This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Devo Max is now off the ballot paper. Is the Scotland Act of 2012 the equivalent to Devo Max, in terms of the extended powers given to the Scottish parliament? If not,Devo Max is dead. It seemed Devo Max was a valid option to put on the ballot paper. Tories have axed it because they hope people with an appetite for Devo Max will now vote no to independence, and the SNP believe Devo Max voters will now vote yes. Cynical all round. Devo Max voters are disenfranchised. Where was the Scottish Labour Party or Scottish Liberal Party on this one. No Party has championed what some of the electorate had an appetite for, namely federalism. It should have been reflected on the ballot paper.Maybe they all thought us too thick to deal with three concepts....
In reply to MargieB:
I agree. I think the Tories may have made a mistake though. I would definitely have gone for devo max, but will now go for independence.
I agree. I think the Tories may have made a mistake though. I would definitely have gone for devo max, but will now go for independence.
In reply to MargieB: Who forced the SNP to sign up to this referendum?
In reply to MargieB:
Devo Max would have raised a hell of a lot more questions and complexity since, unlike an independence vote, it would require the consent of the rest of the UK and, if one part gets a vote on it, be electoral suicide for the rest not to have it.
> No Party has championed what some of the electorate had an appetite for, namely federalism. It should have been reflected on the ballot paper.Maybe they all thought us too thick to deal with three concepts....
Devo Max would have raised a hell of a lot more questions and complexity since, unlike an independence vote, it would require the consent of the rest of the UK and, if one part gets a vote on it, be electoral suicide for the rest not to have it.
In reply to MargieB:
Devo max, as I am sure you know, is mainly defined as all powers apart from defence and foreigh policy. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems want devo max as that would reduce their power base. The internal battles within Labour are good evidence of this.
The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans for that earlier this week. However it has zero chance of happening.
Devo max, as I am sure you know, is mainly defined as all powers apart from defence and foreigh policy. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems want devo max as that would reduce their power base. The internal battles within Labour are good evidence of this.
The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans for that earlier this week. However it has zero chance of happening.
In reply to MargieB:
.Maybe they all thought us too thick to deal with three concepts....
Three concepts is easy enough but I am not sure how it would work on a ballot paper. Either one question with three answers which could lead to a 30/30/40 split, which means what happens exaclty? Or separate questions (independence yes/no, followed by devoMax yes/no) with the possibility of majority support for both which doesn't make much sense either. Getting the independence thing cleared up first and then deciding on further powers separately, perhaps as the Lib Dems suggest via federalism on a UK wide basis seems sensible.
.Maybe they all thought us too thick to deal with three concepts....
Three concepts is easy enough but I am not sure how it would work on a ballot paper. Either one question with three answers which could lead to a 30/30/40 split, which means what happens exaclty? Or separate questions (independence yes/no, followed by devoMax yes/no) with the possibility of majority support for both which doesn't make much sense either. Getting the independence thing cleared up first and then deciding on further powers separately, perhaps as the Lib Dems suggest via federalism on a UK wide basis seems sensible.
In reply to MG:
Aye but the Lib Dems have zero chance of making that work. The Lords reform demonstrated that.
Iceland had six questions in it's referendum on constitution.
Aye but the Lib Dems have zero chance of making that work. The Lords reform demonstrated that.
Iceland had six questions in it's referendum on constitution.
In reply to Saor Alba: Was one of the questions "do you want to be part of a union?"?
In reply to Saor Alba:
a quick google would indicate all the questions were independent of each other though (with the possible exception of 1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_referendum,_2012
So doesnt seem a good comparison particularly as in this case adding devo max to the card would then need a wider referendum on that part of it.
> Iceland had six questions in it's referendum on constitution.
a quick google would indicate all the questions were independent of each other though (with the possible exception of 1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_referendum,_2012
So doesnt seem a good comparison particularly as in this case adding devo max to the card would then need a wider referendum on that part of it.
In reply to MargieB:
The politicians may not put it quite like this but I suspect a large proportion of the UK population, many Scots included, have just had enough of all the shillyshallying and loitering on the doorstep and have decided it's make your mind up time: are you in or are you out?
The politicians may not put it quite like this but I suspect a large proportion of the UK population, many Scots included, have just had enough of all the shillyshallying and loitering on the doorstep and have decided it's make your mind up time: are you in or are you out?
In reply to dissonance:
It's fairly easy to work out I think.
A multi option referendum could easily be sorted out. Anyway, we wont get that now. But it might come through another means if the Unionist say they would devolve more powers in the advent of a no vote so still an option in another way.
It's fairly easy to work out I think.
A multi option referendum could easily be sorted out. Anyway, we wont get that now. But it might come through another means if the Unionist say they would devolve more powers in the advent of a no vote so still an option in another way.
In reply to Saor Alba:
A multi option referendum is a recipe for yet more muddle, confusion and another 40 years of should we/shouldn'twe? It's likely to lead to no side getting the majority it needs but the ones with most votes will still yell "We won" and everyone else will yell "You have no mandate". Sound at all familiar to anyone?
To quote that powerhouse of enlightened political thought (and created by a Scot), Malcolm Tucker, from the Thick of It: "It's time to either f*** the f*** in or f*** the f*** off
> (In reply to dissonance)
>> > A multi option referendum could easily be sorted out.
A multi option referendum is a recipe for yet more muddle, confusion and another 40 years of should we/shouldn'twe? It's likely to lead to no side getting the majority it needs but the ones with most votes will still yell "We won" and everyone else will yell "You have no mandate". Sound at all familiar to anyone?
