Bollocks. The SNP wouldn't command that much power, and even if they did, scuppering the UK economy will only harm Scotland, not help it. Other things like scrapping Trident would free up a huge amount of cash for spending on Welfare etc which the other parties seem so keen to curb.
Easy now, no need for the language. Lets try & be adult.
I agree with you to an extent, however the markets didn't....when the referendum was taking place the concern could definitely be felt.
Whatnobeer - I would be happy(ish) with a fully federal system.
England has not had the govt it voted for remember? Scotland voted for Labour more than England over the last two parliaments so dont give that lazy line out. Scotland now ALWAYS gets the govt it votes for yet still expects to influence areas of English policy .
ernie_lynch - Member
Well it wouldn't be a proper fix if there was one parliament for England. The population of London is greater than the population of Scotland. 53 million people deserve regional parliaments.
That depends. Do people in England generally identify most strongly with an overall English identity, or with their regional identities? A federal system would have to reflect that sense of identity. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are devolved entities not because of their population sizes but because of how their citizens identify themselves.
A decent federal solution wouldn't be an easy thing to achieve but I feel it would be the right thing to achieve. Its structure would need to balance the differing sizes of the member populations. As I understand it that's part of why the US federal government has a senate with 2 senators per state and a house of representatives where congressmen are apportioned according to each state's population. Granted the approximately 10:1 population ratio between England and the other countries in the UK make it a harder square to circle but again, I think it's worth working out.
Plus it should be within England's rights to further devolve powers to its regions if it wants to. 🙂
North wind - I'm saying that perception is more dangerous than reality. And that its not about SNP, its about any Scots MP's.
Fix the solution and let it be known and it would hopefully solve the problem.
however the markets didn't....when the referendum was taking place the concern could definitely be felt.
I think you'll find that the concern was the effect of a separate Scotland, not whether the SNP were in government.
Anyway since when has it been up to the markets to dictate who should have political power ?
If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.
If you struggle with that concept you haven't got to grips with what democracy means.
The really odd thing in all of this is watching the 2 big unionist parties putting so much effort into doing the greatest possible damage to the union, while the SNP are offering an option that could actually strengthen it and being rebuffed.
No really 😉
If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.
Right may be, ability not. Politics may succeed in the ST but economics and reality prevail in the end. Dilma is the latest proof
Anyway Bolly, Montrachet and Fluerie inhibits any more, good night.
muddydwarf - Member
... and we now have a political grouping coming to Westminster that are willing to abuse the anomalies for their own political ends and the English electorate can do nothing about that...
Let's see, over democratically elected 500 MPs in Westminster, and of those maybe 40 SNP MPs, and you're saying that the SNP are abusing the system.
There's nothing to stop the English MPs overpowering the Scottish MPs with weight of numbers any time they like.
The simplest answer is for you to get on the blower to your MP and tell them to expel the Scots from the Union because they are unfairly using democracy against England.
I'm sure we in Scotland would quietly accept our fate.
A federal system would have to reflect that sense of identity.
Not at all. Most western democracies operate some form of federal system, do you think the states in the US or Australia for example are based on a sense of identity? London is the only English region to have some vague form of devolved power, do you think this is because it reflects a sense of identity?
That's a reasonable argument muddydwarf but it's not the argument being made by the political parties or the national press, so probably drifting off the point.
There's only one counterargument against a good evel law, which is making the case for proper english devolution and the removal of regional matters from the national parliament. And that's a longer term project, so it's entirely reasonable to build a stopgap.
But there's lots of arguments against a bad evel law and that's where we are right now- with the government proposing a bad law then feigning outrage when people point out its faults.
And just to loop it back- I think I'm right to say that Sturgeon has said only that the SNP would vote on devolved matters where there's still an impact on Scotland, which makes it an entirely moot point.
And I am definitely right to say that David Cameron says that SNP MPs shouldn't be allowed into the government of our country, full stop. It's not an evel issue.
