[Closed] England declares UDI and dissolves the Act of Union

teamhurtmore - Member
...its not more devolved government that we need, but less government interference altogether. These people are incorrigible....

Good to see we agree on that.

We will achieve it by getting rid of Westminster, and the House of Lords, thereby reducing the number of layers of government in Scotland. 🙂

Yes and then NHS Scotland will be truly saved - everyone's a winner!

But look on the bright side - the audit Scotland report on NHS gets demoted even further from view and you can stir up some angst at the same time. Phew....silver lining and all that.

I think we can safely say that you are pretty much an anarchist, thm, I'd be correct there? No state and let the corporations run riot is your vision?

But look on the bright side - the audit Scotland report on NHS gets demoted even further from view and you can stir up some angst at the same time.

The report says that the NHS in Scotland needs more money - well, yes, of course. Health services around the World face the same problems because of the ageing population, and the Scottish Government has less money to play with. Is any of that a surprise?

Well no, because Scottish MPs still get a vote. That's democracy, not imposition - we've done this argument enough times before haven't we?

Right - a minimum of 56 Scottish MPs will vote against them. We would still have them emposed on us despite this.

No Joe - I don't go that far!! But on that old 4x4 matrix that someone posted put me as a LW libertarian - so the ultimate extension of that is an anarchist 😉

Ben, no, but they should be clear I how they are responding. But the x% increase (pls remind me) is private provision is not privatisation (?) as in RUK is it 😉

Nah THM just wants to be part of greater China. Meantime here's the reuters take on EVEL [url= http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0SG25720151022?irpc=932 ]Strident Headline not matched by content of article [/url]

Second class status is about as accurate as a currency is an asset - sounds plausible, but simply not true

The reality (a veto) seems quite watered down in the end - frankly, there will be a fairly small number of issues that qualify anyway - still enjoy the hyperbole while it lasts

But the x% increase (pls remind me) is private provision is not privatisation (?) as in RUK is it

I'm guessing the first "is" is mean to be an "in"?

Yes, there's an increase in temporary staff. The NHS in both England and Scotland is having more and more problems retaining staff (you only have to read this [url= http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/oct/22/nhs-doctor-surgeon-junior-contract-quit-job-stress-family-children ]really sad article[/url] from England to see why), so spending on temporary staff has gone up by 15%.

But that leaves Scotland still with a much smaller spend on private provision than England - and there's still that fundamental difference that it's individual locums being hired on a piecemeal basis when needed, not handing entire sectors of the NHS over to private companies.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think the placing of them in Scotland is a Scottish only issue

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

Can you give me an example - you cannot due to the numbers - where the Scottish can impose similarly in england?

Well that's democracy for you. In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

What makes you think that Faslane is strategically the best place for them?

What makes you think I have any idea?

NO, that bit's right - Faslane is geographically the only practical location for them. Milford Haven might work if it wasn't already a big oil terminal.

@Ben: Windscale, perhaps, no-one wants to go there anyway.

Windscale isn't a deep water port.

but I still found it amusing the insistence of non English MPs that they had to have a say on issues which are devolved, rather than just complaining about the mess.

Scottish MPs are perfectly within their rights to have a say - Westminster is the UK parliament.

Well that's democracy for you. In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Thanks for the argument in favour of EVEL 😉

If it's the best place to put them in the UK, then no, it's not.

TBH I have no idea if you are trolling[ EDIT:post above removes doubt] here but you are argument amounts to it ok to impose stuff on people against the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people and the wishes of the people as that is democracy. Ar eyou china in disguise?

Its not that convincing as any democracy will represent the wishes of the people rather than let another devolved country decide for them what happens there

In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Can you give me an example - you cannot due to the numbers - where the Scottish can impose similarly in england?

All MPs/countries are equal except some countries/MP's who are more equal than others

Not a great day for the union or democracy IMHO.
It still needs a solution but this is it.

Thanks for the argument in favour of EVEL

It's more an argument in favour of an English parliament, and a federal government.

[quote=Junkyard ]TBH I have no idea if you are trolling[ EDIT:post above removes doubt] here but you are argument amounts to it ok to impose stuff on people against the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people and the wishes of the people as that is democracy.

No I'm not, not on that point. The democratically elected representatives of the people of the UK in the UK parliament, representing the wishes of the UK people have agreed that we will have nuclear weapons and that they will be located in the best location for them in the UK. That is democracy. Democracy is not a charter for NIMBYs.

Its not that convincing as any democracy will represent the wishes of the people rather than let another devolved country decide for them what happens there

It isn't another devolved country making the decision, it's the UK, which Scotland is a part of. I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand.

In a similar way in Scotland, the Highlands will have stuff "imposed" on it which is good for the central belt, but bad for the highlands.

Fascinating sidestep to my actual question

Not a sidestep at all - I'd already answered the question, no, because democracy. You might not like the way democracy works, but that is the way democracy works.

I doubt a different analogy will help, but here goes anyway: In a similar way the Scottish Highlands don't get to "impose" things on the central belt.

Quite clearly a nuclear deterrent is an issue for the whole of the UK, so it is correct that decisions are made on it on a whole UK basis and not devolved. There really are far better arguments to be made about devolved powers - any chance we can move on from this?

What has happened with EVEL is that some people in the UK have been prevented from having any say in legislation that might affect them. Meantime other people will continue to have legislation made in the same parliament as before. Decisions about which legislation is to be decided by which representatives will be made by the speaker and 2 mps from the same parliament that's hardly bringing decision making closer to the communities affected (edit)

I reluctantly find myself agreeing with aracer here. The UK parliament wants to keep nuclear weapons, there's only really one practical location for them in the UK, so they have to go on the Clyde. Scotland had a chance to remove the UK parliament's influence in this matter, and we decided for the moment not to.

