I reiterate: Where has Cameron EVER said, categorically that he was backtracking. Where has he ever said "I am not going to give Scotland the powers I promised". Where has he said that? I supply again a link that illustrates that Cameron has many problems to sort out that he can not ignore. As England has no First Minister, he is obliged to address English concerns as well as UK concerns. So read the article and you will see how he is having to juggle public opinion from all sides - the Welsh are also fairly angry too by the way!
Was is it you don't understand?
If Cameron had published a seperate Vow/pledge/statement saying that further powers for Scotland would take place at the same pace as huge constitutional changes in England, Wales, NI.....There would not be a problem this morning.
And Salmond would not then have had the opportunity this morning to accuse Westminster of "tricking Scotland". Cameron's words on Friday morning have allowed Salmond that opportunity.
So there we have it.
What Cameron said before the vote.....versus What Cameron is saying after the Vote
If Cameron had published a seperate Vow/pledge/statement saying that further powers for Scotland would take place at the same pace as huge constitutional changes in England, Wales, NI.....There would not be a problem this morning.
And Salmond would not then have had the opportunity this morning to accuse Westminster of "tricking Scotland". Cameron's words on Friday morning have allowed Salmond that opportunity.
So there we have it.
What Cameron said before the vote.....versus What Cameron is saying after the Vote
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
you are twisting what has been said there however
he has not said that the schedule for Scotland is now dependent on what happens in the rest of the UK
he has said there is a timetable already established for Scotland and the rest of the UK will be dealt with in tandem with that timetable
whether that is realistic or not is another matter but at this point in time that is what has been promised
If Cameron had published a seperate Vow/pledge/statement saying that further powers for Scotland would take place at the same pace as huge constitutional changes in England, Wales, NI.....There would not be a problem this morning.
And Salmond would not then have had the opportunity this morning to accuse Westminster of "tricking Scotland". Cameron's words on Friday morning have allowed Salmond that opportunity.
So there we have it.
What Cameron said before the vote.....versus What Cameron is saying after the Vote
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Well it shouldn't therefore be difficult for you to grasp that there was no reason for Cameron to tell the Scots that changes would happen in the rUK too was there? It doesn't affect Scotland. Scotlands agreement is going ahead. Cameron has said it would be "hand in hand" or "In tandem too" not that it wouldn't happen. Your hatred for Cameron is disturbing. Do you have a voodoo doll with pins in?
England is getting devolved powers at the same time as Scotland. Big Deal. What does it matter to you?
I shall stick my head above the parapet and say we don't need more powers in England.
I want Scottish MP's to have a say, I want Welsh MP's to have a say, I want N Irish MP's to have a say in what happens in the UK as a whole.
What we need is a fair system of govt for everyone in the UK.
I do not want to be stitched up by the arrogant prick Cameron who is just making this whole bullshit up to try to guarantee Tory rule in England and save his political arse.
He is not doing this for the good of the country, he is doing it so yhe 1922 committee don't kick his arrogant arse into the wilderness where it belongs.
I don't think devolution for England is the answer, we need real constitutional chanhpge that is well thought out, considered properly and in the best interests of everyone in the UK. Not just England.
The promise to Scotland should be kept.
Salmond is a shit stirring tosser but the other so called leaders leave a lot to be desired, Cameron is an out of touch, arrogant tory boy prick, Farage is a potentially dangerous, swivel eyed, right wing lunatic, Clegg, oh dear, a political **** who got into bed with the tories and turned his party into a joke, Milliband, a niave idiot, not up to the job, no charisma whatsoever and needs to be replaced fast or he will lose Labour the next election.
We really don't have much to choose from do we?
I know it's pie in the sky and more fairy dust than Salmond keeping the pound but just one day I hope we could have political leaders who put the country and it's citizens before their own worthless arses.
He isn't Scotlands PM. He's the UK's PM. Scotland has a First Minister. As England has no First Minister, Cameron is obliged to deal with their issues aswell as UK issues. That's why he has to take a stand on The West Lothian Question. It's as important to him and the English as Independence was to you. If Cameron doesn't represent the English, who else will? Or are our voices not important enough to be heard?
I post this segment from a Mail survey to demonstrate the discontent in England that Cameron is trying to appease:
You say YES to English votes for English laws: MoS poll shows fury over handouts to Scots
*Two in three English voters say MPs in Scottish seats should be banned from voting on English laws at Westminster
*A mere one in five oppose the move, which would see home rule powers handed to Scotland matched in England
*A total of 70 per cent say decision to hand powers to Scots was made during a 'panic', and only 16 per cent disagree
*The majority of English voters want their own referendum before more of their cash is transferred to Edinburgh
*One in five English voters say Andy Murray’s support for independence means they are less likely to support him
Massive opposition to giving more money to Scotland – and overwhelming support for a new English Parliament is revealed today in a survey of voters in England and Wales.