But Cameron is an idiot playing to the idiot gallery.
No one reasonable really thinks Scots MP's shouldn't play a role in the direction of the UK - its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland.
If devolved powers are the sole right of the Scottish Parliament then the very same should be true for England. Until that happens you are going to see a rising anger about the SNP meddling in English affairs.
its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland.
Scottish MP's are elected to the same Parliament as everyone else, so you can't say their unelected. And as far as Westminster is concerned, there's no such thing as 'English' matters. If England wants to sort this out they need to ask for the same situation as the other 3 nations have - their own Parliament. As long as Westminster is the seat of the UK government anyone is it should be entitled to vote on anything that comes before it.
Cameron is an idiot playing to the idiot gallery.
Fully agree with this though :p
I think you'll find that the concern was the effect of a separate Scotland, not whether the SNP were in government.Anyway since when has it been up to the markets to dictate who should have political power ?
If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.
If you struggle with that concept you haven't got to grips with what democracy means.
How unbelievably patronising......you are usually far less so & worth reading/the better for it!
In your first & second line you are correct, but don't think for a second that govt doesn't get concerned when the economy gets the jitters over a political decision. That's just being naive.
That's just being naive.
How patronising, I would have expected better from someone who just accused someone else of being patronising.
In your first & second line you are correct
Oh thank you.
It shouldn't be surprising that the UK GE thread has morphed into [u]another[/u] Scotland indie debate !
No it shouldn't be considering what an issue the Tories have made of the SNP. I've just heard Cameron on the telly being interviewed declaring that the SNP wants to destroy the country - indeed they don't want it to exist!
BBC up to its usual tricks - Spot the subliminal message
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
kimbers - Member
It shouldn't be surprising that the UK GE thread has morphed into another Scotland indie debate !
The hysterical tantrums from the leaders of the Labour and Tory party about the dangers of 40 Scottish MPs holding a poor cowering 400+ English MPs to ransom has made it so.
Basically they do not want Scottish representation in their "English" parliament, so yeah, thats worth a mention.
Indeed, and this is a good thing for the rest of the UK too - without the SNP, would the Greens and PC have been in the debates? The original proposals were for the 3 main parties plus UKIP. Without the SNP's huge rise, there would have probably been no-one on TV who wasn't a wealthy white man in a suit, calling for more austerity.
So its ok that policy over affairs that are not the responsibility of Westminster in Scotland can be proposed/affected/implemented by MP's whose constituencies are not affected by those policies?
Let us then dissolve the Scottish Parliament if all MP's are to be equal.
Why is it so hard to understand why English voters are feeling upset about this? For me its immaterial what party those MP's represent as it is a principle of unfairness. For others its that they do not trust the SNP, the anti Westminster rhetoric during indyref was widely seen as being anti English (whether it was seen like that from Scotland matters not) and many simply do not trust the SNP to have any interest in working for the good of the UK.
The idea of a veto for English MP's is a sticking plaster, the HoC should become (again) the English Parliament & we create a Federal Parliament in the Lords.
its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland
Are you arguing that for the last 5 years that Scotland has had the govt they elected and not had one imposed on them be voters outside Scotland? Been plenty of imposition the other way round since the last war. I thought this was all part of the wonderful union....better together aren't we?
Its interesting to note the unionists are less keen on this principle[ including the Tories ] when the shoe is on the other foot and Scotlands tail wags the rUk dog and its only fair when they are doing the "undemocratic" bit.
Pleased you are coming round to seeing the weakness of a union though
As for EVEL if they want it get your own parliament Dont use westminster for this task. Its the same manner as which england play the UK national anthem ..it has to be separate and "english" not the UK one.
If the english want devolution let them have it I say
The hysterical tantrums from the leaders of the Labour and Tory party about the dangers of 40 Scottish MPs holding a poor cowering 400+ English MPs to ransom has made it so
Indeed portraying the elected representatives of Scotland as dangerous and excluding them from the processes within the Union is hardly the best way to sell the benefits of the Union to the Scottish people.