To quote that powerhouse of enlightened political thought (and created by a Scot), Malcolm Tucker, from the Thick of It: "It's time to either f*** the f*** in or f*** the f*** off
In reply to Saor Alba:
The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans so long ago that even as far back as the Irish Home Rule issue 100 years ago the Liberals were blowing dust of dog-earred volumes written on the subject. This goes back at least as far as the federal solutions for the colonies in the middle of the 19th century.
> (In reply to MargieB)
>
> The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans for that earlier this week.
>
> The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans for that earlier this week.
The Lib Dems actually do want to create a federal state and they published their plans so long ago that even as far back as the Irish Home Rule issue 100 years ago the Liberals were blowing dust of dog-earred volumes written on the subject. This goes back at least as far as the federal solutions for the colonies in the middle of the 19th century.
In reply to MargieB: Labour and the Liberals don't want devo max as it dilutes their National strength significantly by the time it impacts on Westminster.
I personally thought Devo Max was win win for Scotland and the UK. No more sponging Scots etc. and finally the chance to do what Scots wanted but as part of the UK.
Devo Max voters may now think sod it what is there really to be gained from the Unon??
I personally thought Devo Max was win win for Scotland and the UK. No more sponging Scots etc. and finally the chance to do what Scots wanted but as part of the UK.
Devo Max voters may now think sod it what is there really to be gained from the Unon??
In reply to yer maw:
The difference between Devo Max and Federalism is that Devo Max is inevitably a mess. Federalism is, by its very nature, tidy and fair, which allows people to get on with running a country instead of 80% of the effort going into bitching.
We have a strange situation where believing in Scotland can mean NO in the same way it meant NO in 1979. Many people will go YES simply because they are angry that the London crew endlessly bitch that we're useless and can't look after ourselves. Many will go NO because there are two things wrong with YES, one of which is Nicola Sturgeon and the other is Alex Salmond.
Personally, I cannot support anything from the SNP until they publish their disbandment procedure as part of their policy. After independence, they will have no political purpose. The only reason they would continue is the pursuit of power for its own sake. That's on top of Federalism being a subset of Union.
Councillor Donny Kerr raised the disbandment issue in the interview in today's Inverness Courier about his resignation from the SNP, so I am glad to see that I am not alone on that issue.
> (In reply to MargieB)
> Devo Max voters may now think sod it what is there really to be gained from the Unon??
The difference between Devo Max and Federalism is that Devo Max is inevitably a mess. Federalism is, by its very nature, tidy and fair, which allows people to get on with running a country instead of 80% of the effort going into bitching.
We have a strange situation where believing in Scotland can mean NO in the same way it meant NO in 1979. Many people will go YES simply because they are angry that the London crew endlessly bitch that we're useless and can't look after ourselves. Many will go NO because there are two things wrong with YES, one of which is Nicola Sturgeon and the other is Alex Salmond.
Personally, I cannot support anything from the SNP until they publish their disbandment procedure as part of their policy. After independence, they will have no political purpose. The only reason they would continue is the pursuit of power for its own sake. That's on top of Federalism being a subset of Union.
Councillor Donny Kerr raised the disbandment issue in the interview in today's Inverness Courier about his resignation from the SNP, so I am glad to see that I am not alone on that issue.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Eh, the Sschottish Electorate perhaps? After all, agree with them or no, they DID get a very unexpected majority in the last election, and it was on their agenda/manifesto thingy.
Democracy in action, that's all this is. No one was forced to vote them into power. So we have a referendum looming - wonder who will lead us if none of us vote??????
> (In reply to MargieB) Who forced the SNP to sign up to this referendum?
Eh, the Sschottish Electorate perhaps? After all, agree with them or no, they DID get a very unexpected majority in the last election, and it was on their agenda/manifesto thingy.
Democracy in action, that's all this is. No one was forced to vote them into power. So we have a referendum looming - wonder who will lead us if none of us vote??????
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Thanks for reminding me of that Jim (100 years of support for federalism). However they have got precisely nowhere with that in 100 years. You think they would think of something else by now.
There is no chance of a federal UK so it's yes or no.
I also think you have maybe reduced the issue to party politics. This is way bigger than the SNP etc. Basically do you believe in self determination. I want a future based upon a more caring and social society which all parties (apart from the minors such as the Tories) in Scotland have taken forward. To vote no would jeopardize that.
Thanks for reminding me of that Jim (100 years of support for federalism). However they have got precisely nowhere with that in 100 years. You think they would think of something else by now.
There is no chance of a federal UK so it's yes or no.
I also think you have maybe reduced the issue to party politics. This is way bigger than the SNP etc. Basically do you believe in self determination. I want a future based upon a more caring and social society which all parties (apart from the minors such as the Tories) in Scotland have taken forward. To vote no would jeopardize that.
In reply to Saor Alba:
No. Sorry. That's the politics of the headline chaser. Good governance and human dignity were right when Hume, Smith, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Jefferson and Paine were debating and writing about them and they are still right today.
Aye, because we are stuck in the rut we have been driven into by the headline chasers. 80% of the effort goes on bitching and 10% on self-aggrandisement (perhaps the other way round in Eck's case). Whether at Holyrood or Westminster most parliamentary time is a waste. There has been some tinkering of acceptable quality with the managing and legislating for Scotland yet the battles of the 18th century philosophers are barely won. If our representatives cared enough about good governance then we could have proper local government again in Scotland instead of over-paid chambermaids doing the dirty work for the power hungry machine at the centre. If they cared about justice then Alistair Bonnington would have been nothing to write about in The Times in August when he told us why "Scotland now has a third world legal system". I thought the title was a bit of an insult to the third world myself, and he was a bit soft on some legal grandees who needed a good kicking, but generally a very good piece.
