exile Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 What's with the "drama" now? Certainly the London media are playing up the idea the SNP are infuriated and that they have "another" grievance to whinge about. In fact you'd expect all Scots MPs (bar one) to be aggrieved - but it just happens almost all of them are SNP I'd have thought Labour are the real losers here... and of course the Union. So nothing for anyone to get smug about, except English nationalist Tories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watsoniansfan Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Regional Assemblies would be better. These were tried during the Blair years, and rejected. Can't say I blame them one iota - who wants their country carved up into regions? There is a huge irony in all of this... the english have been MORE than happy to vote on Scottish only affairs for generations.. it's only now that non unionist Scottish MP's actually get an input that this so called democracy is all of a sudden unfair. The unionists have some fkin brassneck. If anything should convince anyone this union is over then surely their attitude should do so. They do not support an equal union, they want to rule. Rubbish - it's been an issue since the advent of devolution. Folk like Tam Dalyell have been pointing out the constitutional anomalies and unfairness inherent in devolution for years. Something had to be done to redress the balance. EVEL is a fairly minor concession to be honest. The only way the Union can be "fair" now is to go down the federal road... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watsoniansfan Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Regional assemblies got very little support when they were proposed a few years ago but, I'm not aware of there being any significant polling in England on whether there should be an English parliament. That is apart from the ever reliable politician's bellwether of "what people are telling me on the doorstep". Even if there had been polling, there hasn't really been any form of public debate in England about what that might look like in order for them to make any kind of informed judgement. The real problem for the UK is that the only way you can keep it together is to have everything centralised at Westminster with nothing devolved whatsoever. There really is no workable federal or devolved model which is sustainable. Once you start devolving power to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland then the ultimate conclusion will be the dissolution of the union, its just a matter of how and when. Excellent post, with the caveat that a Federal system could definitely work if tried. Whether there is the appetite for it is another matter, however... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 These were tried during the Blair years, and rejected. Can't say I blame them one iota - who wants their country carved up into regions? Rubbish - it's been an issue since the advent of devolution. Folk like Tam Dalyell have been pointing out the constitutional anomalies and unfairness inherent in devolution for years. Something had to be done to redress the balance. EVEL is a fairly minor concession to be honest. The only way the Union can be "fair" now is to go down the federal road... You're first point is why federalism isn't a viable option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) The Economist reckons EVEL can only lead to federalism or (more likely) break-up http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/another-crack-union Edited October 22, 2015 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The Economist reckons EVEL can only lead to federalism or (more likely) break-up http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/another-crack-union Some folk (mainly this perceptive lad) have been pointing this out on this board for years ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) The Economist reckons EVEL can only lead to federalism or (more likely) break-up http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/another-crack-union "Britains union is a delicate balancing act. It is the only stable, rich country of its kind: one in which the population of one constituent part is much greater than all the others put together. California is 12% of the United States, Bavaria is 16% of Germany, Ontario is 38% of Canada, but England is 84% of the United Kingdom. The graveyard of nation statesthe Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslaviapoints to the perils of being a country dominated by one part. The United Kingdom has survived against the odds because the English have subsumed some of their identity and all of their institutions into those of the whole: Britain. They have forgone an independent political system of their own that might destabilise the common, British one." Good observation that. Highlights why federalism would only really work with some form of regionalisation of England... Edited October 23, 2015 by Toepoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Evel is pretty minor In itself but just adds to the anomolies in the union. Only federalism can save the union now. Interestingly that is what the Scottish negotiators wanted in 1706, but the English representatives wouldn't have it. Seems like they still dont... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 There's an interesting shift in the alignment of the debate The Tories have managed to turn it into a Scotland v England spat, rather than SNP v the rest It puts Scots unionists in a difficult place - Michael Forsyths and Gordon Browns alike - as their former allies and the Great British Public opinion south of the border shift from 'SNP bad' to 'Scots f- off' This is a gift to the SNP, delivered by the Tories right under our eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) The Economist reckons EVEL can only lead to federalism or (more likely) break-up http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/another-crack-union SINCE England forged its union with Scotland in 1707, its commentators and politicians have sporadically fretted that it might end up under the yoke of other parts of the United Kingdom. In the 1760s, for example, a London newspaper, the North Briton, vilified Scots and decried their influence in Westminster. Its editor, John Wilkes, opined in print that “no Scot ever exerted himself but for a Scot” and that one pro-Scottish MP was “base, selfish, mean, abject, low-lived and dirty”. The MP in question challenged him to a duel in Hyde Park. Wilkes accepted and ended up writhing on the grass, a bullet embedded in his groin. Shame that MP is not still about, he could have a word with that Nick Robinson. Edited October 23, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jockodile Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 There will some uncomfortable moments ahead but the big picture here is they key. The Union is now on life support. Devolution was,and is, a motorway to indy without exits, with Evel we have travelled much further down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave78 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 "Britains union is a delicate balancing act. It is the only stable, rich country of its kind: one in which the population of one constituent part is much greater than all the others put together. California is 12% of the