Stay in the union and get who we give you says rUIK...PS we are better together and we love you.
[img] 
?oh=3682450bbb0d2cdc32c6baa0ff9e7d9e&oe=55C47EF3[/img]
From the Guardian:
...Never mind that in the union there’s no such thing as England-only legislation, because the money financing it is supplied by the UK as a whole. Never mind? These are insurmountable difficulties.If England wants England-only votes, then it’s going to have to have an England-only electoral mandate. At the moment, only Scotland appears to understand this....
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/scotland-is-sending-a-curveball-not-just-labour-it-will-hit ]The whole article.[/url]
This UK really needs properly devolved governments in each part if it is to survive. The question is why aren't the English doing something about getting it in their own country?
May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?
Why should Westminster be left out of it? It was the seat of the English Parliament for centuries.
BTW - I'm not a Unionist as I was really hoping for a yes vote to avoid all this.
EDIT: I am of the opinion that the Union should not survive, at least in its current form.
It's not just the election campaign. Since the morning after the referendum, When he stood on the Downing Street steps, Dave has used the Scottish 'issue' as the most cynical, nasty and divisive piece of party political opportunism I have ever seen.
It's absolutely disgusting what he, and his friends in the right wing press are doing! It's deliberately stoking up petty nationalism for his own narrow political ends.
And if anyone can give me any of examples where that's ever ended well, I'm all ears....
muddydwarf - Member
May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?...
Because we believe that in a democracy you don't have to get the govt that the political donors paid for.
Have told us that they will not engage with our chosen representatives
No they haven't!
In fact Andy Burnham couldn't have been much clearer in saying that 'of course' there would be dialogue with the SNP, but that there was no possibility of coalition or deals with thrm.
ninfan - Member
...In fact Andy Burnham couldn't have been much clearer in saying that 'of course' there would be dialogue with the SNP, but that there was no possibility of coalition or deals with thrm.
Is he leader of the Labour party yet?
Or is this yet another bit of deniable enticement? (eg like "The Vow" or Brown's "pledge")
Because we believe that in a democracy you don't have to get the govt that the political donors paid for.
Aaah hahaha!
Cos of course, the Scots are pure and honorable and would never stoop, unlike those despicable English..
Can you point to an example of any of the parties saying they would not engage with the SNP?
And that poster - wtf? No representation? You've got as much representation as I've had for five years.. Unless you think snp mps will be denied a vote?
Should everywhere that doesn't return an mp from the governing party leave the union? You don't seem to understand how this works. Even without a deal your snp mps will still vote either yes or no in any given vote. How is that not representation the same as everyone else?
May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?
Christ not this again
In england the combined votes of the tories and the lib dems was a majority of all both the popular vote and MP's. In scotland it was still less than Labour in terms of the vote and seats. Tories and Lib dems could not rule in Scotland if it were independent they would in England. If you think these are the same its only because you want to refuse to engage on the issue.
PS why are you objecting to no one getting the govt they voted for but it having the SNP in it
Can you point to an example of any of the parties saying they would not engage with the SNP?
I know its so tiresome listenign to them all saying how much they are looking forward to forming a govt with them , engaging with them and working together as together we are better. Its been nauseating tbh .....sometimes your "points" are just ludicrous. That is one of the more ludicrous ones
Why should Westminster be left out of it? It was the seat of the English Parliament for centuries.
What ?Are you asking why the same MPs and the same place cannot be used for both the UK parliament and England? Do you know what devolved means?
BTW - I'm not a Unionist as I was really hoping for a yes vote to avoid all this.
We all recall how much love you have for the Scots
The main point here is that the unionist parties are doing the SNP's work for them. All the SNP have to do is continue portraying themselves as the good guys, willing to work for the good of the UK, while the other parties continue to portray the SNP (and by implication - rightly or wrongly - the Scots as a whole) as the forces of evil that must be opposed at all costs.
