Scotland a second chamber? I thought one toilet was enough.

Ben, have you listened to the debates between Sturgeon and Lamont? Have you watched how AS’s credibility has been picked apart consistently as his BS has been exposed? And these are the people that you believe will represent your interests better domestically and internationally? It’s embarrassing for a proud nation. There seems to be the perverse logic that we don’t mind sh*t as long as it is our own brand of sh*t, conveniently forgetting that having a saltire on the label doesn’t stop it being sh*t.

It takes a remarkable brand of MSP to not only make Osbourne, Darling, Alexander, Brown and co look political heavyweights and intellectually robust but also to unite them with the Europeans, US and Chinese. At least there will be a entry in the Guinness Book of Records to console wee eck if not the power he craves.

To add a bit of balance to the discussion just as Ben thinks the Westminster system needs breaking I personally think the Holyrood system needs breaking. It is a complete waste of money and another worthless layer of bureaucracy. Ben keeps saying that the Westminster system is broke but it was that system that created a Scottish parliament. The SNP have given nothing to Scotland in comparison.

You’re praising the SNP by saying it has given Scotland nothing comparable to broken, worthless, money wasting, bureaucratic devolution that Westminster gave Scotland. I’m not sure that’s what you meant. 😉

A good point is made above about a second (revisory) chamber, although electing them would likely weaken the quality by making it another popularity competition – I’m minded of the words of Baroness Trumpington about serving in the House of Lords::

“You learn so much about this country, one way or another there is somebody who really knows what they are talking about, and really knows a situation, you’ve always got somebody who’s got practical experience, and you’re a fool if you argue ignorantly against them, as some do”

you can say the same about this place but i dont think we should all get a place in the chamber for ever and then pass it on to our kids for ever.

Its unfair, anachronistic and it is undemocratic.
It needed replacing 150 years ago never mind today.

Its unfair, anachronistic and it is undemocratic

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking – you can’t accuse it if being undemocratic when the will of the elected chamber has the final say, and can inflict its own will – it would be far more undemocratic and anachronistic if you had an elected second chamber, since if the two chambers were at loggerheads, both would have a valid democratic mandate to uphold.

I’m minded of the words of Baroness Trumpington …

You can’t expect anyone to take seriously anything said by someone who goes by the name of “Baroness Trumpington”.

Surely “Baroness Trumpington” is a pantomime/Whitehall Farce/Private Eye/Ealing Comedy type joke name ?

it would be far more undemocratic if you had an elected second chamber

Yes it would be terrible for democracy if we picked the folk involved in it.

As for no power they ar ein the govt so some of them do have power and the other place does have some power

I have no idea what the radical free market view is but no one can think the current set up is good, fair , democratic etc.

it would be far more undemocratic and anachronistic if you had an elected second chamber, since if the two chambers were at loggerheads, both would have a valid democratic mandate to uphold.

So if two elected chambers are more undemocratic, then surely no elected chambers would be the most democratic? The best democracy is a dictatorship?

It’s amazing so many other democracies manage without an unelected upper house.

does any other country have an unelected one?
genuine Q as i cannot think of one tbh.

Canada

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

Yes it would be terrible for democracy if we picked the folk involved in it.

That’s not what Z-11 is saying, as you well know. He makes the point that it would in his opinion be detrimental to democracy to have two chambers with equal power and mandates, and he points out that at the present the Upper House has no significant power.

It is a perfectly valid point although I disagree with his support for the status quo. The House of Lords is not a serious issue but along with the monarchy it clearly has no place in a democracy. When we eventually get an advanced democratic society such institutions will by definition need to be scrapped.

In the meantime the separatists are using the completely non-issue of the House of Lords in a desperate attempt to try to provide some sort of barrel scraping argument in favour of ‘independence’. While simultaneously embracing the monarchy. Go figure. The term “all over the place” doesn’t do the situation justice.

The ironic thing is that the hereditary peers are the only elected representatives in the House of Lords.

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

What does that mean?

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

What does that mean?

If you can’t figure that out are you sure you’ll be able to manage this one :

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

or will you be asking “what does that mean” ?

Ninfan

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament,by amending a bill. the amendment was not debated in the commons and there was no consultation with the Scottish Government
click here or google Lords axe holyrood power over renewables

And despite the lack of power and the oddities of construction (that have evolved rather than being some kimd of “divine creation”) the thing that critics have to overcome is that it actually works pretty/very well despite the obvious shortcomings.

Try to image modern politicians designing something that worked half as well?!?

