So the Government makes commitments to change, the backbenchers don't like it, and now vow to nix the whole thing.
Fair enough -- I have no problem at all with disagreements on principle.
However, these backbenchers said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the run-up to the vote. They were quite happy to use the empty promises to further their own agenda.
I don't suppose you would now care to retract your intemperate and clearly ill-judged and poorly-based remarks that those backbenchers were "lying", "devoid of all principles", "dishonest filth", or that their constituents are "dishonest and self-obsessed" individuals who are "baying for Scottish blood", or that those who may have switched to No were "morons"?
So the Government makes commitments to change, the backbenchers don't like it, and now vow to nix the whole thing.
The 'Government' didn't. The 3 party leaders said something.
However, these backbenchers said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the run-up to the vote. They were quite happy to use the empty promises to further their own agenda.
That's Brown again. As people keep pointing out, he's a back bench MP with no power to promise or bind the government to do anything.
And of course, thanks to our representative system, these dishonest filth will be rewarded by the equally dishonest and self-obsessed voters in the Shires that vote for them, who will now be baying for Scottish blood.
Especially if Scots keep carrying on like this. There was already a perception of greed and self-interest from the Yes-men, this just makes that ever more apparent.
But then those Scots who are affected by this only have themselves to blame.
How have they been affected? Monday will be much like last Monday, only with fewer pollsters wandering around. Life goes on. The Yes-men still don't seem able to articulate what it is they're expecting from 'The Vow' other than more power.
So the Government makes commitments to change, the backbenchers don't like it, and now vow to nix the whole thing.
The liklihood of back bench rebellion stopping the constitutional reform vowed for Scotland is in my opinion nill. The second reading is scheduled for immediately after the 2015 general election so most likely a Labour majority government, and all three parties Labour, Conservative and LibDem will in all likelyhood all have three line party whip to encourage their MPs to vote along party lines for what their party leadership vowed to do.
It's so typical of the Tories to turn this into something that serves nobody's interests except their own. People should see through the sound bytes to what they really mean.
"English votes for English laws" = the North of England will never get anything else than a Tory government, even even we vote election after election for something else. The gerrymandered seats will lock in the south-east Tory domination.
"More Devolution for Our Great Cities" = The Tories will buy off some egotisitical local Labour Party Napoleon with a fancy title and a car, so he can be a patsy for yet more Tory austerity in the north. Just look how that Liverpool guy sucks up to George Osborne - he just so loves being mayor, yet the cuts are still being implemented there, and conveniently, the voters will think it's all his fault. The patsy can then sod off after four years on a pension as fat as he is, ready for the next puffed-up apparatchik to take his place.
Meanwhile, shire counties will continue to get more spending for pretty flowers by the roadsides.
The con is that all three leaders offered the earth to snaffle up enough "yes" votes into the "no" side. The con is also that Scotland somehow expects more than England, and in the atmosphere of the pandering to minorities of recent years you can see how they might so expect. It's unfair, though, for them to expect preferential treatment.
They can have absolutely anything they want, as long as the same privilege is extended to the rest of us.
The con is that all three leaders offered the earth to snaffle up enough "yes" votes into the "no" side. The con is also that Scotland somehow expects more than England, and in the atmosphere of the pandering to minorities of recent years you can see how they might so expect. It's unfair, though, for them to expect preferential treatment.
They can have absolutely anything they want, as long as the same privilege is extended to the rest of us.
But the Tories see themselves in this as 'the representatives of England', so any powers granted to 'England' will be in the image of and mainly for benefit to, their people. There are plenty of people north of Birmingham who, in the event of a Yes vote, might have preferred to throw in their lot with the Scots than face a Conservative/UKIP English future of increased privatisation and reliance on 'the markets', particularly with regards to health and education.
It's so typical of the Tories to turn this into something that serves nobody's interests except their own. People should see through the sound bytes to what they really mean.
"English votes for English laws" = the North of England will never get anything else than a Tory government, even even we vote election after election for something else. The gerrymandered seats will lock in the south-east Tory domination.
The Conservatives have suggested having the non English constitutency MPs not vote on solely English matters, this would not result in England being guaranteed Conservative goverment. In 2005 the Conservatives won 91 fewer MPs in England than Labour. It is also incredibly unlikely to happen as to get through UK parliament such a reform would need a majorjity, and only the Conservatives support it. Do you expect the Conservatives to win a majoirty goverment in 2015, because I don't.
Those making allegations of gerrymandering of seats by the Conservatives should look at the current system which looks biased towards Labour. The Conservatives in 2005 won 91 fewer seats in England than Labour despite winning the popular vote in England, and in 2010 the Conservatives won 36.1% of the vote and failed to get a majority government, while Labour in 2005 won 35.2% of the vote and got a majority government. The current system looks biased towards Labour as they win more MPs and power with a lower percentage of the popular vote.
