UKC

Which powers would you pick instead of Scottish Independence?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Valaisan 20 Mar 2014
If Independence wasn't possible, which Powers would you want from the 'Reserved Matters' list and how would you fund & manage them better than the UK does now, and perhaps even more interestingly, which one's DON'T you want and why:

Existing Devolved matters include:

agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

Reserved matters include:

benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution
 tony 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Valaisan:

Interesting question!

I think the one area of policy that should be moved is electricity generation. Scotland's generation mix and potential mix is very different to that of the rest of the UK, in terms of its generation potential (much greater potential, but also considerably more by way of intermittency), and also the location of much of the renewable generation, remote from the major centres of population. Given those differences, it's not sensible to try to impose the same kind of trading conditions and structures as regulated by OFGEM equally to Scotland and the rest of the UK.
In reply to tony:

I've always thought the opposite; energy is best shared. To me it makes no sense to divide energy policy into separate regimes in this one relatively small island group. After all, the market exists as a whole. And to take one example, a continuing rollout of Scottish renewables looks most feasible if: a) funded in part through all UK consumer bills and b) as part of a wider UK energy mix that helps smooth over the intermittency issue. Actually, we ought to have a unified Europe-wide energy policy, but that's a bit far off.

Major transport infrastructure is another that I'd keep UK-wide. Then I'd devolve local roads down to local authorities and, basically, cut out the Holyrood middle man.

Local government, well it all gets a bit difficult and fiddly, but since I'm a federalist at heart my instinct would be to put this under the UK remit. I see no benefit to farming this out separately to Holyrood, Westminster, Cardiff (is it? who knows, what a mishmash) since the point of it is local power not national.

On the devo side, I'd devolve some more - but not all - tax raising. I quite like Scottish Lab's recent proposals, that's the sort of level.

Ditto benefit/social security policy - some more control devolved, but not all. If, for instance, we could banish the bedroom tax up here and nevermind what London wants, that'd be an example of devolved social policy working well, to me. A strong continuing universal UK-wide element is important to me too though, shared experience and all that.

And employment policy, we could probably have a bit more of that devolved out to help address particular needs in parts of Wales, Central Belt etc

How would I fund and manage everything? How much time have you got? In short, tax, tax, tax...it's no coincidence that the most admirable societies are high tax/spend
 David Barratt 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Valaisan:

All of the above. but if I had to rank them, defence first, trade and industry second, then benifits, then energy. Basically, take the nukes away and I'll reconsider.
Jim C 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

On the devo side, I'd devolve some more - but not all - tax raising. I quite like Scottish Lab's recent proposals, that's the sort of level.

Really!
You are ahead of me Dan, I listened to Lamont try explain it, and it was embarrassing, and incomprehensible . If you read some of the comments below this article, I am not alone.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/think-tank-labours-d...

john macmillan, helensburgh • 5 hours ago
I,like many others,saw Ms.Lamont on tv explaining her proposals.I,like many others,could not understand one word of what she said.Could someone help me out here?

JAMES MORRISEY john macmillan, helensburgh • 5 hours ago
I don't think Ms.Lamont understood it, Gordon Brewer filleted both her and her Devo Nano during the interview

Dr Douglas McKenzie john macmillan, helensburgh • 3 hours ago
If you listen carefully to the broadcast you will hear someone laughing their head off in the background.

Jon Legorburu, Ayr Dr Douglas McKenzie • an hour ago
I was even embarrassed for her.

JAMES MORRISEY • 5 hours ago
This Devo Nano is designed to put Scotland at a disadvantage to the UK if it ever used these powers.
Total shambles from the British nationalist of UK Labour's regional branch office in Scotland.

Malcolm McCandless • 5 hours ago
A really embarrassing and damaging episode for Scottish Labour and Johann Lamont in particular.
Labour have now ruled themselves out of the referendum debate as it will be nigh impossible to sell these badly flawed devo-plans to Scots in the run up to Sept 18th.
Only the Tories can save the union now. Oh how the SNP will be relishing that prospect.

Steve McKay • 4 hours ago
If I was still a Labour supporter I would be furious at the incompetent and insulting devolution proposals put forward by my party - after two years of thinking and planning!
Actually I am furious - but at least I'm not embarrassed. Labour in Scotland have been reduced to a bumbling incoherent laughing stock. The fact that even their own leadership south of the border are in on the joke must surely be the last straw.

Andrew McBride • 4 hours ago
Should good fun watching Johann Lamont explain why she's right and Reform Scotland are wrong when she's next on Newsnight.

stewart short, glasgow • 3 hours ago
One of my favourites, back of a fag packet. economic catastrophy for the forgotten socialist party,poor Joane hung out to dry.

