering questions in the House of Lords and not the Commons. "