"More Devolution for Our Great Cities" = The Tories will buy off some egotisitical local Labour Party Napoleon with a fancy title and a car, so he can be a patsy for yet more Tory austerity in the north. Just look how that Liverpool guy sucks up to George Osborne - he just so loves being mayor, yet the cuts are still being implemented there, and conveniently, the voters will think it's all his fault. The patsy can then sod off after four years on a pension as fat as he is, ready for the next puffed-up apparatchik to take his place.
Meanwhile, shire counties will continue to get more spending for pretty flowers by the roadsides.
The Mayor is elected, the people got who they voted for, are you opposed to democracy?
Those making allegations of austerity in the North vs more spending on pretty flowers in the Shires should look at the figures on public spending per head, the reality in England is the South East the shires get the least and the North places like Liverpool gets the most public spending.
In 2012/13, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £8,788
Of the nations of the UK the nation that got the least was England £8,529
Of the regions of England the region that got the most was the North East £9,419 followed by the North West (where Liverpool is) £9,252
Of the regions of England the region that got the least was the South East (where the Shires are) £7,638
HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2014, Table 9.2
Look at the facts.
The constitutional reform of the UK parliament as regards matters that are solely English that the Conservatives want, they are highly unlikely to get, and even if they got it would not result in a guaranteed Conservative English government.
The current electoral system looks biased towards Labour.
The current public spending in England is most in the North East and North West and least in the Tory heartlands the Shires of the South East.
It's not Cameron I have a problem with. It's this lying, devoid of all principles scum that really boils my piss. The honourable act would have been to make your voice heard last week.
Or perhaps Cameron should have tabled the "pledge" to a vote in Parliament to ensure that post vote there would be no oxygen for in fighting. But then it seems Cameron was hiding his own little surprise by dropping in the "england votes for england matters" bombshell in his morning after speech that is designed to trap Labour and reduce their power. They're all as bad as each other. If Parliament was serious they should have ensured the matter was voted on and not thrown onto a front page in the final week because a poll showed YES might actually win. It all feels very grubby.
The con is that all three leaders offered the earth to snaffle up enough "yes" votes into the "no" side. The con is also that Scotland somehow expects more than England, and in the atmosphere of the pandering to minorities of recent years you can see how they might so expect. It's unfair, though, for them to expect preferential treatment.
They can have absolutely anything they want, as long as the same privilege is extended to the rest of us.
The scots people were promised something, they should now get what they were promised,, simple as.
What exactly do you think you've been promised? Give something tangible. After the last lot of devolution, there were some outstanding issues around gravel extraction and taxes I think.
What new powers do you think Scotland should have?
if this doesnt happen, i honestly can see riots, maybe even an uprising, people will not be happy and they wont sit back and be shafted.
If history is anything to go buy, they will. There may be a flurry of tweets and angry facepalm posts, but that'll be as effective as the cybernat's election campaigning.
What exactly do you think you've been promised? Give something tangible. After the last lot of devolution, there were some outstanding issues around gravel extraction and taxes I think.
What new powers do you think Scotland should have?
If history is anything to go buy, they will. There may be a flurry of tweets and angry facepalm posts, but that'll be as effective as the cybernat's election campaigning.
They'll be some protests, but riots and an uprising is just hyperbole.
And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the power of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Government
What the Barnett formula means is that Scotland will continue to get 117% of the average per capita spending from the public purse across the UK. It does not say tha the block grant will remian unchanged. So if taxes that originally went to Westminster go to Scotland directly then the block grant would be adjustred accordingly so total income to Scotland for public expenditure remains at 117% of UK average.
The only excpetion would be if Scotland chooses to raise more taxes within its own jurisdiction - then this would be on top of the 117% average.
So if some existing taxes are directly allocated to the Scottish exchequer e.g. APD then the Barnett block grant would be reduced but the Barnett % stays the same.
Or perhaps Cameron should have tabled the "pledge" to a vote in Parliament to ensure that post vote there would be no oxygen for in fighting. But then it seems Cameron was hiding his own little surprise by dropping in the "england votes for england matters" bombshell in his morning after speech that is designed to trap Labour and reduce their power. They're all as bad as each other. If Parliament was serious they should have ensured the matter was voted on and not thrown onto a front page in the final week because a poll showed YES might actually win. It all feels very grubby.
He couldn't.
Under the referendum rules he couldn't offer a government chanfge of policy only a party one.
The scots people were promised something, they should now get what they were promised,, simple as.