The results suggest solid support in England for David Cameron’s claim that new home rule powers for Scotland must be matched by similar measures in the other three home nations.
The Prime Minister’s ‘English votes for English laws’ proposal struck a chord south of the border, with two in three English voters saying MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster should be banned from voting on issues such as health and education. A mere one in five oppose the move.
Survation interviewed 1,081 people online on Friday.
It is no longer just about the Scots. Your referendum has not just caused divisions in Scotland, it has caused unrest in the UK as a whole. Cameron is trying to deal with it.
I've already agreed the rUK should also benefit from Scotland getting more devo. I'd back it I'd vote for it, and I'd be happy when it gets delivered. Cameron is politicking now using Scotland's promised Devolution to wound Labour in England with the General election coming up, that's not on. Further devolution for the rUK should be incorporated into party manifestos, it should not be linked to Scotland's promised powers.
I shall stick my head above the parapet and say we don't need more powers in England.
I want Scottish MP's to have a say, I want Welsh MP's to have a say, I want N Irish MP's to have a say in what happens in the UK as a whole.
What we need is a fair system of govt for everyone in the UK.
I do not want to be stitched up by the arrogant prick Cameron who is just making this whole bullshit up to try to guarantee Tory rule in England and save his political arse.
He is not doing this for the good of the country, he is doing it so yhe 1922 committee don't kick his arrogant arse into the wilderness where it belongs.
I don't think devolution for England is the answer, we need real constitutional chanhpge that is well thought out, considered properly and in the best interests of everyone in the UK. Not just England.
The promise to Scotland should be kept.
Salmond is a shit stirring tosser but the other so called leaders leave a lot to be desired, Cameron is an out of touch, arrogant tory boy prick, Farage is a potentially dangerous, swivel eyed, right wing lunatic, Clegg, oh dear, a political **** who got into bed with the tories and turned his party into a joke, Milliband, a niave idiot, not up to the job, no charisma whatsoever and needs to be replaced fast or he will lose Labour the next election.
We really don't have much to choose from do we?
I know it's pie in the sky and more fairy dust than Salmond keeping the pound but just one day I hope we could have political leaders who put the country and it's citizens before their own worthless arses.
So, you're happy for the Scots, Welsh, NIrish to have a say but the English to remain silent? You're happy for Labour to use Scottish MP's to vote on English only affairs just so they can maintain a credible majority? Fair enough. You're in the minority.
I shall stick my head above the parapet and say we don't need more powers in England.
I want Scottish MP's to have a say, I want Welsh MP's to have a say, I want N Irish MP's to have a say in what happens in the UK as a whole.
That's fine, when the decisions affect the UK as a whole. When they don't, we end up with odd situations where Labour whipped Scottish MPs to vote on introducing university tuition fees *in England*. They voted on legislation that would not apply to their constituents.
That's the problem that needs resolving with the West Lothian question.
There's nothing saying they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the debates, but do you really think it's fair to allow votes on matters that don't affect them?
he has not said that the schedule for Scotland is now dependent on what happens in the rest of the UK
he has said there is a timetable already established for Scotland and the rest of the UK will be dealt with in tandem with that timetable
No I am not.
I am commenting on Cameron's statement on Friday morning which has triggered the comments from Salmond.
The damage is done.
I am not commenting on the desperate attempts to repair the damage which includes Haighs statements about the timetable. We did not need the statement from Haigh. Every person with a brain knows that the Scotland powers will be delivered on time and as promised even if our ridiculous and embarrassing Prime Minister is ever allowed out of the front door again to repeat his childish election games.
I've already agreed the rUK should also benefit from Scotland getting more devo. I'd back it I'd vote for it, and I'd be happy when it gets delivered. Cameron is politicking now using Scotland's promised Devolution to wound Labour in England with the General election coming up, that's not on. Further devolution for the rUK should be incorporated into party manifestos, it should not be linked to Scotland's promised powers.
