Osbourne says no to currency union.

“rene59 – Member
She could have asked for devo super max.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST”

she should have waited for them to release Devo Max Plus, it’s got a longer life and better localization…

a 5% swing changes it It snot overwhelming IMHO – its a decisive vote for no IMHO but it has not put the issue ot bed that would have required 2/3 + no vote
Anyway once the older voters die off that will be reveresed*
We wont have a vote within 10 years IMHO UNLESS the UK leave the EU but the issue is not dead and buried either

* I remember your maths only joking 😉
** In favour of almost anything that means the Tories are never in power over me.

You know there’s a simple answer to this problem of too many layers of administration if we get an English parliament.

Send Guy Fawkes into the House of Lords. 🙂

Or as we are saying up here, “If at first you don’t succeed, secede”

So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?

That’s the joy of it – the No side need to win every time, we only need to win once 😉

Okay, I’m slightly joking – but when you poll people on what Holyrood should control, 66% want everything apart from defence and foreign affairs to be controlled by Holyrood, 75% want Holyrood to control all welfare and benefits, and 71% want Holyrood to control all taxation.

People in Scotland want independence, just not if you call it independence. This is important for two reasons – firstly it shows that business as usual from Westminster simply won’t cut it, we need at least what Gordon Brown promised, federalism or home rule. Secondly if there is another referendum and the vote is Yes, even people who voted No can be brought around because they really want most of the same things as Yes voters.

Another referendum is for the future, though – first project is to make the Labour Party as irrelevant in Scotland as the Tories and Lib Dems. We need to separate Scottish politics from UK politics, with separate political parties.

Good to see the ripples from our referendum are leading to more demands for self-determination in England

Essex wants some too

Essex wants some too

Imagine the protest songs 😉

What do we want?
Fake tan!
When do we want it?
Now!

So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?

Voters were repeatedly told that a Yes vote would be final and there was no going back, even if we really, really, really wanted to. Which, I thought was odd, if we really were so much better together I thought we’d be welcomed back. Anyway, I digress. You can’t suddenly make 45% of the country stop wanting the things it wanted before, no matter how often you tell them they can’t have another referendum. FWIW I’m with Ben, there won’t be another one anytime soon unless the extra powers don’t arrive as promised or there the UK is pulled out of the EU.

Ben, what you meant to say was:

People in Scotland want the good bits of independence, just none of the bad bits of independence.

Ben, what you meant to say was:

People in Scotland want the good bits of independence, just none of the bad bits of independence.

Yup, that’s a good way of putting it. All along I’ve always preferred a proper reform of the UK – get rid of the House of Lords, in fact get rid of Westminster altogether, replace it with a properly federal system of government.

But that’s pie in the sky stuff, Westminster is never going to change, it’s an undemocratic system that has no interest in making itself more democratic. Independence is achievable, fundamental Westminster reform is not.

I hope I’m wrong about that.

One of the problems in a Federal system is that if you have bits that are hugely different sized then the weighting will always be to the bigger bits. In the US the big states dominate the political system, the only reason that others get a look in is that the big states can’t agree and there are plenty of states.

In a Federal UK, the option to ‘break’ the UK into 4 parts does not really work. The bulk of the people, the income and the wealth lies in England. We could try to break down England into Regions, but that does not really work for large sections. I live SW of London, outside the M25 – so which region do I fall into – South, South East, Not quite the South West? There are some distinct regions – Cornwall as an example – but others are arbitrary. Where does the NE fit into the model, does it include N.Yorkshire – or is Yorkshire a region – or is the West Yorkshire Conurbation the region?

England as state has existed in its current form for hundreds of years and as such trying to break it down does not really work. We already have county councils (and unitary authorities) at a ‘Regional Level’ that we could devolve more power and responsibility for very little additional cost.

If we do need an ‘English Parliament’, then all it really needs is for those MPs representing Scotland, Wales and NI to abstain when bills are voted on where the power has been devolved to the Local Assemblies/Parliaments. SNP MPs already do this! We do not need another level of government, between the UK, Scotland, Wales, NI, the EU, County Councils, Unitary Authorites, District Councils, Town Councils, Urban Councils, etc – we probably have enough!

I think a big issue with a federal UK is that the English seem emotionally tied to Westminster.

