I have to agree with that above and I don't normally agree with him.
They either have the balls to say they will go it alone or they stay in and realise that was their chance and if they don't take it, it's back to normality.
I have to agree with that above and I don't normally agree with him.
.
That's nice of you. Sorry if I don't fit the Labour perfect Tories evil and vice versa of most posters on this forum. Who you comment from is irrelevant - best to stick to the issues!
That's nice of you. Sorry if I don't fit the Labour perfect Tories evil and vice versa of most posters on this forum. Who you comment from is irrelevant - best to stick to the issues!
I think they will be given greater powers but not Max. The SNP want the ability to raise their own rate of tax and spend it how they see fit. The problem is this would cause chaos for the TAX system in the Uk.
To have separate rules and different systems on either side of the boarder but with in the same country and currency would make for a costly and complex system to support. It would not do either country any favors.
So yes they will be given greater powers but no not Max.
It's a big maybe. A narrow victory for no could result in devo-max, but a comfortable no will keep the status quo.
The best result for the whole UK is a narrow no as it will force the issue of the constitution (including England's place in it) and pretty much all devolution in recent years has been driven by Scotland, if Scotland leave then the chances of constitutional reform anywhere else in the UK is zero.
Maybe we will have an English parliament on Mondays and Tuesdays. A English, Welsh and north Irish parliament on Wednesdays and a UK parliament on Thursdays.
It would probably be more efficient to do the different parliaments on different weeks though. The legislation could be easily sorted to coincide with specific parliaments sitting.
It would just require an act of parliament to create three separate legal entities. They could still all use Westminster. Dividing up the Lords could be tricky, although they are usually a Lord of some place which would be in one of the four countries.
It's a big maybe. A narrow victory for no could result in devo-max, but a comfortable no will keep the status quo.
The best result for the whole UK is a narrow no as it will force the issue of the constitution (including England's place in it) and pretty much all devolution in recent years has been driven by Scotland, if Scotland leave then the chances of constitutional reform anywhere else in the UK is zero.
But the status quo still has Labour and Lib Dem Scottish MP's voting on English legislation that has been devolved. The SNP voluntarily do not vote on English only legislation.
I think the problem no has had is that no-one actually believes that a no vote will result in devo-max. The parties can promise it, but all three of them have different ideas of what it means and none of them are trustworthy.
It's a little late in the game, but they could change the wording of the referendum slightly, for example "yes, I think Scotland should be an independent country" and "no, I want devo-max instead". That way there is an explicit link between a no vote and devo-max that they can't go back on afterwards.
Sorry but why should the Scots get special treatment and devolution which the English and it's regions don't get nor does Wales or NI.
If you want independence fine - but if you don't why expect special treatment?
Because we chose to. It's not special treatment, it would be Scotland setting the terms it needs in order to be in union. It would be good if every part of the UK could have this kind of discussion and we could actually end up with a viable Union again.
I think the problem no has had is that no-one actually believes that a no vote will result in devo-max. The parties can promise it, but all three of them have different ideas of what it means and none of them are trustworthy.
It's a little late in the game, but they could change the wording of the referendum slightly, for example "yes, I think Scotland should be an independent country" and "no, I want devo-max instead". That way there is an explicit link between a no vote and devo-max that they can't go back on afterwards.
Cameron explicitly rejected devo-max as an option and insisted on a straight Yes for independence, No for status quo.
Given that postal voting has already started, it's a corruption of the referendum to try to move the goalposts at the last minute.
You are right that they cannot be trusted - this is the age-old tactic of panicking rulers promising concessions to rebels if they lay down their arms, and then nothing changes once the threat is over.
I think the problem no has had is that no-one actually believes that a no vote will result in devo-max. The parties can promise it, but all three of them have different ideas of what it means and none of them are trustworthy.
It's a little late in the game, but they could change the wording of the referendum slightly, for example "yes, I think Scotland should be an independent country" and "no, I want devo-max instead". That way there is an explicit link between a no vote and devo-max that they can't go back on afterwards.
That's why they are negotiating a common proposal that all three parties will pledge to implement. Its going to take a few days because each party has different things they are offering the Scottish people in return for voting No.
Seems like the government is going to offer more power over scotland and they will annonce what over the next few days, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099431 Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, the Conservative's Mr Osborne said: "You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland; more tax powers, more spending powers, more powers over the welfare state.
Sorry but why should the Scots get special treatment and devolution which the English and it's regions don't get nor does Wales or NI.
If you want independence fine - but if you don't why expect special treatment?
So true..They are threatening to leave the UK and getting everything on a plate, whereas English regions dont get even an afterthought. Sick of this ..but in the end its not Scotlands fault but Londons and maybe regions in England should start playing this game.