Why? Scotland only got those promised powers last week. Should those promised powers also have to go through parliament and be drawn into manifestos too? That seems fair doesn't it? Scotland should get powers agreed overnight without manifesto, consultation with the UK in general, but England, oh no! They must only have powers that are part of a manifesto and must go through parliament correctly! It's odd that those fighting for the promised extra Scottish powers that were accused of being "thought up on a whim" are now complaining about Cameron's creation of extra England powers also thought up on a whim. What is it to be? Fairness for all or just fairness for Scotland?
That's fine, when the decisions affect the UK as a whole. When they don't, we end up with odd situations where Labour whipped Scottish MPs to vote on introducing university tuition fees *in England*. They voted on legislation that would not apply to their constituents.
That's the problem that needs resolving with the West Lothian question.
There's nothing saying they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the debates, but do you really think it's fair to allow votes on matters that don't affect them?
I would be quite happy if all that was achieved prior to the GE was the ban on Scots MP's voting on English only affairs. The rest can be considered at a later date.
Well it shouldn't therefore be difficult for you to grasp that there was no reason for Cameron to tell the Scots that changes would happen in the rUK too was there? It doesn't affect Scotland.
It would have had no impact on the perception of the Vow/statement in Scotland? That is your position?
That's fine, when the decisions affect the UK as a whole. When they don't, we end up with odd situations where Labour whipped Scottish MPs to vote on introducing university tuition fees *in England*. They voted on legislation that would not apply to their constituents.
That's the problem that needs resolving with the West Lothian question.
There's nothing saying they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the debates, but do you really think it's fair to allow votes on matters that don't affect them?
I think its fair the way it stands at the moment because without the scots MP's having a vote in England, the Tories could potentially block a labour government from legislating.
We need real constitutional change that is fair for all.
The US system is a good one but I would want to keep the Queen as head of state, so no president.
I think its fair the way it stands at the moment because without the scots MP's having a vote in England, the Tories could potentially block a labour government from legislating.
We need real constitutional change that is fair for all.
The US system is a good one but I would want to keep the Queen as head of state, so no president.
probably not the right thread for this but I cant see the structure that seems to be being proposed for England will work
you will have one UK election , the same MPs will then be part of a UK wide parliament for some issues alongside the scots, welsh and irish , and then be part of a English parliament for England only issues
I just don't see how that really works in practice , are you going to have a completely new departmental structure with some departments having UK wide responsibilities and some having only English but MPs could end up moving between the two "levels" during a reshuffle
who deals with any issues which might have an overlap between say just England and wales , or just Scotland and England , do the 2 countries MPs not involved just sit out ?
who arbitrates on whether an issue is country specific rather than UK wide ?
my concern is rather than basically start again with a new structure with clear boundaries that trying to tweak around the edges of the existing structure might end up being a real mess
probably not the right thread for this but I cant see the structure that seems to be being proposed for England will work
you will have one UK election , the same MPs will then be part of a UK wide parliament for some issues alongside the scots, welsh and irish , and then be part of a English parliament for England only issues
I just don't see how that really works in practice , are you going to have a completely new departmental structure with some departments having UK wide responsibilities and some having only English but MPs could end up moving between the two "levels" during a reshuffle
who deals with any issues which might have an overlap between say just England and wales , or just Scotland and England , do the 2 countries MPs not involved just sit out ?
who arbitrates on whether an issue is country specific rather than UK wide ?
my concern is rather than basically start again with a new structure with clear boundaries that trying to tweak around the edges of the existing structure might end up being a real mess
I agree and it needs to be better thought out than is currently being proposed.
I think its fair the way it stands at the moment because without the scots MP's having a vote in England, the Tories could potentially block a labour government from legislating.
You say that like it's a bad thing? I think the bad thing was demonstrated by Blair's large majority and strong whip hand. That resulted in a lot of bad legislation being forced through, with no real way to stop it.
We need real constitutional change that is fair for all.
Democracy isn't always fair as it always 'unfairly' represents the majority. There's an assumption that reform would lead to England being forever blue, but that's an assumption. It could mean more voters drift towards UKIP or the Greens and maybe a more representative parliament.
(hopefully it won't mean a drift toward rabid nationalism, but that seems to be happening across Europe at the moment)
he has not said that the schedule for Scotland is now dependent on what happens in the rest of the UK
he has said there is a timetable already established for Scotland and the rest of the UK will be dealt with in tandem with that timetable
whether that is realistic or not is another matter but at this point in time that is what has been promised
This United Kingdom thing is just not working. Just as somebody said the other day GREAT Britain, they should take the great out. All of this belongs to a different historical time where the words 'empire' 'colonial' were words to be proud of. In fact nowadays most people try not to think what they really meant, they often are to hard to accept. Surely having a federal group of states would be more practical and probably the general tone of discussion might be more friendly and less controversial.