Nobody is properly governing the UK and nobody is properly governing Scotland. That's one of the reasons our economy is more fragile than some neighbours. Much of what politician do is of little consequence and people then have no respect or confidence in politics and you spiral down into chaos.
Here we are spending much of, what, 2 years, bitching about independence when there are important fundamentals to sort out. Independence will make almost no difference while within the EU. A modern ECHR-compliant and economically sustainable justice system, properly devolved local government and a sustainable housing economy could have been achieved since 1999 but they haven't. It would have taken guts and intelligence and a principled stand against vested interests but it would have made life massively more bearable for the poorer 50% of the Scottish population. It would be cheaper for everyone: except the stockbrokers and lawyers.
We are much of the way to a Federal Britain already. It wouldn't actually take much. On the matter of devolution, the mind-set of the entire UK population has changed in the last 13 years. We can have a Scottish Parliament and the sky will not fall in. We can have an SNP government in Scotland and the Earth will keep turning. If we can just get England to move forward into ... the 18th century ... well it would be a start, then Federal Britain is not too difficult.
What do you actually get for your YES vote? Apparently, we still end up under the British Crown. We'll still be in the EU. It is looking like we'll still be in NATO. We'll still have the pound. That could be a worse deal than the Irish Free State and that brought a civil war and 60 years of economic stagnation. So is it any wonder that I want to examine the party that wants to bring us that deal?
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
>
> ... You think they would think of something else by now.
>
> ... You think they would think of something else by now.
No. Sorry. That's the politics of the headline chaser. Good governance and human dignity were right when Hume, Smith, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Jefferson and Paine were debating and writing about them and they are still right today.
> There is no chance of a federal UK ...
Aye, because we are stuck in the rut we have been driven into by the headline chasers. 80% of the effort goes on bitching and 10% on self-aggrandisement (perhaps the other way round in Eck's case). Whether at Holyrood or Westminster most parliamentary time is a waste. There has been some tinkering of acceptable quality with the managing and legislating for Scotland yet the battles of the 18th century philosophers are barely won. If our representatives cared enough about good governance then we could have proper local government again in Scotland instead of over-paid chambermaids doing the dirty work for the power hungry machine at the centre. If they cared about justice then Alistair Bonnington would have been nothing to write about in The Times in August when he told us why "Scotland now has a third world legal system". I thought the title was a bit of an insult to the third world myself, and he was a bit soft on some legal grandees who needed a good kicking, but generally a very good piece.
Nobody is properly governing the UK and nobody is properly governing Scotland. That's one of the reasons our economy is more fragile than some neighbours. Much of what politician do is of little consequence and people then have no respect or confidence in politics and you spiral down into chaos.
Here we are spending much of, what, 2 years, bitching about independence when there are important fundamentals to sort out. Independence will make almost no difference while within the EU. A modern ECHR-compliant and economically sustainable justice system, properly devolved local government and a sustainable housing economy could have been achieved since 1999 but they haven't. It would have taken guts and intelligence and a principled stand against vested interests but it would have made life massively more bearable for the poorer 50% of the Scottish population. It would be cheaper for everyone: except the stockbrokers and lawyers.
We are much of the way to a Federal Britain already. It wouldn't actually take much. On the matter of devolution, the mind-set of the entire UK population has changed in the last 13 years. We can have a Scottish Parliament and the sky will not fall in. We can have an SNP government in Scotland and the Earth will keep turning. If we can just get England to move forward into ... the 18th century ... well it would be a start, then Federal Britain is not too difficult.
> I also think you have maybe reduced the issue to party politics. ...
What do you actually get for your YES vote? Apparently, we still end up under the British Crown. We'll still be in the EU. It is looking like we'll still be in NATO. We'll still have the pound. That could be a worse deal than the Irish Free State and that brought a civil war and 60 years of economic stagnation. So is it any wonder that I want to examine the party that wants to bring us that deal?
In reply to Jim Fraser: Jim, can you point me in the direction of your sources and where you read about all this stuff. Unlike a lot of the usual nonsense, you seem to have a lot of insight and I'd like to tap into that!
In reply to Fultonius:
We West Highland Free Press readers are a funny lot.
AF: you have mail.
'Honi soit qui mal y pense.'
> (In reply to Jim Fraser) Jim, can you point me in the direction of your sources and where you read about all this stuff. Unlike a lot of the usual nonsense, you seem to have a lot of insight and I'd like to tap into that!
We West Highland Free Press readers are a funny lot.
AF: you have mail.
'Honi soit qui mal y pense.'
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Aye very good Jim but I don't fully agree with you. There is no case for federalism on the basis of good governance, only on a constitutional basis. There is no chance of a federal UK as 1) there is no way that Labour or the Tories will allow it and mainly 2) the Lib Dems have destroyed themselves on this and many other issues to the point that noone really takes much notice of them. We are nowhere near a federal Britain right now and no structures exist to call it that. Devolution is very different from federalism.
I think you have been spending too much time with doddery old Ming. You are correct to say that many things haven't been achieved but the opposite is true also and vastly out weighs the things not achieved I'd say.
Your point about England moving into the 18th centuary is very true but I fear we may be unable to influence that and that it's not wanted. So like I say, a 100 years of trying one thing and not getting anywhere, it's now time to try something else.
I want to vote yes for deciding what powers to devolve to other entities (not the current situation where the Lib Dems and Co decide what we are allowed), having control of taxation, deciding if we want to set up a different type of economy etc.
PS the SNP aren't going to disband and have said as much many times. Maybe Donnie Kerr wasn't listening?