Alastair Gordon, West Lothian • 27 minutes ago
It's difficult to believe wee JoLa would get this one wrong.
(Stop laughing at the back!)
In reply to Jim C:

Newsflash, cybernats whip up a storm in a teacup
Jim C 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
If you care to explain the policy to me and the merits you see in it, , rather than call people names, it might be more helpful.

Did you watch Lamont try and explain it to Brewer?

(N.b I don't like Salmond and am not an SNP supporter, I genuinely can't see any sense in the Labour policy.)
Post edited at 18:30
In reply to Jim C:

Sorry Jim, not directed at you but the quoted commentators. I get so jaded by the tone and quality of what passes for the online 'debate' that I have to be careful not to adopt a similarly sneering tone myself. Can't elaborate on actual content now, it's kids' bed time
Jim C 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I've always thought the opposite; energy is best shared. To me it makes no sense to divide energy policy into separate regimes in this one relatively small island group. After all, the market exists as a whole. And to take one example, a continuing rollout of Scottish renewables looks most feasible if: a) funded in part through all UK consumer bills and b) as part of a wider UK energy mix that helps smooth over the intermittency issue. Actually, we ought to have a unified Europe-wide energy policy, but that's a bit far off.

I tend to agree with you here Dan. The huge subsidies that renewables will need to get them started, is too much, in my view to be funded by a IS, and devolving electricity would not make a great deal of sense.

If renewables was a viable model , investors would be attracted to it, and would be prepared to wait to get the returns from the electricity supplied and paid for by its customers. That is not the case , you need to do as you say , smooth it out .
We can go days, weeks or even months right across Europe with poor wind conditions for example, hence no supply, no revenue. At this point, you need something else.

Very short intermittences, need things like pump storage , or gas stations( though who wants to build a gas station and have it sit idle a lot of the time, and who funds that) , longer periods of 'intermittency ' can be covered by power stations(Assuming we have spare capacity even in the near future) the new Nuclear stations ( decades away) will have a element of load following( albeit it will be expensive electricity) and of course it will be outside of Scotland, no New Nuclear in Scotland.




 BigBrother 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Valaisan:

X-ray vision and to fly like superman.
 FreshSlate 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> On the devo side, I'd devolve some more - but not all - tax raising. I quite like Scottish Lab's recent proposals, that's the sort of level.

> Really!

> You are ahead of me Dan, I listened to Lamont try explain it, and it was embarrassing, and incomprehensible . If you read some of the comments below this article, I am not alone.


> john macmillan, helensburgh • 5 hours ago

> I,like many others,saw Ms.Lamont on tv explaining her proposals.I,like many others,could not understand one word of what she said.Could someone help me out here?

> JAMES MORRISEY john macmillan, helensburgh • 5 hours ago

> I don't think Ms.Lamont understood it, Gordon Brewer filleted both her and her Devo Nano during the interview


> Dr Douglas McKenzie john macmillan, helensburgh • 3 hours ago

> If you listen carefully to the broadcast you will hear someone laughing their head off in the background.

> Jon Legorburu, Ayr Dr Douglas McKenzie • an hour ago

> I was even embarrassed for her.

> JAMES MORRISEY • 5 hours ago

> This Devo Nano is designed to put Scotland at a disadvantage to the UK if it ever used these powers.

> Total shambles from the British nationalist of UK Labour's regional branch office in Scotland.

> Malcolm McCandless • 5 hours ago

> A really embarrassing and damaging episode for Scottish Labour and Johann Lamont in particular.

> Labour have now ruled themselves out of the referendum debate as it will be nigh impossible to sell these badly flawed devo-plans to Scots in the run up to Sept 18th.

> Only the Tories can save the union now. Oh how the SNP will be relishing that prospect.

> Steve McKay • 4 hours ago

> If I was still a Labour supporter I would be furious at the incompetent and insulting devolution proposals put forward by my party - after two years of thinking and planning!

> Actually I am furious - but at least I'm not embarrassed. Labour in Scotland have been reduced to a bumbling incoherent laughing stock. The fact that even their own leadership south of the border are in on the joke must surely be the last straw.

> Andrew McBride • 4 hours ago

> Should good fun watching Johann Lamont explain why she's right and Reform Scotland are wrong when she's next on Newsnight.

> stewart short, glasgow • 3 hours ago

> One of my favourites, back of a fag packet. economic catastrophy for the forgotten socialist party,poor Joane hung out to dry.

>

> Alastair Gordon, West Lothian • 27 minutes ago

> It's difficult to believe wee JoLa would get this one wrong.

> (Stop laughing at the back!)