Baroness Trumpington, FTW

Anyway, latest poll I know of was 100% yes. Ok, that took being out for a run on the local hill. And a couple of random Yes voters out with a Yes Saltire taking a photo on top of the hill. And nobody else being there.

I didn’t conduct a poll when having a mooch around a Better Together campaign headquarters the other day. Although I could hazard a guess. Sorry, I didn’t have the means for subterfuge or sabotage at the time. That and I wanted a piece of cake so I kept it polite.

Science Facts all that.

Anyway ya miserable bawbags, more poll fun. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/#ptlink.fid=14377&isc=1&did=bookmark.2bf6e55d5596dc10ef930deec24c71ae23619089&ctp=article

It might be interesting/tosh/irritating/etc (delete as you deem appropriate)

The cake was ok, 7 out of 10. Technically 6 but I was hungry.

If you can’t figure that out are you sure you’ll be able to manage this one :

I’m assuming you mean that Canada would be better to live in than the USA. As a US citizen, I’d perhaps disagree with that general statement, and point out that both countries are very large and varied, and living in, say, Vermont is quite different to living in Texas. But of course the US has a federal system which means that states have quite a bit of power over their own affairs, and it’s quite nicely balanced – Washington DC doesn’t totally dominate the country politically and financially the way London does.

Of course today is the day we celebrate telling the king, Your highness, we beseech you this day in Philadelphia to bite me, if you please.

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament

We did this many pages ago gordimor. The Lords did not remove the power. They proposed an amendment to a Bill which was accepted by the Commons (which could have rejected it). The Lords cannot pass legislation, only delay it for review or suggest amendments to it.

If the Lords have no power, why do we see so many billionaires making huge political donations to curry favour with the parties so that they get nominated for the House of Lords?

They’re not doing it for the £300 a day…

Oldbloke – come now, we mustn’t let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of things!

Ben – its easy to say that the states have power, but what happens when two elected legislative branches can’t agree! The examples are clear – government shutdown, Obamacare – the US system is broken.

And just for you on this special day:

@ninfan – nice 🙂 (interesting that the US had a civil war to force a union)

But of course the US has a federal system which means that states have quite a bit of power over their own affairs, and it’s quite nicely balanced – Washington DC doesn’t totally dominate the country politically and financially the way London does.

Yes true to a degree but IMO it’s about scale. Its a country of 300+m people with huge regional differences (I would argue greater than the UK’s). The fact is whilst the states have a decent amount of power the US is more like devo-max than Scottish independence.

the thing that critics have to overcome is that it actually works pretty/very well despite the obvious shortcomings.

What do you mean by well? It has limited powers to check the executive, we have unelected government ministers who are not accountable to the people they serve and the Lords are accountable to know one. The chamber can be swayed by the PM electing their own cronies and peerages used to curry favour.

We draw the executive from the legislature and then have no effective, nor democratic,check on its power and no written constitution, really you cannot come up with anything better?

Every other country [ apart from canada who have the system we gave them which is ours basically] has managed to come up with something better.

everyone else can come up with something better apart from us apparently.

As for something better the same thing but “lords” elected [ + lots of other suggestions]. Of course you have to think that voting is an improvement in a democracy.

Just imagine if Texas held an independence referendum, reminding everyone that they used to be a republic in their own right, and stating how they wanted to leave the union, and how their oil reserves would provide financial security – what do you think everyone would call them? 😆

the civil war was not caused by the two legislatures disagreeing [ they are not likely to go to war anytime soon either despite some considerable disagreement between the branches] and the govt/country has not quite collapsed.

It does entrench compromise though and remove democratic dictatorship.

Depends whether you like strong leadership or compromise and consenus…i think i know which will be the STW vote 😉

the US system is broken

All systems are broken in one way or another – as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever invented – apart from all the others.

We can learn from other systems – and we must, there’s a huge democratic deficit in this country, turnouts drop lower and lower because people just don’t see the point in voting any more.

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

The power to block or amend legislation is power.

The power to block or amend legislation is power.

But they can’t!

Ninfan

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament,by amending a bill. the amendment was not debated in the commons and there was no consultation with the Scottish Government
click here or google Lords axe holyrood power over renewables [/quote]

Terror probe launched after man makes sinister firebomb threat to Better Together campaign

A MAN claiming to be from the Scottish National Liberation Army has made a sinister firebomb threat to the Better Together campaign.

