Options
Could A No Vote Lead To The UK Becoming A Federal Country?
This article in the New Statesman (from the June 19th) got me thinking could a no vote that leads to more powers to the Scottish Parliament also lead to the inevitable federalisation of the UK? Consisting of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Regions of England.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/union-does-not-mean-uniform
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/union-does-not-mean-uniform
0
Comments
Let's hope so.
1. If you have put together a new “offer” of “Devo Max”, as alluded to the general public – but not stated - why should Yes Scotland not refer the result (if No) to the Electoral Commission for breaking the rules of purduh?
2. So it is only a timetable, that’s all (no purdah rules broken)? Then the only “cast iron guarantee” is that after 18 September is “we will have a wee chat about Scotland”? There are 3 different offers on the table with no consciences? Despite having 2 years you will have a unified “offer” in about 1 month? Mmmmm chinny reckon...
3. How long does a normal, non-complex WESTMINSTER Bill take to draft? So you will agree terms between 3 opposing parties and have the Westminster Civil Service draft a coherent White Paper/draft Bill by the end of January 2015?
4. Will MSP’s be involved in the drafting of the offer? By January 2015? Seriously? I believe the technical, civil service, term you are looking for is “No way; No day”. Ever.
5. Have your MP’s agreed that they will vote in favour of this offer (when you define it)? “cast iron guaranteed”? – You are aware William Hauge (11 September) said it was not a priority for the Mother of Parliaments? Apparently getting a flight up to Scotchland for empathy was a priority, actual legislation not so much.
6. What happens to the “cast iron” if it is a Tory/UKIP coalition in the next Parliament? Actually straight up what happens in the next Parliament seeing as you have not given any assurances or consulted with your MP’s, especially out with Scotland. They ok? You are aware of the definition of “Dictator”? You might want to look up “Tw*t” as an aside, just saying.
7. The time line is impossible for coherent legislation, but it is ok for half arsed. Genuinely it takes Westminster Departments about a month to just get a meeting together. On this complexity, agree, draft and post a Bill? Is there even a word that defines ... well impossible times infinity. Oh, there is, quasi-incertitude -that is 100/1 against OR LARGER in betting terms – knew I would get to use that at one point in life.
8. ALL Westminster parties agree in a reduction in the Block Grant as is In the next UK Parliament what percentage decrease on top of that will be implemented if there is additional tax raising powers?
Here's the Conservative plan.
They now have to mix all three plans together and come up with something they all agree on, on a fixed and promised timetable.
On first inspection their plans do not seem very impressive compared to voting yes for independence.
Exactly. I really don't understand the arguments in favour. Expensive and more politicians blaming each other. I can't see how it would do the country any good.
Some improvements can be made but there is no need for an entire restructuring. Federalism might be popular with leftist political anoraks but 99% of the population won't care.
Well I am a right of centre Conservative supporter and I think federalisation is the way to go.
If you look around the world some of the most successful countries are federal countries.
However it would require a significant reduction in the size and power of Westminster.
Here's the BBC's version. So some tax raising and tax rate setting powers and some welfare.
Why not just let them raise their own money and give them education, health, welfare and immigration?
It seems to me these Westminster politicians don't like giving up their powers and want to give away as little as possible.
Immigration has to stay with Westminster, as there would be no internal borders.
^This. And, also a federal settlement in which England is treated as a whole would be too London and South East centered.
I have heard this spouted repeatedly but no-one has ever justified why England's size means it cannot be self-governing. Regionalisation is another attempt to gerrymander by the people who gave us the West Lothian question as a result of their last devolution shake-up
Because several parts of the country are as different to, and remote from, the centralised Westminster elite as Scotland and Wales are.
If London itself warrants devolved powers, then so does any other area of England that wants it. If not, then strip Greater London -- there's nothing special about that region from a federal perspective, over and above any other part of England.
The London Assembly while unique is really not much more than a grander form of a county council. It doesn't have the same devolved powers as the Scottish government or even the Welsh Assembly. In many instances it has less powers than a county council as it does not have responsibility for council housing, schools, social services and hospitals. There is nothing to stop the powers it has being given to other metropolitan areas or county councils if they don't already have them.
Using it as an argument for further devolution within England is a flawed one.
http://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/what-mayor-london-and-london-assembly-do
Unlikely.
For starters, we'd need a written constiution. Beyond any subsequent politically meddling, a constitution would create four sovereign states within the UK. And create a federal parliament setting out the limits of its powers in relation to the 4 sovereign states.
For any government experts ---
--- are there any federal countries around the world without a written constitution ?
All we have to do is agree residency rights in advance. Cap citizenships and give Scotland a quota. Any one caught in the wrong country faces automatic deportation.
It's just another solution to the problem. I find myself wavering between the two possibilities!
Don't like the sound of that at all! You surely have to have free movement within a single country.
That doesn't make any sense. An English parliament would have exactly the same powers as a Scottish Parliament under the devolved settlement. The size of the population has nothing to do with it.