The arguments against nuclear weapons are many, but this isn't one of them.

Again your "democracy " has only one country able to impose its will on another country against that people and that countries wishes.

There is no way that this can be called democracy.

I am not sure you can accuse an entire country of MIMBYism tbh and being anti Nukes is not really NIMBYISM - they are saying no nukes not no nukes here Big difference.

Anyway done this to death its still a shit solution to a difficult issue

[quote=gordimhor ]What has happened with EVEL is that some people in the UK have been prevented from having any say in legislation that might affect them.

This is a straw man. If it affects the whole of the UK - even if that is just due to Barnett - it won't come under EVEL, as it will only be for issues which are already devolved. The overall NHS budget for example isn't a devolved thing, so won't come under EVEL. Or do you think there are no England only issues?

So you think there wont ever be an issue where scottish MPs and English Mps disagree over whether they have a say then aracer 😯

what about heathrow - is where we have the national airport a London thing an england thing or a UK thing?

HS2 - scotland still contributing etc

Poor [english MP speaker*] - hence why it was better to have a devolved parliament

* could they have a Scottish one seeing as the speaker has the casting vote - genuine question that one - I assume aracer will tell me only an english speaker is democracy in action again 😛

The overall NHS budget for example isn't a devolved thing, so won't come under EVEL.

Are you 100% sure on that given that NHS Scotland is a different body.

No I am clear that there are England only issues and that those should be decided by England's mps. My concern is that the speaker and 2 other mps decide what are England only issues.

Have we done the time when Chris Grayling accidentally said that Scotland would be an England-and-Wales-only issue?

[img] [/img]

😀

Faslane is an excellent place for our submarines, deep,water access direct to the North Atlantic.

It's as funny as hell how the SNP seem to think devolution is only for them (and the Welsh) and not for the English. I never trusted the SNPs statement they would not vote on English matters and the fox hunting issue saw them renege on that within a very short time. So let's put it into law Scottish MPs cannot vote on English only matters. I absolutely support that and just like the referendum was Scots business this is England's business.

Second class status is about as accurate as a currency is an asset - sounds plausible, but simply not true

Scotland has the worlds most devolved parliament but like a spilt child it's never enough for the SNP, a one issue party

[quote=Junkyard ]* could they have a Scottish one seeing as the speaker has the casting vote - genuine question that one - I assume aracer will tell me only an english speaker is democracy in action again

I can't see any reason why not, given that the decision on which things come under EVEL is quite clearly a whole UK thing, in the same way decisions on devolving powers are. It really shouldn't be that hard to select which issues it applies to, as a basic rule is that it only applies to those things which are already fully devolved.

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence, the borders regions will have it imposed on them despite them voting against independence?

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence, the borders regions will have it imposed on them despite them voting against independence?

The Borders has SNP MPs.

No I am clear that there are England only issues and that those should be decided by England's mps.

There's no particular reason why that should be so, given there's no English parliament. You may as well argue that MPs should only be able to vote on issues that affect their constituency.

dissolves the Act of Union

it's as funny as hell how the SNP seem to think devolution is only for them (and the Welsh) and not for the English

Scotland has the worlds most devolved parliament

Source please mr 100%

[quote=wanmankylung ]The Borders has SNP MPs.

In the same way the vast majority of Scotland has SNP MPs despite voting against independence? I suggest you check the referendum results for that region...

And while he is at it,could he please explain how this undermines the SNP,as he suggested on page one. He should feel free to cite various high up sources/connections he is privvy to. Mind you,since he is the only person in the UK that thinks Alistair Charmichael is innocent/a British patriot,and Alex Salmond is corrupt for donating a large part of his salary to charity;I won't hold my breath for anything logical.

I'm assuming you're happy with the sort of democracy where if (when?) Scotland ever vote for independence

*It either that or we can go all the way to passport to [s]Pimlico.[/s] pittodrie

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding over how these new provisions will operate, they only give English MPs the power of veto over English matters. They can't introduce new law. In addition, the whole house will still vote on the third reading so Scottish MPs can still vote against English only laws at this stage. What it essentially does is stop a government from passing an "english" law which the majority of English MPs are against - i.e a both and test - no more than that i.e. it fixes situations like the tuition fees issue under Labour where they only got a law which would not apply in Scotland passed with the votes of Scottish MPs.

JY Scotland contributes less than it receives so your HS2 point is irrelevant. Heathrow airport expansion is an English issue. Locals in Faslane are for fhe base.

Scotland is a country of 5m people and its deeply divided about independence and many other issues. If you have 2 people you'lll ha e a disagreement about issues. At 60m people the UK is a medium sized country, there are plenty of much larger democracies and that's before we get onto how the EU works

JY Scotland contributes less than it receives

Wrong - Scotlasnd contributes a slightly higher percentage of tax take than it receives in funding.

We can agree to disagree @ben, Scotland is relatively poor in UK terms and contributes less to the UK vs what it receives than does London alone

So, seeing as most of the complaints seem to come out of the risk that a decision taken in England might affect Scotland through the the Barnett formula, I reckon we all know what comes next don't we 😈

@jambaytrolathonman its ironic that yet once more your post, which ignored your factual inaccuracies was indeed factually inaccurate.
😆
[b]SOURCE PLEASE[/b]

The gift that keeps on giving.
re tax:
Or to put it another way, for every person in Scotland last year, the exchequer received £800 more than the UK average.*
9.1% of the tax 8.3 % of Uk population

Indeed you can agree to disagree with Ben and the actual facts as basically its what you do - form an opinion at odds with reality and then continue to spout it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267
* assumes oil in Scotlands international territory is Scotlands

Oh PLEASE NO. NOT AGAIN.