Maybe the way around that would be to make Westminster English only (represeted under a PR system) and create a senate or a UK parliament somewhere further north.

Incidently, I could live with a federal UK, I have issues with that power structure being in London with part-time Scottish MPs though..

I also think we should maybe break that conversation out of this thread and start a new one tbh.

One of the problems in a Federal system is that if you have bits that are hugely different sized then the weighting will always be to the bigger bits. In the US the big states dominate the political system, the only reason that others get a look in is that the big states can’t agree and there are plenty of states.

Your first bit is wrong, your second bit is backward.

1) I don’t know every federal system but in the US and Australia you avoid domination by the heavily populated entities by having the states enjoy equal/disproportionate representation in the upper house. For example, the US senate has two senators from every state, regardless of population – so California (38m people) has the same number of senators as Wyoming (half a million).

2) the result of the above is that the sparsely populated states have a disproportionate influence over US policy. One third of the US population is in the four most populous states. The country would look very different if policy was determined by Texas, NY, Florida and California!

3) besides, what’s undemocratic about the bigger populations having a bigger say?

Maybe the way around that would be to make Westminster English only (represeted under a PR system) and create a senate or a UK parliament somewhere further north.

Westminster is the UKs and not the english parliament, the others might agree to sell it to you though

The westminster elite will never vote to leave London

The westminster elite will never vote to leave London

Why would they, its the capital city. It’s normal for economic and political activity to be based in the capital. Moving it elsewhere would make zero difference to the political process or outcome.

Those calling for greater devolution in the rUK need to understand what potential consequences which would most likely be a rise in local taxes outside the South East (local authorities making spending promises and having to find the funds to pay for them). You can see this happening in Scotland with the changes in property taxes, I think you’ll find in a year the changes will be shown to have backfired with people paying less on cheaper homes and higher priced home sales slowing significantly leaving a hole in the budget having to be made up elsewhere.

1.Why would they, its the capital city. 2.It’s normal for economic and political activity to be based in the capital. 3.Moving it elsewhere would make zero difference to the political process or outcome.

1.True
2.True
3.False

It would inevitably be a little less London centric if it was not based there and the politicians never went there.
My views, what with having been twice, are massively less influenced by London than yours.

whatnobeer – Member
…You can’t suddenly make 45% of the country stop wanting the things it wanted before, no matter how often you tell them they can’t have another referendum….

Especially when they know their rights to self determination.

With the backtracking on the vow, the next few months is going to swing a lot more against Westminster government, and the pressure is on the SNP to declare a UDI if we get a majority of SNP members out of Scotland’s quota to Westminster next May.

Never give up.

Exactly – imagine if the winners in a general election said that the result was the settled will of the people and there wouldn’t be another election for a generation – and expected everyone who voted differently to stop campaigning and accept the result.

It’s ridiculous.

But @ben it wasn’t an election, it was a referendum. A Yes would have been forever.

JY I think the whole London centric thing is overblown massively. Whats clear on a pounds and pence perspective is that London and the South East subsidise the rest of the country. As I said regional representation is likely to backfire in a way people don’t expect. Think local taxes.

bencooper – Member

Imagine the protest songs

What do we want?
Fake tan!
When do we want it?
Now!

Is this the same bencooper who said this:

bencooper – Member

These aren’t jokes about Scottish independence, they’re jokes about Scots – and they’re always the same jokes. Kilts, haggis, tartan, fried food, bad weather, tight with money, etc. the same jokes people have been making for decades when they can’t think of anything funny to say.

I’m sure people from Liverpool get equally tired of the jokes about dole, not working, stealing etc.

❓ whoops 😆

I’m perfectly happy to admit that that wasn’t especially funny.

JY I think the whole London centric thing is overblown massively.

Given you live in London I think you are unqualified to say and unlikely to notice. this is not your fault it is just is. Media is centred there, finance is centred there, parliament is centred there, lobbyists are centred there, arts, theatre and culture is centred there. What more centralisation do you want – Rugby League?

Whats clear on a pounds and pence perspective is that London and the South East subsidise the rest of the country

GAWD bless ya Sir …doffs cap, strokes whippet

Some may say it drains resources and attract wealth from the rest of us. Its a bit of both.
Genuine q is part of it not just that many companies have London as their head office and this skews the figures?