You must be joking.
Their central goverment has repeatedly been at impass and occassionally on shutdown.
10 states in the USA are insolvent, 36 municiple authorities have filed for bankcruptcy including Detroit city, whole counties and utilities like water districts, hospital authorities, and other municipal units.
I would not like to follow the USA model of governance.
you will have one UK election , the same MPs will then be part of a UK wide parliament for some issues alongside the scots, welsh and irish , and then be part of a English parliament for England only issues
I just don't see how that really works in practice , are you going to have a completely new departmental structure with some departments having UK wide responsibilities and some having only English but MPs could end up moving between the two "levels" during a reshuffle
One possibility.. England, NI, Wales and Scotland parliaments. Each does it's own thing on the regional level. When it comes to national matters, votes get pooled and stuff gets done. But that would mean England would get more votes, but then that's where the majority of the population is. Also means electing PMs gets trickier, and in typical politicians views on priority, there is concern that it may mean we wouldn't get a Scottish PM again. After 3 in a row, that's not necessarily I bad thing I reckon.
Reality is there'll be lobbying for more regional powers, which means another expensive layer of bureaucrats added to our tax bills.
who arbitrates on whether an issue is country specific rather than UK wide ?
They're pretty much defined already in the devolved powers to the regional assemblies.
Comments
Was is it you don't understand?
If Cameron had published a seperate Vow/pledge/statement saying that further powers for Scotland would take place at the same pace as huge constitutional changes in England, Wales, NI.....There would not be a problem this morning.
And Salmond would not then have had the opportunity this morning to accuse Westminster of "tricking Scotland". Cameron's words on Friday morning have allowed Salmond that opportunity.
So there we have it.
What Cameron said before the vote.....versus What Cameron is saying after the Vote
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
you are twisting what has been said there however
he has not said that the schedule for Scotland is now dependent on what happens in the rest of the UK
he has said there is a timetable already established for Scotland and the rest of the UK will be dealt with in tandem with that timetable
whether that is realistic or not is another matter but at this point in time that is what has been promised
Well it shouldn't therefore be difficult for you to grasp that there was no reason for Cameron to tell the Scots that changes would happen in the rUK too was there? It doesn't affect Scotland. Scotlands agreement is going ahead. Cameron has said it would be "hand in hand" or "In tandem too" not that it wouldn't happen. Your hatred for Cameron is disturbing. Do you have a voodoo doll with pins in?
England is getting devolved powers at the same time as Scotland. Big Deal. What does it matter to you?
I want Scottish MP's to have a say, I want Welsh MP's to have a say, I want N Irish MP's to have a say in what happens in the UK as a whole.
What we need is a fair system of govt for everyone in the UK.
I do not want to be stitched up by the arrogant prick Cameron who is just making this whole bullshit up to try to guarantee Tory rule in England and save his political arse.
He is not doing this for the good of the country, he is doing it so yhe 1922 committee don't kick his arrogant arse into the wilderness where it belongs.
I don't think devolution for England is the answer, we need real constitutional chanhpge that is well thought out, considered properly and in the best interests of everyone in the UK. Not just England.
The promise to Scotland should be kept.
Salmond is a shit stirring tosser but the other so called leaders leave a lot to be desired, Cameron is an out of touch, arrogant tory boy prick, Farage is a potentially dangerous, swivel eyed, right wing lunatic, Clegg, oh dear, a political **** who got into bed with the tories and turned his party into a joke, Milliband, a niave idiot, not up to the job, no charisma whatsoever and needs to be replaced fast or he will lose Labour the next election.
We really don't have much to choose from do we?
I know it's pie in the sky and more fairy dust than Salmond keeping the pound but just one day I hope we could have political leaders who put the country and it's citizens before their own worthless arses.
I've already agreed the rUK should also benefit from Scotland getting more devo. I'd back it I'd vote for it, and I'd be happy when it gets delivered. Cameron is politicking now using Scotland's promised Devolution to wound Labour in England with the General election coming up, that's not on. Further devolution for the rUK should be incorporated into party manifestos, it should not be linked to Scotland's promised powers.
Both sides were meant to be under the rules of Purdah during the 28 days prior to the vote.
So, you're happy for the Scots, Welsh, NIrish to have a say but the English to remain silent? You're happy for Labour to use Scottish MP's to vote on English only affairs just so they can maintain a credible majority? Fair enough. You're in the minority.