Aye very good Jim but I don't fully agree with you. There is no case for federalism on the basis of good governance, only on a constitutional basis. There is no chance of a federal UK as 1) there is no way that Labour or the Tories will allow it and mainly 2) the Lib Dems have destroyed themselves on this and many other issues to the point that noone really takes much notice of them. We are nowhere near a federal Britain right now and no structures exist to call it that. Devolution is very different from federalism.
I think you have been spending too much time with doddery old Ming. You are correct to say that many things haven't been achieved but the opposite is true also and vastly out weighs the things not achieved I'd say.
Your point about England moving into the 18th centuary is very true but I fear we may be unable to influence that and that it's not wanted. So like I say, a 100 years of trying one thing and not getting anywhere, it's now time to try something else.
I want to vote yes for deciding what powers to devolve to other entities (not the current situation where the Lib Dems and Co decide what we are allowed), having control of taxation, deciding if we want to set up a different type of economy etc.
PS the SNP aren't going to disband and have said as much many times. Maybe Donnie Kerr wasn't listening?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Perhaps not. Don't start on Ming.
We need to be extremely suspicious of this. If they achieve Scottish independence, what is their purpose? Who are they? Will they rebrand themselves as saviours of the nation and live off past glories and the thanks of a grateful nation? Will they change their name to Fianna Fail?
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
>
> Aye very good Jim but I don't fully agree with you. There is no case for federalism on the basis of good governance, only on a constitutional basis. There is no chance of a federal UK as 1) there is no way that Labour or the Tories will allow it and mainly 2) the Lib Dems have destroyed themselves on this and many other issues to the point that noone really takes much notice of them. We are nowhere near a federal Britain right now and no structures exist to call it that. Devolution is very different from federalism.
>
> I think you have been spending too much time with doddery old Ming. ...
>
> Aye very good Jim but I don't fully agree with you. There is no case for federalism on the basis of good governance, only on a constitutional basis. There is no chance of a federal UK as 1) there is no way that Labour or the Tories will allow it and mainly 2) the Lib Dems have destroyed themselves on this and many other issues to the point that noone really takes much notice of them. We are nowhere near a federal Britain right now and no structures exist to call it that. Devolution is very different from federalism.
>
> I think you have been spending too much time with doddery old Ming. ...
Perhaps not. Don't start on Ming.
> PS the SNP aren't going to disband and have said as much many times. ...
We need to be extremely suspicious of this. If they achieve Scottish independence, what is their purpose? Who are they? Will they rebrand themselves as saviours of the nation and live off past glories and the thanks of a grateful nation? Will they change their name to Fianna Fail?
In reply to Jim Fraser:
"We need to be extremely suspicious of this. If they achieve Scottish independence, what is their purpose? Who are they? Will they rebrand themselves as saviours of the nation and live off past glories and the thanks of a grateful nation? Will they change their name to Fianna Fail?
"
Why do we need to be extremely suspicious of this? They are a left of centre political party, I guess you could say that they are what the Labour party claim to be. If they want to carry on after independence why shouldn't they? If they have nothing to offer then people won't vote for them.
The interesting thing about the referendum is that it is about self determination. Any decisions about policy shall be down to the Government that we "then" elect. I think a lot of people miss this point.
"We need to be extremely suspicious of this. If they achieve Scottish independence, what is their purpose? Who are they? Will they rebrand themselves as saviours of the nation and live off past glories and the thanks of a grateful nation? Will they change their name to Fianna Fail?
"
Why do we need to be extremely suspicious of this? They are a left of centre political party, I guess you could say that they are what the Labour party claim to be. If they want to carry on after independence why shouldn't they? If they have nothing to offer then people won't vote for them.
The interesting thing about the referendum is that it is about self determination. Any decisions about policy shall be down to the Government that we "then" elect. I think a lot of people miss this point.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Not sure why we need to be so suspicious. Without the SNP there isn't really a left of centre party in Scotland which wants rid of Trident and is in favour of many things others arent. You could argue the same about any other party who adopts a constitutional policy.
Not sure why we need to be so suspicious. Without the SNP there isn't really a left of centre party in Scotland which wants rid of Trident and is in favour of many things others arent. You could argue the same about any other party who adopts a constitutional policy.
In reply to Saor Alba:
You understand very little about the SNP. It is a cameleon. In left of centre areas it is a left of centre party and in right wing areas it is a right of centre party. In Scotland as a whole, the cameleon will move left in more constituencies than right.
Power is the purpose of the SNP. It is quite telling that the SNP has always been the equal of the Tories in ordinary election campaign misbehaviour. Rules? Rules are for other people.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
>
> ... Without the SNP there isn't really a left of centre party in Scotland ...
>
> ... Without the SNP there isn't really a left of centre party in Scotland ...
You understand very little about the SNP. It is a cameleon. In left of centre areas it is a left of centre party and in right wing areas it is a right of centre party. In Scotland as a whole, the cameleon will move left in more constituencies than right.
Power is the purpose of the SNP. It is quite telling that the SNP has always been the equal of the Tories in ordinary election campaign misbehaviour. Rules? Rules are for other people.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
No Jim it's not a Cameleon. I've been in the SNP for several years. I do understand it. Whilst what you say might be all very nice, it isn't actually true. I'd remind you of two things 1) the Lib Dems infamous statement in Inverness a few years ago "Say anything and do anything" and 2) that on pretty much every one of their main policies such as proportional representation and federalism they have achieved absolutely nothing for 100 years. Beaker is a classic example of the Lib Dems - he's nowhere in Inverness.