I've never seen a post so long without a single reason put across. Are we posting comments now? Incredible, we're usually laughing at dailymail comments not using vacuous 30 character tripe to susbstantiate an argument.

Jim C 20 Mar 2014
In reply to FreshSlate:

The reason I posted the quotes in this instance, Wolfo , was that when I previewed the link, on my iPad, it was not working properly for me.( and assumed it might not for some others)

It happens occasionally, not sure why. I also have this problem , if I edit a quote with a link that has worked ok, minutes before, but I then get a 404 error and red text if I try and correct ( spelling or whatever) I have to remove the link to correct the post!
Not sure if it happens just to me or not?

(NbYou complain about the length of my post , then go against forum rules, and quote the entire post
Tim Chappell 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Valaisan:

I'd like the power to make Alex Salmond Life Governor of Rockall, without the option of non-residence
 FreshSlate 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> The reason I posted the quotes in this instance, Wolfo , was that when I previewed the link, on my iPad, it was not working properly for me.( and assumed it might not for some others) ...

> Not sure if it happens just to me or not?

I'm not sure what you mean here, if you posted the comments by mistake somehow then I apologise. As you said "If you read some of the comments below this article, I am not alone." I assumed you were posting them to make some kind of point.

> (NbYou complain about the length of my post , then go against forum rules, and quote the entire post

It's not the length of your post that was problem, it was the vacuous nature of it. I really don't mind a long post, if there's actually some content. Nothing is actually being said in simply calling something "embarrasing and incomprehensible", "total shambles" or "back of fag packet". It's like saying 'it's shit, it's shit it's really shit' without saying why.

It's not hard to say something like: 'I feel Labour's view of devolved powers does not go far enough and does not represent a reasonable alternative to the status quo'.

I was pretty disappointed because you normally make reasoned and sensible posts. I'm not sure what other response one could have made to your post other than "you have clearly just quoted a bunch of angry people on the internet". As there was no content to discuss I think you were harsh on Dan, accusing him of being a poor sport in the debate.
 lynx3555 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> The reason I posted the quotes in this instance, Wolfo , was that when I previewed the link, on my iPad, it was not working properly for me.( and assumed it might not for some others)

> Not sure if it happens just to me or not?

Happens to me a lot as well, someone needs to fix that! Tried lots of different ways but now I just re do the post...I copy the edited piece, delete post and then paste it into a new post in order to make it work...very annoying!

In reply to Jim C:

Back to tax, briefly. I didn't see JoLa (like it) on telly. I'm no great fan of her speaking powers. I'd never go out of my way to watch any politician explain themselves in the flesh (style) when their policy (substance) is available to read and digest on paper. And on paper, I'm not clear what's hard to grasp about the substance of this idea, which seems pretty comprehensible. Increase of Holyrood's income tax raising power to a 40% proportion of the total income tax take (they say - others seem to disagree but then someone is bound to); power to raise said tax rates higher but not to be able to drop them to undercut the UK rate (sensible, who wants a race to the bottom. Well, Tories probably, but...).

Assuming I can't have my nation-dissolving federal UK any time soon then the rest of Labour's Scottish devo offering looks sensible too, to me at least. It seems to strike about the right sort of balance between local power for local people and pooled resources/shared governance/common comprehensive identity.

Obviously Nationalists and fellow travellers are going to give it a hostile reception, but I think that's because it represents a big threat at the ballot box.
OP Valaisan 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Valaisan:

Thank you all for your contributions, very interesting. I would like to ask one further question or maybe its a statement: if Scotland gain Independence or full devolution, what is the point of a UK Government in Westminster (bar Defense perhaps)? Would a paired down Westminster without the responsibility for 5 million people and a huge landmass North of the border just become the defacto English Parliament (maybe some feel it kind of is already).

I think as a group of Island Nations we need to cut the cost of Governance: UK Government (harbouring an English Government), Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly, Irish Assembly, Regional Authorities, County Councils, Borough Councils, City Councils, Town and Village Committees... How many structures do we really need to manage our lives and the small space we all live in?
Jim C 21 Mar 2014
In reply to FreshSlate:


> I was pretty disappointed because you normally make reasoned and sensible posts. I'm not sure what other response one could have made to your post other than "you have clearly just quoted a bunch of angry people on the internet". As there was no content to discuss I think you were harsh on Dan, accusing him of being a poor sport in the debate.

Ok, I will 'try harder' and , I will look into my abuse of Dan( sorry Dan )
Jim C 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

> Back to tax, briefly. I didn't see JoLa (like it) on telly.

I know you are not a fan, but , for others who might want to see here is the lamont Brewer interview,
youtube.com/watch?v=vMnWUkW9kBY&

worth watching in full.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...