[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

The film Scotland Yet is now online in full:

Very, very well worth a watch.

What's the Scottish Assembly?

There is a lot of talk on here regarding the HoL in Westminster [a lot of which I agree with i.e Life peers, heredity peers & clergy. My preference would be a wholly elected chamber] but I believe the second chamber is a necessaty. However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?
In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered. e.g. What checks would there be to stop a majority party declaring the country to be a one party state ? Would there not be a need for an elected or otherwise enabled "upper chamber" ?

Not trying to stir up an argument just interested in how the governing of Scotland may/will have to change come independence.

In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered

Is there not a quirk in Westminster that lets the government there do that at the moment?

Either way I assume there would an elected upper house put in place, but tbh it's never really registered on my radar.

Vaguely remembered from history at school The HoL has the power to block / stall legislation for upto 4 yrs (stems from legislation in early 20th C when Lords refused to pass Budget*.).

* Parliament Act 1911 [thanks Wiki !!]

Surely how a truly Independent Government is going to be run should be high on the list of things for the Scot voters to be concerned with, especially considering how the Westminster model has been slated in this discussion.

This is why a proper written constitution is a good thing to have.

Ben I agree with that. Is a written constitution part of the White Paper recommendations ?

Yes - also see here:

www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

konabunny - Member
'Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.'
get a grip, mate, you're being melodramatic. there are few countries in the world in which nationalist separatists could successfully and peacefully execute a lawful campaign to break up the state and for no state harassment to occur.

Don't think I don't appreciate it. If we get independence I'll be the first to subscribe to a bronze statue of that great statesman David Cameron for his part in this.

But don't forget, our side is peaceful too, and that's a major achievement because at one stage there were many who believed we would have to go the Irish way. There's no doubt a few bampots who still think this (our version of EDL?). Salmond and his predecessors should get due credit for culling this sort out of the SNP.

But nothing will convince me that a system with an overlayer of hereditary, appointed, and Anglican clergy who are not subject to the electorate is any way a proper democracy, especially when they are there for life.

If you were starting from scratch, founding a brand new country, what kind of government would you set up?

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists - it's a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Yup, the UK got lucky - being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

Of course Scotland also had a parliament before 1707 - and in fact because of Winnie Ewing's wee bit of mischief when she reopened the Scottish parliament, Scotland's parliament is technically older than Westminster's:

😉

Ben you could look at it as a 1000 yr period of evolution [the optomistic view]. For such a flawed system an awful lot of countries have used the basic template to create their own parliaments.
The (r)UK parliament will change / evolve in time, no established government changes overnight [except by revolution - normally armed !!] The Scots have a chance to use past systems to create an "ideal" government if such a thing exists and for that you are fortunate.

carlossal - Member

However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/committees.aspx

Committees made up of members from all the parties.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/12422.aspx

How it works.

How it works

I'm not surprised that people think it works ok. That's one of the benefits of being an entrenched oligarhy that owns the press. They say it's all good, and the press they own agrees.

If we are to have an upper house to do the checks and balances, then let it be an elected upper house, because then the ultimate system of checks and balances is the ballot box, not some high heid yin.

In a joint statement issued before their press conference, the opposition MSPs said it was the [b][i]first time[/i][/b] the public audit committee had failed to reach a consensus.

Hardly the norm then is it?

Remember that the Scottish Parliament system was based on the electoral system that was supposed to ensure that no single party would have a majority. Therefore the fact that you needed a coalition government would in itself implement a form of checks and balances. Without that then you can end up with a single party state. Which is often what Westminster is accused of. An unelected second chamber can act as a balance because it dies not have to worry about being elected.

The problem with an elected second chamber is take away the primacy of the HoC. See the US for when the two houses, Congress and Senate, compete.

No system is perfect, both the system at Westminster and Edinburgh work and both have their faults.

Was there not an act passed relatively recently (last few years) probably by the Blair government around the time of the Iraq war which made it so that when push came to shove the House of Commons could overrule the House of Lords and prevent them from blocking legislation?

Parliament Act has been around for over a century. Limits the Lords to delaying.

As above - the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it's bills if needed

jota180 - Member
As above - the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it's bills if needed

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Not really, the commons allow the Lords to debate and offer amendments, it's very rare for the commons to invoke the parliament act and force a bill through.

So was it more a case of the house of commons invoking the parliament act before the iraq war?