No Jim it's not a Cameleon. I've been in the SNP for several years. I do understand it. Whilst what you say might be all very nice, it isn't actually true. I'd remind you of two things 1) the Lib Dems infamous statement in Inverness a few years ago "Say anything and do anything" and 2) that on pretty much every one of their main policies such as proportional representation and federalism they have achieved absolutely nothing for 100 years. Beaker is a classic example of the Lib Dems - he's nowhere in Inverness.
In reply to Saor Alba: As a long time member of the SNP, what's your view regarding the party policy in the event of the "no" vote winning the majority. Will they push for another referendum do you think? Or will they accept the vote and carry on with the status quo?
or is it the case of "cross that bridge if we come to it" and just focus all energies on trying to win the "yes" vote?
or is it the case of "cross that bridge if we come to it" and just focus all energies on trying to win the "yes" vote?
In reply to Game of Conkers:
Depends how close it is I think and what the Unionists offer as more powers.
I see two MSPs have quite this morning over the Nato vote. In a way I find this quite encouraging that principles are alive and well.
Depends how close it is I think and what the Unionists offer as more powers.
I see two MSPs have quite this morning over the Nato vote. In a way I find this quite encouraging that principles are alive and well.
In reply to Saor Alba: Agree with that, are they safe seats or marginal?
In reply to Game of Conkers:
I think they are list MSPs so ok. The debate the SNP had on Nato was very passionate and good reflection of the party I think.
I think they are list MSPs so ok. The debate the SNP had on Nato was very passionate and good reflection of the party I think.
In reply to Game of Conkers:
Both list MSPs for the Highlands, John Finnie and Jean Urquhart. I personally think it's a bit of a blow to lose John but they'll both continue as Independents. I admire their courage in standing by their principles, got a fair amount of respect for that.
Both list MSPs for the Highlands, John Finnie and Jean Urquhart. I personally think it's a bit of a blow to lose John but they'll both continue as Independents. I admire their courage in standing by their principles, got a fair amount of respect for that.
In reply to Toby S:
Agreed. John is a good guy and very principled. A grafter also. He will of course still be part of the independence campaign and Yes Scotland.
Agreed. John is a good guy and very principled. A grafter also. He will of course still be part of the independence campaign and Yes Scotland.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Why should the unionists offer more powers in the event of a no vote? I (naively) assumed that since both sides had agreed to respect the outcome of the vote, it would mean either independence OR maintaining the status quo.
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> Depends how close it is I think and what the Unionists offer as more powers.
>
>
> Depends how close it is I think and what the Unionists offer as more powers.
>
Why should the unionists offer more powers in the event of a no vote? I (naively) assumed that since both sides had agreed to respect the outcome of the vote, it would mean either independence OR maintaining the status quo.
In reply to Saor Alba:
So in the event of 49% of Scotland vote YES, and 51% vote NO, you'd see that as a clear majority wanting change?
So in the event of 49% of Scotland vote YES, and 51% vote NO, you'd see that as a clear majority wanting change?
In reply to Jimbo W:
I'm an undecided until I hear all the arguments, but I'm just waiting for Cameron, to make lots of vaugue promises during the campaign of MORE powers for Scotland, but only IF we vote against.
(And then don't hold your breath for him to deliver after he has got what he wants.
I think it is more likely that a NO vote will be followed by calls to punish the Scots for being disloyal for even wanting a vote.
We will of course be totally powerless to do anything but to take whatever 'punishment' is meeted out, so his plan not to have Devo Max option could be a good one for him in that instance.
> (In reply to MargieB)
>
> I agree. I think the Tories may have made a mistake though. I would definitely have gone for devo max, but will now go for independence.
>
> I agree. I think the Tories may have made a mistake though. I would definitely have gone for devo max, but will now go for independence.
I'm an undecided until I hear all the arguments, but I'm just waiting for Cameron, to make lots of vaugue promises during the campaign of MORE powers for Scotland, but only IF we vote against.
(And then don't hold your breath for him to deliver after he has got what he wants.
I think it is more likely that a NO vote will be followed by calls to punish the Scots for being disloyal for even wanting a vote.
We will of course be totally powerless to do anything but to take whatever 'punishment' is meeted out, so his plan not to have Devo Max option could be a good one for him in that instance.
In reply to 999thAndy:
No because that is not a clear majority. I was referring to current situations where most want change, probably devo max, but that has now been closed off.
No because that is not a clear majority. I was referring to current situations where most want change, probably devo max, but that has now been closed off.
In reply to Jim C:
Some tabloids and maybe a few nut jobs in parliament perhaps, but as official government policy I can't ever see it happening. I figure winning a no vote and then offering extended powers would be the best of both words for Cameron - I think he is a unionist by nature, it also gives him the credit in a unionist party for having fought for the union, but if done right (for him) it also removes the Scottish mps from the voting equation in England and means he can claim to have stopped subsidising the scots by devolving their financial powers.
> I think it is more likely that a NO vote will be followed by calls to punish the Scots for being disloyal for even wanting a vote.
Some tabloids and maybe a few nut jobs in parliament perhaps, but as official government policy I can't ever see it happening. I figure winning a no vote and then offering extended powers would be the best of both words for Cameron - I think he is a unionist by nature, it also gives him the credit in a unionist party for having fought for the union, but if done right (for him) it also removes the Scottish mps from the voting equation in England and means he can claim to have stopped subsidising the scots by devolving their financial powers.
In reply to AJM:
I'd agree with you but I don't think the scenario you outline would be very good for Scotland.
I'd agree with you but I don't think the scenario you outline would be very good for Scotland.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Why not?
As a fan of independence, presumably the idea of anything short of that loses favour in comparison to full independence. But in comparison to the status quo how would a greater degree of devolved government and increased finance raising powers harm Scotland? Isn't that by and large what devo max is all about?
