Does "Better Together" Make A Good Case For The Union?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by aikiwolfie, Apr 7, 2013.

  1. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

  2. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

  3. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    There is nothing wrong in principle with having only English MP's vote on purely English matters and Scottish MP's voting on purely Scottish matters. But in practise it would raise a number of issues which go far beyond who votes on what.

    What about Welsh matters? Obviously there are Welsh MP's and there is a Welsh assembly. But unlike Scotland, Wales does not have a seperate legal system. So would only Welsh MP's vote on Welsh matters that do not involve a change in the law, but both English and Welsh MP's vote on bills which would change English law?

    How would parliamentary committees be constituted? Would you have a seperate version of each committee for each of the member nations of the UK?

    How would you justify having (say) an English Home Secretary who couldn't vote on any bill regarding matters in Scotland? Or an English one who couldn't vote on Scottish matters? Would you end up with four home secretaries? (Probably doing away with the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries, since their roles would be superceded by the new plethora of new offices of state.) Would you need four Chancellors of the Exchequor(s)? Or would so much financial responsibility have been devolved to the assemblies to render the office redundant?

    Whatever solution they come up with, it'll be another step towards the break up of the union. The only real question is whether they get there by little steps or big steps.
     
  4. embra

    embra Valued Member

    Is it honestly worth the fluff and bother to change all of this - Indy - or - Maxed-out-devo?

    Prepare for a Belgium style bodge of federated Governments inside a tiny land and a horrendous botch-up of administration

    For what it is worth, in the event of actual independence, I believe international law would determine that the Oil & Gas fields do belong to Scotland, by virtue of International Maritime law and historical records. Some fudged-over/negotiated-over bodge of a settlement would have to worked out for the UK having paid and managed for these fields development since the late 1970s.

    However, if the more realistic scenario of 30 odd years of life is left, is taken at face value, neither an inclusive UK or iScotland is going to benefit very much from these fields return in any case - and we had all better start to find some new form of industry and/or cash-cow.

    If the Atlantic Oil & Gas fields do show a realistic investment return, then iScotland and/or inclusive UK, should do a better job of matters this time round - assuming the necessary investment can be found in our straightened times.

    This latter point shows the absolute necessity for effective Bond offerings from either iScotland and/or UK (preferably weaned off this Devo-max tosh that everyone is drinking from now.)
     
  5. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    One of the first things that came to my mind when I heard this was "is it right to deny MPs from a different part of the UK the right to vote in the House of Commons on votes they feel are important?".

    I completely agree with the rest of your post mind, I'm just adding that in for conversations' sake.

    It doesn't make much sense to me that Westminster would have wanted to keep Scotland in the Union only to for it to then be proposed by the major parties to take baby steps to dissolve the Union anyway (which is kind of what it feels like to me). That and the somewhat devious move of cutting Labours' sway in the House of Commons down.
     
  6. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    I completely agree. In principle it sounds good. But the only way it would work is proper federalisation of the UK. Otherwise it raises quite a few technical issues. Having a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish PM would be problematic. As would any of the top cabinet jobs.
     
  7. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    But that's basically what they've done. The language used to describe the extra powers Scotland would get if it voted NO was devo-max and home rule. Which is what the SNP are now pushing for.
     
  8. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    if anything's been learned here, is that scotland needs tighter integration with the rest of the uk, not less.
     
  9. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    How much tighter does it get than controlling our finances and thus every facet of our lives? The Scottish Parliament as it is now exists at the will and whim of Westminster. It can be abolished at the stroke of a pen. That seems pretty tight.
     
  10. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Clearly they don't control every facet of your lives though. I only need to look at social spending to see that. They're also never going to dissolve the Assembly randomly tomorrow. Sure they could. But you could of got independance and then been invaded the next day. Plenty of things could happen in theory.
     
  11. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    obviously there's a problem when 8% of the population of the uk can vote to leave the uk. and some people on this very site don't even think that scotland is a part of the country of the uk at all, even though it's been 300 years.

    so yeah, tighter integration is needed. forget devo-max, the uk should be going in the opposite direction and more tightly controlling the goings-on up there.

    don't worry, the usa has it's own "independence" nutters too, but they don't get to vote on it.
     
  13. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    Well 300 years ago a deal was struck, enshrined in an international treaty and ratified by two parliaments that we'd have our own laws and control of the waters off our coast. Westminster is about to ignore the Scottish Parliament and allow fracking in Scotland's national parks and under our homes. And the same will happen in England. Scotland had a chance to do something about that and threw it away.

    The problem is not Scotland or 8% of the population however they voted.

    Here's a nice video on fracking.

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mp4ELXKv-w"]Gasland 2010 - YouTube[/ame]
     
  14. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    Define "social spending"? For the things we have control of, powers that can be taken away by an unchallenged Lords amendment to a bill, are limited within the confines of the block grant. Which is suffering massive real terms cuts. Any knew tax powers Scotland gets will be offset by further reductions in the block grant.

    Almost every welfare benefit provided by the government is still controlled from Westminster. Universal credit is being rolled out in Scotland by Westminster in the same way it's being rolled out in England. We're facing the same cuts as everybody else. And on top of those cuts, jobs are being pulled from Scotland and redistributed in England and Wales.

    http://www.newsnetscotland.scot/ind...ter-unelected-peers-strip-power-from-scotland

    Devolved areas of responsibility.
    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/25488.aspx
     
  15. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Scotland is part of the UK, but it is still a country in it's own right. It has it's own legal system, which is completely sperate from the English one. What the Act of Union did was to get rid of the Scottish parliament and bring Scotland under the administration of Westminster. It didn't make Scotland part of England.

    That would have been theoretically possible a number of years ago, although it would have meant a massive constitutional upheaval, and I don't think that anyone was ever in favour of it back then.

    The idea might appeal to some people right now, in the light of current events, but it simply isn't an option nowadays. The trend of the past few decades has been towards greater independence for Scotland (and Wales too) and you can't simply throw that into reverse on the whim of a minority.

    Even the fiercest political opponents of Scottish independence uphold (or at least concede) the principle that the people of Scotland can decide their own future. So unless the Scots do a complete u-turn and decide that they want less independence rather than more, then greater integration isn't going to happen. Even if the majority of English people wanted it, it wouldn't make any difference. It's up to the Scots.
     

Share This Page