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

Northwind - Member
it absolutely does not mean that English students take places from Scottish.

I was really trying to give an example of how legislation in England [i]could[/i] impact Scotland. Do the other points stand?

I've no idea. You were after examples, and I provided examples of devolved legislation. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point is very relevant to the discussion. Do you think that the Scottish Government would have brought the legislation in if there was no shortfall in welfare from Westminster? Doesn't seem like the Scottish Government has a free choice in the legislation that it is on occassion forced to introduce.

So you're telling me that Scottish MPs didn't get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster, and then English MPs went up to the Scottish parliament and forced them to legislate? Why haven't I heard about this before? Yet more anti-Scottish bias in the press no doubt - what a scandalous abuse of democracy.

Then to rub salt into the wounds, if they decide to bring in a similar Welfare Funds bill in England, which wouldn't apply to Scotland at all, this new EVEL system means that English MPs might veto it before Scottish MPs get to vote on it.

Don't worry aracer. None of those complicated situations will exist to bother you once we're independent. 🙂

EVEL can only apply if a bill is within Holyrood's legislative competence. So it is strictly for things that Westminster cannot pass for Scotland and which Holyrood could.

So you're telling me that Scottish MPs didn't get a vote on that welfare legislation at Westminster,

56 out of 59 MPs voted against it, but it was still forced through.

[i]The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 places the Scottish Welfare Fund into law. The Act provides certainty to stakeholders that local welfare provision will continue in Scotland following the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Act places a duty on local authorities to deliver the welfare funds, in line with regulations and guidance that will be issued by Scottish Ministers. Local authorities have been delivering the fund on an interim basis, under a voluntary agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA, since April 2013....

... [b]The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent on Wednesday 08 April 2015,[/b] becoming the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015. [/i]

So - Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation - in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

Democracy, TZF

Democracy, TZF

Aye right.

So - Nothing whatsoever to do with the recent welfare legislation - in fact its was because the community care funds and crisis loans were stopped and the money got handed direct to the Scottish Government, instead of being distributed to Local Authorities as in England.

You missed my point completely.

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

You keep referring to the people of the Borders voting against whatever. Can you tell me where the Border's borders are and what specifically they voted against?

aracer - Member
As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

A lot happier than the sort of democracy which puts nuclear weapons in our backyard despite an almost total wipeout of the parties that support it in Scotland. 56 out 59 constituencies.

I'd be quite happy to take the nukes out of scotland - Plymouth could do with the employment

Gosh this is hard work.

Scottish Borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Borders
They voted against "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/S12000026

Given that the Scottish Borders does not match up to any constituency boundaries it is impossible to tell if the majority of peope who live there voted no, or not.

What are you on about? I just gave the link to how they voted in the referendum.

The information is also here if you have a problem with the BBC being an anti-Scotland organisation

Aye, but what you're not getting is that what your link calls the Scottish Borders probably isn't what actually is the Scottish Borders.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results[/url]

I might be wrong, but I thing the split by area for the referendum was by region and not constituency boundary. This link shows 66.56% support for the UK in the Borders.

It was split across council boundaries. They dont match the actual boundaries all that closely.

OK, so some region in which votes were collected, which the BBC and the Scottish parliament describe as "Scottish Borders" (all available info suggests they were collected for the council area) voted no to Scottish independence by a significant margin, and most likely will vote no to Scottish independence by a significant margin if (when?) the majority of people in Scotland vote yes - at which point it will have independence imposed on it. You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

Exactly what point are you trying to make here by quibbling about council boundaries?

Exactly what point are you trying to make here by quibbling about council boundaries?

None whatsoever.

and most likely will vote no to Scottish independence by a significant margin if (when?) the majority of people in Scotland vote yes - at which point it will have independence imposed on it. You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

I dont think they'll vote that way. But if they do and they want to leave I'd have no problem with that. You'd need to stop riding the off piste trails all round the Borders though.

[quote=wanmankylung ]None whatsoever.

<sigh> So you're not actually capable of making a rational argument? I won't bother asking you to explain your latest then.

As I wrote earlier, you'll presumably be happy with the sort of democracy which puts the borders in an independent Scotland, despite the majority of the people there voting against it?

It is, and it's the same sort of democracy which some people seem to be complaining about.

So you're not actually capable of making a rational argumen

I am, but you seem so set on accepting that council boundaries are identical to acutal regional boundaries that there's no point arguing with you. They are often different - that's the point I was making. So saying that the Scottish Borders voted against independence is not something that you can claim with 100% conviction as there was no poll of the acutal Scottish Borders region....

You are presumably happy with that sort of democracy.

I think what we are discussing is if its democratic for the elected representatives of one country to impose its will on another country
You thing this is fair and some think its unfair
I dont think anyone thinks that some people wont get what they voted for.

I am, but you seem so set on accepting that council boundaries are identical to acutal regional boundaries that there's no point arguing with you. They are often different - that's the point I was making. So saying that the Scottish Borders voted against independence is not something that you can claim with 100% conviction as there was no poll of the acutal Scottish Borders region....

Does this also mean Glasgow and Dundee cannot lay the claim of being FREEDOM!!! cities as people say?