Personally from the south side of the border I'd prefer Scotland to remain attached to the uk, but if some sort of mature and sensible arrangement can be thrashed out by which greater autonomy can be obtained that works for Scotland whilst hopefully also clarifying the mess that a quasi-federal uk currently causes then I've no problem with that, and if it could be done in a way which could also defang the poisonous cross-border sniping about subsidies, scroungers, oil theft and so on and so forth then that might in general improve cross-border relations and be a good thing. Of course, the words "mature and sensible" don't really sit easily with my perception of many of our current batch of politicians, but I can but dream...!
Why not?
As a fan of independence, presumably the idea of anything short of that loses favour in comparison to full independence. But in comparison to the status quo how would a greater degree of devolved government and increased finance raising powers harm Scotland? Isn't that by and large what devo max is all about?
Personally from the south side of the border I'd prefer Scotland to remain attached to the uk, but if some sort of mature and sensible arrangement can be thrashed out by which greater autonomy can be obtained that works for Scotland whilst hopefully also clarifying the mess that a quasi-federal uk currently causes then I've no problem with that, and if it could be done in a way which could also defang the poisonous cross-border sniping about subsidies, scroungers, oil theft and so on and so forth then that might in general improve cross-border relations and be a good thing. Of course, the words "mature and sensible" don't really sit easily with my perception of many of our current batch of politicians, but I can but dream...!
In reply to AJM:
For the reasons outlined above. I think the debate is moving faster than many think and has certainly moved on from some of the rhetoric we still hear from politicians. Newsnight Scotland was good last night - see it on iplayer.
For the reasons outlined above. I think the debate is moving faster than many think and has certainly moved on from some of the rhetoric we still hear from politicians. Newsnight Scotland was good last night - see it on iplayer.
In reply to 999thAndy:
This is the problem. We have no breakdown of the No vote!
This is the problem. We have no breakdown of the No vote!
In reply to MargieB:
Ideally a No vote should pave the way for a UK wide review of how we are goverened. I think it is being done the right way round as there is no point doing this if there is a Yes vote.
Any move to Federalism would have to be voted on country wide. I admit there isn't much appetite for this here in England, something you might want to bear in mind at the referendum.
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> This is the problem. We have no breakdown of the No vote!
> This is the problem. We have no breakdown of the No vote!
Ideally a No vote should pave the way for a UK wide review of how we are goverened. I think it is being done the right way round as there is no point doing this if there is a Yes vote.
Any move to Federalism would have to be voted on country wide. I admit there isn't much appetite for this here in England, something you might want to bear in mind at the referendum.
In reply to Papillon:
The article in the economist this week (last week? The "Tories barmiest policy" one) seemed to suggest that the unionist parties are working on or already have their plans for more devolution in the event of a no vote, so effectively I guess the choice come referendum time will be between greater devolution and full independence.
They appear to suggest at least that both sides of the debate are coming closer together in that one side is offering greater devolution whereas their suggestion (not that I follow it closely enough to be able to discuss the point) is that Salmond is now playing up how small the change would actually be, both in efforts to woo the swing voters in the middle. They seem to think, and again I'm quoting so am not going to try and argue the point, that he is perhaps promising more than is necessarily within his powers with regards to participation in sterling, maintaining the UKs EU opt-outs and the BBC.
Anyway, perhaps worth a look for any subscribers out there who haven't got to that one yet.
The article in the economist this week (last week? The "Tories barmiest policy" one) seemed to suggest that the unionist parties are working on or already have their plans for more devolution in the event of a no vote, so effectively I guess the choice come referendum time will be between greater devolution and full independence.
They appear to suggest at least that both sides of the debate are coming closer together in that one side is offering greater devolution whereas their suggestion (not that I follow it closely enough to be able to discuss the point) is that Salmond is now playing up how small the change would actually be, both in efforts to woo the swing voters in the middle. They seem to think, and again I'm quoting so am not going to try and argue the point, that he is perhaps promising more than is necessarily within his powers with regards to participation in sterling, maintaining the UKs EU opt-outs and the BBC.
Anyway, perhaps worth a look for any subscribers out there who haven't got to that one yet.
In reply to Papillon: I have to say I don't buy the argument that federalism needs to be voted on by the UK as a whole. Afterall, Independence is presented only to the Scottish people and if there were to be a Yes majority, legal re-writes will occur in Westminter too!
In reply to MargieB: because, it is about finding the political and legal mechanisms to forward the development of Scotland.
In reply to MargieB:
You might want to read this article if you haven't already done so: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/01/16/scotland-and-kellner-conundrum/
You either need one question or three questions on the ballot paper.
You might want to read this article if you haven't already done so: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/01/16/scotland-and-kellner-conundrum/
You either need one question or three questions on the ballot paper.
In reply to MargieB:
Which will affect the whole of the UK. If 5 want to leave a party, fair enough, if 5 want to stay but change the music, well, you have to ask the other 50.
> (In reply to MargieB) because, it is about finding the political and legal mechanisms to forward the development of Scotland.
Which will affect the whole of the UK. If 5 want to leave a party, fair enough, if 5 want to stay but change the music, well, you have to ask the other 50.
In reply to Papillon: But you've {not you personally] been hogging the record player since the act of union.....
In reply to MargieB: No we've all had equall share within the UK. It's time for you to either grab the bull by the horns and be a country or accept that you are a region within the UK, a state in which the majority show no derire for federalism.
In reply to MargieB:
I like this metaphor, so I'm going to continue it.
"But you've {not you personally] been hogging the record player since the act of union....."