The man entered their HQ in Cumbernauld and told staff they would be bombed out if they did not vacate the offices within 24 hours.

Two regional organisers were badly shocked and police are investigating.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/terror-probe-launched-after-man-3806539

Whatnobeer – I think Oldbloke answered this one perfectly clearly

oldbloke – Member

We did this many pages ago gordimor. The Lords did not remove the power. They proposed an amendment to a Bill which was accepted by the Commons (which could have rejected it). The Lords cannot pass legislation, only delay it for review or suggest amendments to it.

There’s several examples of this – the hunting bill being the prime one, The commons pushed through the bill to law by using the parliament act – as a counter to this, there are myriad bills where a potential showdown with the HOL has led to the Commons revising the bill at the last minute despite previously refusing to, a good example being compulsory ID cards.

The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 limits the blocking powers of the House of Lords and established the supremacy of the House of Commons.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

The issue of House of Lords is a complete red herring by the nats who struggle to present any sort of argument in favour of separation.

The House of Lords is presented as some sort of symbol of English tyranny over Scotland. And they won’t be dissuaded by the simple fact that the claim is obviously complete bollox.

@JunkYard the House of Lords actually works really well. I appreciate you don’t like how it’s constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work.

JunkYard the House of Lords actually works really well. I appreciate you don’t like how it’s constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work.

No it doesn’t. That is precisely why reform of the House of Lords is an ongoing issue which has never been resolved.

I see we are all separatists now. It is being increasingly used by pro-Union supporters in the mainstream media. Interesting how this shift has come about in recent weeks.

Previously you would read or hear about ‘the Yes camp’ or ‘pro-independence supporters’.

Now it is ‘the separatists’.

We see the situation in Eastern Ukraine where ‘separatists’ have been seen to have caused hundreds of deaths and the situation could easily escalate into something drastically worse.

Now we have the ‘Scottish Separatists’ or ‘Nationalist Few’ who are causing the pro-Union supporters to be fearful of speaking out.

The Daily Record story linked to above is also not totally unexpected. In situations such as these, we must ask “who benefits from these actions?”

Certainly not the ‘separatists’. My only surprise is it has taken so long for a story like this to appear. There will be more in the next three months also.

Those who argue in favour of Scotland breaking way from the rest of the UK easily fall within the accepted definition of the term separatist.

Junkyard for reasons I don’t understand or even care about appears to dislike the term “nats” deeming it apparently as some sort of insult. The term ‘pro-independence supporters’ is quite a mouthful even if it meets to your approval.

I will carry on using the terms nats, separatists, the Yes camp, and maybe a few other terms, depending on how I feel. A bit of variety adds a certain quality.

Oh dear:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4138460.ece

Alex Salmond’s hopes that the economy of an independent Scotland could rely on expanding renewable energy generation have been crippled by a European Court of Justice ruling.
The court has said that no government must pay subsidies to renewable generators in another country. The ruling removes any legal foundation for the first minister’s claim that the rest of Britain would continue to pay a subsidy — more than £500 million a year — to Scottish renewable generators for their green energy.

Pro-Union sources said that the ruling could mean higher energy bills after a “yes” vote. It also leaves the future of the industry, if there is a “yes” vote, resting on the hope of a negotiated agreement between the Scottish and British governments, which Westminster has said is unlikely.

The EU’s top court ruled this week on a complaint by Alands Vindkraft AB, the Finnish wind energy producer, that it was unfairly refused the subsidy that Sweden’s energy agency pays to all its domestic renewable generators. The court agreed with the Finnish company’s claim that this was a restraint on free trade, but said that it was legitimate. It said: “The court finds that the restriction is justified by the public interest objective of promoting the use of renewable energy sources in order to protect the environment and combat climate change.”

😆

@JunkYard the House of LordsNorth Korea actually works really well. I appreciate you don’t like how it’s constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work

IMHO no system that has an unelected and weak check on the legislature and provides membership by birth ,political patronage and church can ever be considered to “work” within a democracy.
I agree it does what it is meant to do and it is not universally bad but you need ot be massively unimaginative to not see how you could improve on it – electing the upper chamber alone and keeping it as is would be an improvement for example.

dislike the term “nats” deeming it apparently as some sort of insult.

I object to it when used against me generally – I feel certain that will stop you doing it and it is an insult as

Petty nationalism is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Any ideas who said that 😉

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/osbourne-says-no-to-currency-union/page/174?replies=6147#post-6136739

FWIW I dont disagree with you re nationalism in general but you dont call them nats to be nice.