Now, wether those same things should be given to English and welsh, i suppose thats fair, but thats not the question.
the scots were basically bribed into saying no, you cant now withdraw the bribe now you got your way.
if this doesnt happen, i honestly can see riots, maybe even an uprising, people will not be happy and they wont sit back and be shafted.
Extra powers to Holyrood was the vow signed by the 3 Westminster party leaders but it has been misconstrued in as being full Devo-Max in newspaper headlines that apparently has to be met at 100% and nothing else is acceptable as far as Salmond is concerned.
200,000 voters near enough is far too many to have all of a sudden switched from yes to no just on the basis of a vow.
If Holyrood gets extra powers as promised the vow has been met. It doesn't have to be Devo-Max met at 100% in an extremely tight unrealistic timescale for the conditions of the vow to have been met to any satisfaction at all.
Tory MP Dominic Grieve on the radio this morning said that the Barnett formula cannot continue.
This is, of course, in contravention of The Vow.
So what Dominic Grieve is entitled to his opinion and is not one of the three leaders who made the vow. And his views are not some harbinger of doom representing what will happen, if they were we would not have gay marriage. When it comes to a vote going by his past voting record he will most likely vote along party lines or abstentine.
Nor am I, and the 'No' voters must take responsibility for this, for believing what was offered. Just a bribe that people fell for
It came so close to the vote that there wasn't any time for people to properly analyse what was actually proposed. But it seemed so attractive on the surface to anybody who may have been influenced at the last minute. Though it probably would have still been a No. 200,000 near enough i.e. the gap is too many to suddenly switch from yes to no.
There will probably be extra powers. The more insignificant powers that Westminster are least uncomfortable in giving to Holyrood dressed up to seem more significant powers than they really are . But it will certainly not be the full monty devo-max.
But if they meet giving the extra albeit insignificant extra powers they will have met the vow.
Comments
Not true. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/16/politicians-scottish-funding-pledge-anger-daily-record http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751296/English-MPs-hitting-Scots-new-powers-Questions-raised-Prime-Minister-s-pledges-tax-spending.html
I don't suppose you would now care to retract your intemperate and clearly ill-judged and poorly-based remarks that those backbenchers were "lying", "devoid of all principles", "dishonest filth", or that their constituents are "dishonest and self-obsessed" individuals who are "baying for Scottish blood", or that those who may have switched to No were "morons"?
The 'Government' didn't. The 3 party leaders said something.
That's Brown again. As people keep pointing out, he's a back bench MP with no power to promise or bind the government to do anything.
Especially if Scots keep carrying on like this. There was already a perception of greed and self-interest from the Yes-men, this just makes that ever more apparent.
How have they been affected? Monday will be much like last Monday, only with fewer pollsters wandering around. Life goes on. The Yes-men still don't seem able to articulate what it is they're expecting from 'The Vow' other than more power.
What new powers do you want?
"English votes for English laws" = the North of England will never get anything else than a Tory government, even even we vote election after election for something else. The gerrymandered seats will lock in the south-east Tory domination.
"More Devolution for Our Great Cities" = The Tories will buy off some egotisitical local Labour Party Napoleon with a fancy title and a car, so he can be a patsy for yet more Tory austerity in the north. Just look how that Liverpool guy sucks up to George Osborne - he just so loves being mayor, yet the cuts are still being implemented there, and conveniently, the voters will think it's all his fault. The patsy can then sod off after four years on a pension as fat as he is, ready for the next puffed-up apparatchik to take his place.
Meanwhile, shire counties will continue to get more spending for pretty flowers by the roadsides.
See through the con, everybody!
The con is that all three leaders offered the earth to snaffle up enough "yes" votes into the "no" side. The con is also that Scotland somehow expects more than England, and in the atmosphere of the pandering to minorities of recent years you can see how they might so expect. It's unfair, though, for them to expect preferential treatment.
They can have absolutely anything they want, as long as the same privilege is extended to the rest of us.
But the Tories see themselves in this as 'the representatives of England', so any powers granted to 'England' will be in the image of and mainly for benefit to, their people. There are plenty of people north of Birmingham who, in the event of a Yes vote, might have preferred to throw in their lot with the Scots than face a Conservative/UKIP English future of increased privatisation and reliance on 'the markets', particularly with regards to health and education.
Those making allegations of gerrymandering of seats by the Conservatives should look at the current system which looks biased towards Labour. The Conservatives in 2005 won 91 fewer seats in England than Labour despite winning the popular vote in England, and in 2010 the Conservatives won 36.1% of the vote and failed to get a majority government, while Labour in 2005 won 35.2% of the vote and got a majority government. The current system looks biased towards Labour as they win more MPs and power with a lower percentage of the popular vote.