...Whilst you may have felt that you've not had enough access to this record player, generalising everyone else in the room as being some homogenous clique that's bent on keeping it away from you is rather harsh (and just a little stupid). 50 people (all from very different social circles) ganging up on 5?!...really? No - it's probably just one guy wearing a salmon bow tie called Tarquin. The thing is, he doesn't even know he's doing it - he just really likes listening to S Club 7 on repeat and is 'lost in the music'. Have you and your friends in the corner stopped to wonder whether the rest of the people at this party really like the drivel coming out of the speakers? Maybe we could all gang up on Tarquin and get him chucked out, he is a bit of a bell end after all! But then again he does always bring a lot of beer to the party... and he's Geoff's landlord... and Ellen still has a soft spot for him even since the divorce. So the party goes on, and the atmosphere is determined by all the people present.
There are 3 sensible options open to you. 1) Continue to sit in the corner bitching, 2) Circulate a bit - chat to some of the other guests who aren't in your little circle and try to figure out how to make this a better party, OR 3) Leave.
The referendum is in itself a rejection of option 1, and it's purpose is to choose between 2 and 3.
I like this metaphor, so I'm going to continue it.
"But you've {not you personally] been hogging the record player since the act of union....."
...Whilst you may have felt that you've not had enough access to this record player, generalising everyone else in the room as being some homogenous clique that's bent on keeping it away from you is rather harsh (and just a little stupid). 50 people (all from very different social circles) ganging up on 5?!...really? No - it's probably just one guy wearing a salmon bow tie called Tarquin. The thing is, he doesn't even know he's doing it - he just really likes listening to S Club 7 on repeat and is 'lost in the music'. Have you and your friends in the corner stopped to wonder whether the rest of the people at this party really like the drivel coming out of the speakers? Maybe we could all gang up on Tarquin and get him chucked out, he is a bit of a bell end after all! But then again he does always bring a lot of beer to the party... and he's Geoff's landlord... and Ellen still has a soft spot for him even since the divorce. So the party goes on, and the atmosphere is determined by all the people present.
There are 3 sensible options open to you. 1) Continue to sit in the corner bitching, 2) Circulate a bit - chat to some of the other guests who aren't in your little circle and try to figure out how to make this a better party, OR 3) Leave.
The referendum is in itself a rejection of option 1, and it's purpose is to choose between 2 and 3.
In reply to parkovski:
Sort of but one person in the room is able to open the record player up and change it. Some aren't.
Sort of but one person in the room is able to open the record player up and change it. Some aren't.
In reply to parkovski:
I should also really add that at least two of your mates were up dancing, they might even be able to talk one of the others up too....
I should also really add that at least two of your mates were up dancing, they might even be able to talk one of the others up too....
In reply to MargieB: Is Alex Salmond really Rab C Nebitt in a suit,if so hes not as funny as he used to be.
In reply to Saor Alba:
No no, they can... they just seldom bother to take time to chat to the diverse and interesting people at the party to find a style of music that will appeal more widely. As I said, most of us are a bit bored with the music that tarquin and his friends like, but we humour him. Maybe some of us just don't care enough about the music - but it doesn't meen we're parading around in spice girls t-shirts and holding up placards saying "TUNE!". Why not come over and talk the rest of us round instead of sitting in your little circle... maybe we can all dance to the same tunes! Maybe we'll even get tarquin to stop being such a tw*t!
I fear the problem is that you'll only really be happy if you get your own record player in your own room. But why should you be special? And wouldn't you be in danger of just being another tarquin?
No no, they can... they just seldom bother to take time to chat to the diverse and interesting people at the party to find a style of music that will appeal more widely. As I said, most of us are a bit bored with the music that tarquin and his friends like, but we humour him. Maybe some of us just don't care enough about the music - but it doesn't meen we're parading around in spice girls t-shirts and holding up placards saying "TUNE!". Why not come over and talk the rest of us round instead of sitting in your little circle... maybe we can all dance to the same tunes! Maybe we'll even get tarquin to stop being such a tw*t!
I fear the problem is that you'll only really be happy if you get your own record player in your own room. But why should you be special? And wouldn't you be in danger of just being another tarquin?
In reply to parkovski: This metaphor falls at the "Tarquin brings free beer" line.
The Scots would make him a King, give him a gold record player and just buy themselves ear plugs
The Scots would make him a King, give him a gold record player and just buy themselves ear plugs
In reply to Game of Conkers: Mind you, so would the English and the Welsh...I like Tarquin.
In reply to Game of Conkers: Never said the beer was free.... the price to pay is putting up with Tarquin.
I guess the point was that we can't actually get rid of Tarquin, so the options open to us are to learn how to curb him a litte by working together - or to all order cabs and piss off in fours and fives.
I guess the point was that we can't actually get rid of Tarquin, so the options open to us are to learn how to curb him a litte by working together - or to all order cabs and piss off in fours and fives.
In reply to parkovski: I hear you....i was just having some fun
I know!
Perhaps the only reason he has so much spare beer is that he only drinks shandy?
Perhaps the only reason he has so much spare beer is that he only drinks shandy?
In reply to parkovski:
No they can't actually. Because purely due to weight of numbers, the ones wanting to play at 33 outnumber the ones wanting to go to 45 or even 78.
Some of my team at the party haven't decided what music to play yet never mind what speed. But a majority of them feel that something should change.
We are not sitting in a circle, we are mingling but if someone questions the music being played you guys all go mad and take it as a personal insult.
No they can't actually. Because purely due to weight of numbers, the ones wanting to play at 33 outnumber the ones wanting to go to 45 or even 78.
Some of my team at the party haven't decided what music to play yet never mind what speed. But a majority of them feel that something should change.