United States, Bavaria is 16% of Germany, Ontario is 38% of Canada, but England is 84% of the United Kingdom. The graveyard of nation statesthe Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslaviapoints to the perils of being a country dominated by one part. The United Kingdom has survived against the odds because the English have subsumed some of their identity and all of their institutions into those of the whole: Britain. They have forgone an independent political system of their own that might destabilise the common, British one." Good observation that. Highlights why federalism would only really work with some form of regionalisation of England... It's also rare to see such honesty from the Tory, London media set: "Their prize has been dominance. If foreigners often use “English” when they mean “British” (in 2013 Scots groaned when the New York Times hailed Glasgow-born Andy Murray as an English tennis champion), that is because Britain bears so many English traits. Its institutions, from Parliament to its diplomatic corps and the BBC, remain dominated by Sassenachs. Westminster, the 900-year-old home of English government, houses its legislature. More often than not, it is English politicians who decide when and where Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish soldiers, sailors and airmen are deployed. When the writer after whom this column is named described the unspoken codes and rules of the British state, he called them “the English constitution”. This strikes your columnist as a pretty happy state of affairs, one worth trying to preserve—through restraint in the EVEL debate, on the part of Mr Cameron. To be English is to have influence, to dominate a larger political body and yet have a separate cultural identity. If the price of this is constitutional asymmetry, that is a reasonable trade-off." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilly71 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 For those of us who want out of the union this is an excellent bill, if unionist posters like Alan want to think this bill is fair or puts right some wrong then thats fine but theyre kidding themselves on. This is another nail in the coffin for the union. NO voters should at least be asking themselves why this is getting so little attention from the media, it should give them a clue about how we are being controlled by the state and its media outlets. Anyway, if you want to protest, theres a march from Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow, tomorrow (Its a pro Indy march but I see the numbers being swelled by this) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Anyway, if you want to protest, theres a march from Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow, tomorrow (Its a pro Indy march but I see the numbers being swelled by this) Jesus Christ, are we now getting a march a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilly71 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Why, where was the march last week? and, for the last time, I am NOT the messiah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Only federalism can save the union now. Interestingly that is what the Scottish negotiators wanted in 1706, but the English representatives wouldn't have it. Didn't realise that. Would have been quite a radical step prior to such federal giants as the USA being founded. Scots' innovation at work again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Still nothing on the BBC Scotland main news website about it You have to click on the politics link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland Edited October 23, 2015 by Ally Bongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 There's an interesting shift in the alignment of the debate The Tories have managed to turn it into a Scotland v England spat, rather than SNP v the rest It puts Scots unionists in a difficult place - Michael Forsyths and Gordon Browns alike - as their former allies and the Great British Public opinion south of the border shift from 'SNP bad' to 'Scots f- off' This is a gift to the SNP, delivered by the Tories right under our eyes Top post. It proves that secretly the Tories want and have always wanted Scotland to FO. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilly71 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 So evel effectively means that an MP representing a Scottish constituency can never be pm because a PM cant be in office if he/she cant stay in the house (of commons) at all times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) So evel effectively means that an MP representing a Scottish constituency can never be pm because a PM cant be in office if he/she cant stay in the house (of commons) at all times? My view would be that it would be nigh on impossible for an MP representing a constituency in Scotland to be able to gain enough influence in a party in the future to reach the point of Party leader (Westminster Party's) if a large bulk of the bills in parliament were for things he/she couldnt vote for. Scotland MP's are now equivalent to those of the Northern Irish. A child born now destined to be an MP in a Scottish constituency will never have the chance of being leader of their Country. Its simply not sustainable and I believe a great chance for us of the Yes variety to capitalise and make sure all people now understand what we now have. Edited October 23, 2015 by giblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I don't think there is any law that says the PM even has to be an MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I don't think there is any law that says the PM even has to be an MP. True, there have been Prime Ministers from the House of Lords in the past... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde1998 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) "Britains union is a delicate balancing act. It is the only stable, rich country of its kind: one in which the population of one constituent part is much greater than all the others put together. California is 12% of the United States, Bavaria is 16% of Germany, Ontario is 38% of Canada, but England is 84% of the United Kingdom. The graveyard of nation statesthe Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslaviapoints to the perils of being a country dominated by one part. The United Kingdom has survived against the odds because the English have subsumed some of their identity and all of their institutions into those of the whole: Britain. They have forgone an independent political system of their own that might destabilise the common, British one." Good observation that. Highlights why federalism would only really work with some form of regionalisation of England... For the record [as the article doesn't mention it]: Russia was 51% of the USSR; Czech Rep was 66% of Czechoslovakia and Serbia was 41% of Yugoslavia. I absolutely agree that the main reason why the UK has held together is that English nationalism was never that strong. Edited October 23, 2015 by Clyde1998 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Ruth Davidson's on HIGNFY just now, we'll see if she makes any comment..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Ruth Davidson's on HIGNFY just now, we'll see if she makes any comment..... She was too busy tweeting about Justin Bieber yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.