I think the argument really comes down to whether Scotland (or England) is a country or not. It's an odd inbetween state, so it's not a question that can be answered definitively. If Scotland isn't a country, then it's absolutely reasonable that a smaller part of the UK has to do what the UK majority wants. But Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

Some people are even conflicted in their own heads - thinking that Scotland is politically a region of the UK, but happy to support the Scottish rugby team, for instance.

Some people are even conflicted in their own heads - thinking that Scotland is politically a region of the UK, but happy to support the Scottish rugby team, for instance.

What BS. Conflict? It is nothing of the sort. Typical one dimensional nationalist view.

Oh, I think we're all conflicted to one extent or another - there's so much shared culture it's impossible not to be. I was more replying to Junkyard, re one country imposing its will on another. Even as someone who thinks Scottish independence is a good idea, I don't agree with that viewpoint.

You have to admit, it's strange for one country to have several different national sports teams.

Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

The bailiwicks of the Channel islands and Isle of Man have the same, but we wouldn't suggest they amounted to [i]countries [/i] rather than politically and legally quasi-autonomous crown dependencies.

Exactly my point - we're all in an odd situation, and it's only because we live here that it doesn't seem that odd, but take a step back. We're not in a normal country, we're in a weird hybrid.

The argument about Scottish independence is an argument about where you think Scotland is (or should be) on the sliding scale of nationhood.

You have to admit, it's strange for one country to have several different national sports teams.

It's even stranger for one country to supply 25% of the teams in a 16 team competition.

So what exactly is the Scottish Borders region if it's not the council area? Not that I really care, and not that it makes the slightest difference.

[quote=bencooper ]I think the argument really comes down to whether Scotland (or England) is a country or not. It's an odd inbetween state, so it's not a question that can be answered definitively. If Scotland isn't a country, then it's absolutely reasonable that a smaller part of the UK has to do what the UK majority wants. But Scotland has lots of things a country has - a parliament, a national sports teams, a distinct identity, separate legal, health and education systems.

Thanks for helping to explain my point - the thing is that those "country" things are irrelevant in the context of decisions being made for the UK as a whole. Because in that context Scotland has surrendered any sovereignty it might have to be part of that whole - in that context it is not an independent country. In that context it is simply another region which is no more having things imposed on it than Rutland is. Anything else would be totally impractical and unworkable.

I can understand why some people think that is unsatisfactory, but a majority of people in Scotland appeared to be happy with that arrangement when they were last asked. Given that Scotland is not independent, then it is an argument which is totally irrelevant to EVEL, which is related to devolution as it currently stands (which returns some of that sovereignty).

edit: all written whilst the last few posts were made - I get the feeling we're largely in agreement on the technicalities, Ben, if not on what the correct direction for Scotland to go is.

I agree, its a weird and complex hybrid - but you could say the same about Texas as part of the US as well (or indeed Hawaii or Alaska)

Arguably, its that hybrid that has been our biggest strength as a nation, allowing us to cope with huge change, from the loss of Normandy through to the rise and fall of Empire.

Because in that context Scotland has surrendered any sovereignty it might have to be part of that whole - in that context it is not an independent country.

This is where I agree with you, and where I disagree with Junkyard's suggestion that the problem is one country imposing itself on another.

But, in that spirit of looking at Scotland as a region of the UK, it would make sense to make Scotland one of a number of equally autonomous regions. All 50 US states have equal status, it'd make sense to have a similar system in the UK.

I'm not sure how that can be accomplished when England outnumbers the next largest "nation" 10-1 - but the US manages to have states as large as California and as small as Rhode Island, so it must be possible.

EVEL isn't the answer, though - it's a bodge for short-term political gain.

(cross post with ninfan - similar points, that other countries manage to have states under a federal system)

@Athgray I know several folk who voted no and do wonder about the logic of supporting a Scotland team,and also quite a few on the Yes side who have doubts about ever singing flower of Scotland again particularly at Rugby games.

[quote=bencooper ]EVEL isn't the answer, though - it's a bodge for short-term political gain.

I also agree with you (and a lot of other people on this thread) about that - I'm struggling to think of a worse solution to the WL question. It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I know several folk who voted no and do wonder about the logic of supporting a Scotland team

The answer to that I suppose is who else would they support? It's lot like there was also a UK team in the rugby alongside Scotland.

It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I think the only long term solution is a federal system of government with PR voting. Unfortunately I can't see how that can be achieved.

The trouble is, there aren't any easy solutions to the WL question, which is why I presume it got ignored for so long (that and because in practical terms it rarely makes any real difference - the SNP did have to go and engineer a situation where it became a real issue 🙄 )

I also agree with you (and a lot of other people on this thread) about that - I'm struggling to think of a worse solution to the WL question.

It's a bloody terrible solution.

It's just that some people appear to object to any solution to the WL question.

I just disagree with bloody terrible solutions. A good solution would be regional parliaments within England and a federal system in the UK.

A good solution would be regional parliaments within England and a federal system in the UK.

That's the one solution that would kill Scottish independence. Pity it's never going to happen.

[quote=wanmankylung ]It's a bloody terrible solution.

But not largely for the reasons you appear to object to it.