We are not sitting in a circle, we are mingling but if someone questions the music being played you guys all go mad and take it as a personal insult.
Rather than storming off to different rooms to play 45s on old record players, can I suggest we club together and buy a brand new iPad controlled digital system?
In reply to Saor Alba:
"you guys ALL go mad... "
Can you not see the problem with these kinds of statement? Are you not listening to what I'm saying? Do really think we ALL like listening to this sh*t?!
To momentarily step out of the metaphor, do you really look south and see 55 million non-Scottish Britons all banded together against you?!
It's fine if you really want to generalise everyone outside as being against you, but that doesn't make it right, and it makes it harder for us to work together to sort out Tarquin if your mates decide they're staying and you can't afford a taxi on your own.
> (In reply to parkovski)
>
>
"you guys ALL go mad... "
Can you not see the problem with these kinds of statement? Are you not listening to what I'm saying? Do really think we ALL like listening to this sh*t?!
To momentarily step out of the metaphor, do you really look south and see 55 million non-Scottish Britons all banded together against you?!
It's fine if you really want to generalise everyone outside as being against you, but that doesn't make it right, and it makes it harder for us to work together to sort out Tarquin if your mates decide they're staying and you can't afford a taxi on your own.
In reply to MG:
No... it sounds like the obvious option, but it would get lost in the post because we'd leave it to stupid keith to order it on amazon, but he's not thought to update his postal address, and he ordered the wrong thing anyway at way over the asking price.
like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/22/nhs-it-project-abandoned
No... it sounds like the obvious option, but it would get lost in the post because we'd leave it to stupid keith to order it on amazon, but he's not thought to update his postal address, and he ordered the wrong thing anyway at way over the asking price.
like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/22/nhs-it-project-abandoned
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I agree with a lot of what you have said, but this is really quite silly. Contrary to how it might be sold to you in Scotland Westminster doesn't predominantly occupy itself with this sort of thing. Sure some idiots will make those sort of statements, but in most cases they can be ignored.
I don't believe that saying we are stronger together is the same as saying Scotland is useless and can't look after itself...
Completely disagree, just like any other political party they have the choice to set out what they stand for.
> that the London crew endlessly bitch that we're useless and can't look after ourselves.
I agree with a lot of what you have said, but this is really quite silly. Contrary to how it might be sold to you in Scotland Westminster doesn't predominantly occupy itself with this sort of thing. Sure some idiots will make those sort of statements, but in most cases they can be ignored.
I don't believe that saying we are stronger together is the same as saying Scotland is useless and can't look after itself...
> Personally, I cannot support anything from the SNP until they publish their disbandment procedure as part of their policy. After independence, they will have no political purpose.
Completely disagree, just like any other political party they have the choice to set out what they stand for.
In reply to parkovski:
Yes do you have to listen to this shit. You have asked us in and then locked the door. In fact quite a few of your guys are now pointing out the window and seeing people called "immigrants" and refusing to let them in. Then there are these other guys who are talking about the community council called the EU and saying they want to leave.
Yes do you have to listen to this shit. You have asked us in and then locked the door. In fact quite a few of your guys are now pointing out the window and seeing people called "immigrants" and refusing to let them in. Then there are these other guys who are talking about the community council called the EU and saying they want to leave.
In reply to Saor Alba: Is that any different to some of "your guys" resigning over NATO?
But hey ho if you want to believe in a them and us situation your choice. You'll have a whale of a time trying to work out the complexities of the EU where there is an even greater diversity of opinions (once you have passed through an accession period).
But hey ho if you want to believe in a them and us situation your choice. You'll have a whale of a time trying to work out the complexities of the EU where there is an even greater diversity of opinions (once you have passed through an accession period).
In reply to Saor Alba:
In what way is the door locked? Isn't there to be a referendum?! And no, we don't have to listen to this shit. If other folk from the same villages gathered the political will to call a cab I'm sure they wouldn't be stopped.
And by the way, "your guys"?! Are you seriously that retardedly xenophobic that you can't recognise that (until such time as you can persuade your mates to leave) they are just as much YOUR guys as my guys.
If you can't persuade your friends to leave you will need to grow up and work with these "Guys".
In what way is the door locked? Isn't there to be a referendum?! And no, we don't have to listen to this shit. If other folk from the same villages gathered the political will to call a cab I'm sure they wouldn't be stopped.
And by the way, "your guys"?! Are you seriously that retardedly xenophobic that you can't recognise that (until such time as you can persuade your mates to leave) they are just as much YOUR guys as my guys.
If you can't persuade your friends to leave you will need to grow up and work with these "Guys".
In reply to parkovski:
... and to continue with your metaphor it's also the been the case that in the past a lot of the guys that have been flicking through the box of records and deciding what to stick on the turntable have actually been Scottish. It's just that about 30% of Scots don't want to have to choose music which suits the non Scots in the room so they'd rather have their own room in which they can play Jimmy Shand, Runrig and The Proclaimers all day long to their heart's content even if that means they don't get to play The Stones, The Clash and The Happy Mondays any more.
I wonder if we can continue this metaphor until late 2014 by which time we'll all be heartily sick of the subject.
... and to continue with your metaphor it's also the been the case that in the past a lot of the guys that have been flicking through the box of records and deciding what to stick on the turntable have actually been Scottish. It's just that about 30% of Scots don't want to have to choose music which suits the non Scots in the room so they'd rather have their own room in which they can play Jimmy Shand, Runrig and The Proclaimers all day long to their heart's content even if that means they don't get to play The Stones, The Clash and The Happy Mondays any more.
I wonder if we can continue this metaphor until late 2014 by which time we'll all be heartily sick of the subject.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...