That's fine, when the decisions affect the UK as a whole. When they don't, we end up with odd situations where Labour whipped Scottish MPs to vote on introducing university tuition fees *in England*. They voted on legislation that would not apply to their constituents.
That's the problem that needs resolving with the West Lothian question.
There's nothing saying they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the debates, but do you really think it's fair to allow votes on matters that don't affect them?
No I am not.
I am commenting on Cameron's statement on Friday morning which has triggered the comments from Salmond.
The damage is done.
I am not commenting on the desperate attempts to repair the damage which includes Haighs statements about the timetable. We did not need the statement from Haigh. Every person with a brain knows that the Scotland powers will be delivered on time and as promised even if our ridiculous and embarrassing Prime Minister is ever allowed out of the front door again to repeat his childish election games.
I
Why? Scotland only got those promised powers last week. Should those promised powers also have to go through parliament and be drawn into manifestos too? That seems fair doesn't it? Scotland should get powers agreed overnight without manifesto, consultation with the UK in general, but England, oh no! They must only have powers that are part of a manifesto and must go through parliament correctly! It's odd that those fighting for the promised extra Scottish powers that were accused of being "thought up on a whim" are now complaining about Cameron's creation of extra England powers also thought up on a whim. What is it to be? Fairness for all or just fairness for Scotland?
I would be quite happy if all that was achieved prior to the GE was the ban on Scots MP's voting on English only affairs. The rest can be considered at a later date.
It would have had no impact on the perception of the Vow/statement in Scotland? That is your position?
Incredible.
I think its fair the way it stands at the moment because without the scots MP's having a vote in England, the Tories could potentially block a labour government from legislating.
We need real constitutional change that is fair for all.
The US system is a good one but I would want to keep the Queen as head of state, so no president.
And Labour can block Tories too.......
Yes, that's my position. Why you find it incredible though is beyond me.
Not without the Scottish MP's, it would take a Labour govt with an unheard of majority to do that.
you will have one UK election , the same MPs will then be part of a UK wide parliament for some issues alongside the scots, welsh and irish , and then be part of a English parliament for England only issues
I just don't see how that really works in practice , are you going to have a completely new departmental structure with some departments having UK wide responsibilities and some having only English but MPs could end up moving between the two "levels" during a reshuffle
who deals with any issues which might have an overlap between say just England and wales , or just Scotland and England , do the 2 countries MPs not involved just sit out ?
who arbitrates on whether an issue is country specific rather than UK wide ?
my concern is rather than basically start again with a new structure with clear boundaries that trying to tweak around the edges of the existing structure might end up being a real mess
hardly unheard of tbh
there have only been 2 labour governments in the last 60 years that wouldn't have still had a majority without Scottish MPs
I agree and it needs to be better thought out than is currently being proposed.
That's not a lot is it.
its certainly more than being "unheard of" ...
You say that like it's a bad thing? I think the bad thing was demonstrated by Blair's large majority and strong whip hand. That resulted in a lot of bad legislation being forced through, with no real way to stop it.
Democracy isn't always fair as it always 'unfairly' represents the majority. There's an assumption that reform would lead to England being forever blue, but that's an assumption. It could mean more voters drift towards UKIP or the Greens and maybe a more representative parliament.
(hopefully it won't mean a drift toward rabid nationalism, but that seems to be happening across Europe at the moment)
This United Kingdom thing is just not working. Just as somebody said the other day GREAT Britain, they should take the great out. All of this belongs to a different historical time where the words 'empire' 'colonial' were words to be proud of. In fact nowadays most people try not to think what they really meant, they often are to hard to accept. Surely having a federal group of states would be more practical and probably the general tone of discussion might be more friendly and less controversial.
Their central goverment has repeatedly been at impass and occassionally on shutdown.
10 states in the USA are insolvent, 36 municiple authorities have filed for bankcruptcy including Detroit city, whole counties and utilities like water districts, hospital authorities, and other municipal units.
I would not like to follow the USA model of governance.
One possibility.. England, NI, Wales and Scotland parliaments. Each does it's own thing on the regional level. When it comes to national matters, votes get pooled and stuff gets done. But that would mean England would get more votes, but then that's where the majority of the population is. Also means electing PMs gets trickier, and in typical politicians views on priority, there is concern that it may mean we wouldn't get a Scottish PM again. After 3 in a row, that's not necessarily I bad thing I reckon.
Reality is there'll be lobbying for more regional powers, which means another expensive layer of bureaucrats added to our tax bills.
They're pretty much defined already in the devolved powers to the regional assemblies.