No

The 1911 Act was used three times before its amendment in 1949.[4] These were:

Welsh Church Act 1914, under which the Welsh part of the Church of England was disestablished in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales.
Government of Ireland Act 1914, which would have established a Home Rule government in Ireland; its implementation was blocked due to the First World War.
Parliament Act 1949, which amended the Parliament Act 1911 (discussed above).
The amended form of the 1911 Act has been used four times.[4] These were:

War Crimes Act 1991, which extended jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War (the only time that the Parliament Acts have been used by a Conservative government).
European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the system of elections to the European Parliament from first past the post to a form of proportional representation.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities with that for heterosexual and female homosexual sexual activities at 16.
Hunting Act 2004, which prohibited hare coursing and (subject to some exceptions) all hunting of wild mammals (particularly foxes) with dogs after early 2005.
The Welsh Church Act and the Government of Ireland Act were both given Royal Assent[37] on the same day as the Suspensory Act 1914, which meant that neither would come into force until after World War I.[38]

More rats leaving the sinking ship today. Only Alex Bell (Edinburgh agreement anyone) now seeking to cover his reputation

He adds: ‘The fact that Scotland will not have her own currency is a significant restriction on what she can do. The referendum asks ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ but what the White Paper describes is arguably not independence, because of the currency union.’

Is anyone still behind the DO or have they now seen sense just at the last minute?

26 days until we find out...

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists - it's a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

Yup, the UK got lucky - being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

are you a religious man, Ben?

Um, no?

the UK is not an island.

I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen maps and everything.

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

Yes, abundant coal and mineral reserves close to the surface were essential for the industrial revolution.

Thanks Nigel.

That will convince a few more switherers... 🙂

[img] [/img]

"Project feart" again I see. 😉

Imagine a government with Nigel and Boris in the cabinet. The chance of that happening, no matter if only slight for now, should be enough for anyone to vote Yes.

I'm sorry about this, but I do have to ask the question... If the Scots vote for independence, next month, will I need a passport to go up to Islay and Jura in October? Only my wife's has expired and getting a new one is proving a long-winded process.

Yes, of course you will. How else will you get past the security kiosks, sniper towers and barbed wire fences?

More Nigel farage, that's what we need. He should visit Scotland again in the next few weeks! 😆

bencooper - Member

the UK is not an island.
I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen maps and everything.

rene59 - Member
Yes, of course you will. How else will you get past the security kiosks, sniper towers and barbed wire fences?

Sniper towers you say? I'm a decent shot, will there be jobs going after Nige and Boris have gifted you your freedom then?

Here's a strange thought.
My English friend who lives near Elgin & who has made her life in Scotland is going to vote NO, along with all her friends apparently.
The strange point she makes, is that whilst many of them actually like the idea of Independence they are so distrustful of Mr Salmond that they will not vote for iScotland.
I wonder, is Mr Salmond actually a liability for the Independence movement?

muddydwarf - Member
Here's a strange thought.
My English friend who lives near Elgin & who has made her life in Scotland is going to vote NO, along with all her friends apparently.
The strange point she makes, is that whilst many of them actually like the idea of Independence they are so distrustful of Mr Salmond that they will not vote for iScotland.
I wonder, is Mr Salmond actually a liability for the Independence movement?

Fair enough, it did seem strange to support the idea of independence yet turn it down because of Mr Salmond - although he does come across as particularly slimy and untrustworthy even amongst the current crop of politicians.

although he does come across as particularly slimy and untrustworthy even amongst the current crop of politicians.

You sure about that?

[img] [/img]

Elections and the like are always about personalities

Salmond has consistently tried to get CMD to debate with him, refusing to debate with anyone else at one point.
Why should it matter who he debates with if the person is unimportant?

bencooper - Member

the UK is not an island.

I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen maps and everything.

I ask if you're a religious man because you seem very skeptical of evolution. you probably wouldn't design a human body in the way Homo sapiens is now if you were starting afresh (appendices ffs!) but they've evolved to be a fairly decent machine. and in the same way with the UK and its constitutional arrangements...

in any case, to those who are fans of written constitutions per se - why in practice?

does anyone know who a written constitution would interact with Scottish law? does anyone understand Scottish law for that matter? do judge-made precedent and common law evolution even exist in some way within the system? I'm completely ignorant...

FWIW,any polling shows Alex Salmond to be the most trusted of any party leaders , even amongst non-SNP voters. The press has run a non-stop campaign against him so it's hardly surprising that you might think the opposite.

A no vote will be quite boring! A yes vote will be fascinating, will Scotland join the EU, what will their currency be? Was no to CU just a bargaining position? Will AS lies and bluster unravel into a mess, or will he pull it off! Which economist was right? Who will be able to say 'I told you so' on this thread!! A yes vote will be so much fun 🙂