The Mayor is elected, the people got who they voted for, are you opposed to democracy?
Those making allegations of austerity in the North vs more spending on pretty flowers in the Shires should look at the figures on public spending per head, the reality in England is the South East the shires get the least and the North places like Liverpool gets the most public spending.
In 2012/13, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £8,788
Of the nations of the UK the nation that got the least was England £8,529
Of the regions of England the region that got the most was the North East £9,419 followed by the North West (where Liverpool is) £9,252
Of the regions of England the region that got the least was the South East (where the Shires are) £7,638
HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2014, Table 9.2 Look at the facts.
The constitutional reform of the UK parliament as regards matters that are solely English that the Conservatives want, they are highly unlikely to get, and even if they got it would not result in a guaranteed Conservative English government.
The current electoral system looks biased towards Labour.
The current public spending in England is most in the North East and North West and least in the Tory heartlands the Shires of the South East.
Or perhaps Cameron should have tabled the "pledge" to a vote in Parliament to ensure that post vote there would be no oxygen for in fighting. But then it seems Cameron was hiding his own little surprise by dropping in the "england votes for england matters" bombshell in his morning after speech that is designed to trap Labour and reduce their power. They're all as bad as each other. If Parliament was serious they should have ensured the matter was voted on and not thrown onto a front page in the final week because a poll showed YES might actually win. It all feels very grubby.
Quite right.
Now, wether those same things should be given to English and welsh, i suppose thats fair, but thats not the question.
the scots were basically bribed into saying no, you cant now withdraw the bribe now you got your way.
if this doesnt happen, i honestly can see riots, maybe even an uprising, people will not be happy and they wont sit back and be shafted.
What exactly do you think you've been promised? Give something tangible. After the last lot of devolution, there were some outstanding issues around gravel extraction and taxes I think.
What new powers do you think Scotland should have?
If history is anything to go buy, they will. There may be a flurry of tweets and angry facepalm posts, but that'll be as effective as the cybernat's election campaigning.
They'll be some protests, but riots and an uprising is just hyperbole.
This is, of course, in contravention of The Vow.
What is the "Barnett formula!"?
What if in some post vow negotiations the block grant was reduced and direct tax receipts to Scotland increased through devolution?
Is that breaking the vow?
This is what the vow said
What the Barnett formula means is that Scotland will continue to get 117% of the average per capita spending from the public purse across the UK. It does not say tha the block grant will remian unchanged. So if taxes that originally went to Westminster go to Scotland directly then the block grant would be adjustred accordingly so total income to Scotland for public expenditure remains at 117% of UK average.
The only excpetion would be if Scotland chooses to raise more taxes within its own jurisdiction - then this would be on top of the 117% average.
So if some existing taxes are directly allocated to the Scottish exchequer e.g. APD then the Barnett block grant would be reduced but the Barnett % stays the same.
He couldn't.
Under the referendum rules he couldn't offer a government chanfge of policy only a party one.
Extra powers to Holyrood was the vow signed by the 3 Westminster party leaders but it has been misconstrued in as being full Devo-Max in newspaper headlines that apparently has to be met at 100% and nothing else is acceptable as far as Salmond is concerned.
200,000 voters near enough is far too many to have all of a sudden switched from yes to no just on the basis of a vow.
If Holyrood gets extra powers as promised the vow has been met. It doesn't have to be Devo-Max met at 100% in an extremely tight unrealistic timescale for the conditions of the vow to have been met to any satisfaction at all.
Nor am I, and the 'No' voters must take responsibility for this, for believing what was offered. Just a bribe that people fell for
Would that be the older NO voters or any NO voters in general?
Although I do agree the responsibility for YES losing was probably down to the NO voters - there were more of them:D
Good.
The Barnett formula is biased and must be changed for an equal system.
While they are at it, they can address the West Lothian Question.
The vow precluded free speech? They really did overstep then
It came so close to the vote that there wasn't any time for people to properly analyse what was actually proposed. But it seemed so attractive on the surface to anybody who may have been influenced at the last minute. Though it probably would have still been a No. 200,000 near enough i.e. the gap is too many to suddenly switch from yes to no.
There will probably be extra powers. The more insignificant powers that Westminster are least uncomfortable in giving to Holyrood dressed up to seem more significant powers than they really are . But it will certainly not be the full monty devo-max.
But if they meet giving the extra albeit insignificant extra powers they will have met the vow.
Not only bribed but coerced as well. All those threats from banks and big business of leaving Scotland had Cameron's hands all over them.
It amazes me how this particular form of bullying and intimadation is downplayed by so many no supporters on here.
Torys dont usually believe in equal systems.How extraordinarily quaint.