For the Tories it's a reasonable approach as they've already been comprehensively rejected in Scotland so pandering to the xenophobes in their party (who maybe see Scotland as one of the few remaining corners of the English empire) has no downside for them. Labour are in a more complicated situation as no-one is yet clear whether the rejection of them in Scotland is a permanent thing (i.e. as it has been in the last few Scottish elections) or whether there might be a swing back in the next week or even in the next few years. Labour also need Scottish seats in a way that the Tories don't.
Junkie - I was referring to the physical place called the Palace of Westminster, not the political entity.
As for Scotland, I simply feel we would be better off apart & that then both Nations could have a grown up dialogue. It certainly isn't happening now is it?
I love how if Scots want an end to the Union they are progressive forward looking citizens & if English people want an end to the Union they are xenophobic inwards looking bigots.
Imagine a scenario.
Every constituency in Scotland votes for a SNP MP.
The Tories get an overall majority and get in power.
People's shit will flip
yourguitarhero - the more Daves ramp up this ridiculous, small-minded and nasty English nationalism, the more likely that scenario becomes. As even many senior Tories have pointed out, this is a very very dangerous game that Dave is playing
And in typical fashion, its all for his own incredibly cynical, short term political gain, without even caring what the long term implications are for us all as a country.
It seems that Dave's survival as PM and Tory leader means anything is a price worth paying.
Coming out of Europe? The break up of the UK? All fair game to be laid at the alter of his monumental arrogance, and hideous sense of entitlement
It's interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.
One of their key election pledges is "anti-austerity" and they also make ludicrous claims about English NHS spending impacting on the Scottish NHS.
The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved and has been heading towards crisis for the last 4 years - the SNP say it needs more money but aside from chump change have not actually funded it.
The Scottish Parliament (controlled by the SNP) already has powers to increase tax by up to 3p via the variable levy but has never done so.
So basically the SNP are "for" additional public spending, complain about current funding (despite Scotland already receiving significantly higher captitated payments for public services than the rest of the uk), have the powers to raise tax but have never used them.
It's difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven't used them.
just5minutes - Member
...It's difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven't used them.
eh? Utter bovine exhaust.
What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.
What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.
The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven't they done it?
Claiming that the Scots are "subsidising" England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.
From Channel 4 Fact Check:
Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.
What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.
Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called "identifiable" public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.
On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.
just5minutes - Member
The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven't they done it?
Because they can't. It's a catch-22 setup.
Claiming that the Scots are "subsidising" England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.
Read the tax per head produced versus tax per head spent anytime in the last 30 odd years. Or even back in the Imperial days
3 times in the last 15 years
[url= http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html?m=1 ]FFA analysis[/url]
mefty - Member
3 times in the last 15 yearsFFA analysis
Mmm, does that allow for the taxes currently being paid by companies HQed in England but operating in Scotland? Those taxes would then be paid in Scotland.
The assumptions seem to include Scotland continuing the same path as England.
It probably illustrates why it should be full independence rather than FFA so we're not tied to UK spending habits such as imperial delusions.
Based on Scottish Government figures which use the following methodology
GERS apportions a share of UK corporation tax revenues based on the economic activity undertaken in Scotland and not the location of companies’ headquarters. Public corporations’ and North Sea corporation tax revenues are excluded from the analysis and are apportioned to Scotland separately.
So yes
On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.
Just going to jump on this - yes, there's a difference. It's because the UK borrows money, and spends it. Some of that money is spent in Scotland. So it's not a subsidy at all, it's our share of UK borrowing that the Westminster government borrows on our behalf.
If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.
If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.
Nope - look at your own government's numbers they are all in [url= http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html?m=1 ]here[/url]
Imagine a scenario. Every constituency in Scotland votes for a SNP MP. The Tories get an overall majority and get in power. People's shit will flip]
And the Scots [i]still[/i] get to play the victim card because they didn't get the government they voted for 😆