Didn't Prescott offer the English regions their own government and no one voted for it as the English thought it was just another extra layer of politicians?
Didn't Prescott offer the English regions their own government and no one voted for it as the English thought it was just another extra layer of politicians?
It wasn't devolution - it was centring council powers in fewer authorities.
Didn't Prescott offer the English regions their own government and no one voted for it as the English thought it was just another extra layer of politicians?
It was more like a lame talking shop for the north east. Not anything even like the weaker Welsh devolution..Just more jobs for Labour politicians, without any real devolution of power away from Westminster to the region of England that probably needs it the most.
So true..They are threatening to leave the UK and getting everything on a plate, whereas English regions dont get even an afterthought. Sick of this ..but in the end its not Scotlands fault but Londons and maybe regions in England should start playing this game.
Cardiff and Belfast will look for any deals agreed to too - power is shifting one way or another from London - it just depends what form it takes.
What about city Mayors, not every city decided to have one?
I suppose we could go back to Kingdoms?
England will have both Labour and Conservative governments. Scotland was too remote and really needed a capital that was closer to its regions.
The worse scenario for the north would be indefinite Labour rule. They would just take them for granted. In Liverpool Labour takes it for granted that they will get elected and the Conservatives know they have no chance of winning, so the city is neglected by both sides.
Comments
If you want independence fine - but if you don't why expect special treatment?
They either have the balls to say they will go it alone or they stay in and realise that was their chance and if they don't take it, it's back to normality.
That's nice of you. Sorry if I don't fit the Labour perfect Tories evil and vice versa of most posters on this forum. Who you comment from is irrelevant - best to stick to the issues!
Jesus...I have never voted Labour in my life!!!
To have separate rules and different systems on either side of the boarder but with in the same country and currency would make for a costly and complex system to support. It would not do either country any favors.
So yes they will be given greater powers but no not Max.
The best result for the whole UK is a narrow no as it will force the issue of the constitution (including England's place in it) and pretty much all devolution in recent years has been driven by Scotland, if Scotland leave then the chances of constitutional reform anywhere else in the UK is zero.
It would probably be more efficient to do the different parliaments on different weeks though. The legislation could be easily sorted to coincide with specific parliaments sitting.
It would just require an act of parliament to create three separate legal entities. They could still all use Westminster. Dividing up the Lords could be tricky, although they are usually a Lord of some place which would be in one of the four countries.
But the status quo still has Labour and Lib Dem Scottish MP's voting on English legislation that has been devolved. The SNP voluntarily do not vote on English only legislation.
They don't expect it - the UK parties are offering it as an incentive to stay. Hopefully in time all the regions will be properly devolved.
It's a little late in the game, but they could change the wording of the referendum slightly, for example "yes, I think Scotland should be an independent country" and "no, I want devo-max instead". That way there is an explicit link between a no vote and devo-max that they can't go back on afterwards.
That would be nice but I don't trust them to deliver it.
Because we chose to. It's not special treatment, it would be Scotland setting the terms it needs in order to be in union. It would be good if every part of the UK could have this kind of discussion and we could actually end up with a viable Union again.
Cameron explicitly rejected devo-max as an option and insisted on a straight Yes for independence, No for status quo.
Given that postal voting has already started, it's a corruption of the referendum to try to move the goalposts at the last minute.
You are right that they cannot be trusted - this is the age-old tactic of panicking rulers promising concessions to rebels if they lay down their arms, and then nothing changes once the threat is over.
That's why they are negotiating a common proposal that all three parties will pledge to implement. Its going to take a few days because each party has different things they are offering the Scottish people in return for voting No.
So the question will be - does the UK become Balkanised or Federalised?
Perhaps federalism will be offered in the next couple of days.
So true..They are threatening to leave the UK and getting everything on a plate, whereas English regions dont get even an afterthought. Sick of this ..but in the end its not Scotlands fault but Londons and maybe regions in England should start playing this game.
It was more like a lame talking shop for the north east. Not anything even like the weaker Welsh devolution..Just more jobs for Labour politicians, without any real devolution of power away from Westminster to the region of England that probably needs it the most.
I suppose we could go back to Kingdoms?
England will have both Labour and Conservative governments. Scotland was too remote and really needed a capital that was closer to its regions.
The worse scenario for the north would be indefinite Labour rule. They would just take them for granted. In Liverpool Labour takes it for granted that they will get elected and the Conservatives know they have no chance of winning, so the city is neglected by both sides.
In which case maybe we should turn the commons in to the English parliament and the Lords in to the federal parliament. Kill two birds with one stone.