FWIW i presume it still the wealthiest as capitals always are but how much ? Who knows

bencooper That’s the joy of it – the No side need to win every time, we only need to win once

bencooper Exactly – imagine if the winners in a general election said that the result was the settled will of the people and there wouldn’t be another election for a generation – and expected everyone who voted differently to stop campaigning and accept the result.

It’s ridiculous.

No it’s not. Despite feeling as strongly as any Yes voter I would have to stop campaigning, your first post alludes to this.

Everyone spoke of this being a once in a generation vote, not just Salmond. Everyone on here was saying so. Now we see twisting and turning on how long a generation is.

In all honesty, if this goes to another referendum in the next 5 years or so I don’t think I have the heart for a fight. Might even vote Yes just to help the inevitable along or possibly spend the interim understanding the fact I will have no recourse on the issue following a Yes vote. Hopefully this will be enough time to come to sensibly come to terms with the result I did not want. Something so many people seem unable to do.

Genuine q is part of it not just that many companies have London as their head office and this skews the figures?

Yes but why do they do this? The very fact they are all in one place is self perpetuating.

Yes but why do they do this? The very fact they are all in one place is self perpetuating.

you’ve missed the point.

jambalaya – Member
But @ben it wasn’t an election, it was a referendum. A Yes would have been forever.

😆 you dont understand democracy. Democracy is never forever. Its about merits of arguments and if people agree with them, at a particular time.

Separation isn’t necessarily forever if circumstances changed to allow reunion.

To argue an unchanageble position and the domination of that position forever, is pretty much a good definition of fascism.

In a democracy the people are always sovereign. Not ideas or questions.

you’ve missed the point.

I am flattered you think I had one

Separation isn’t necessarily forever if circumstances changed to allow reunion.

A vote to rejoin would necessarily require agreement from both Scotland and rUK at the same time. So I think describing separation as “forever” is fair.

oldnpastit – Member
Separation isn’t necessarily forever if circumstances changed to allow reunion.
A vote to rejoin would necessarily require agreement from both Scotland and rUK at the same time. So I think describing separation as “forever” is fair.

its not at all. Union happened once, circumstances could change to allow it to happen again.( personally I doubt that would be to Scotland’s benefit. But circumstance could easily allow it.

Toodle pip wee man….next stop Westminster and finally the HoL?

careful THM, according to Alex

‘Rocks would melt with the sun before I’d ever set foot in the House of Lords’

He’s donating his FM pension to charity. Classy.

Probably because he’s intending to make enough on the speaking circuit ?

Well done jambalaya, yes it’s “probably” because he thinks he won’t be left skint if he donates it to charity,

He wouldn’t be the first to donate for the wrong reasons. It’s ‘reasonably’ common for folk to give to charitable causes because it improves public image/social standing.

No idea if this is the case. But as there’s a politician involved I’ll err on side of being a cynical git.

So here are the facts, not so generous in any way shape or form. Another perfect example of the Salmond spin

Mr Salmond will donate £42,501 to the charity he founded in honour of his late mother, Mary Salmond, in 2007, every year for as long as he serves as an MSP.

He will donate the pension paid by the Scottish government whilst he is still earning his salary as a Scottish MSP. As far as I understood he was intending to stand down as an MSP, so he’s donating what exactly, 6 months, 12 months ? Also what a bizarre pension entitlement, one you can claim whilst you are still working for the same employer.

So secondly of all he get’s pension of £42k pa as a result of doing a job for 7.5 years (Scottish rules is your FM pension is 50% of your salar!y), back of the envelope based upon his age that’s worth around £1m. His salary was £85k as First Minister and thus his pension contributions would have to be around £120k pa to fund such a pension if where private sector.

I assume people have seen the quote from the head of the BBC who described Salmond as a paranoid loser 🙂

Everyone spoke of this being a once in a generation vote, not just Salmond. Everyone on here was saying so. Now we see twisting and turning on how long a generation is.

Personally I thought that the referendum might just be the first skirmish in a long engagement. Having won, the unionist parties have it in their control to make sure there remains a majority against independence. If they fail and the SNP regain a mandate for another referendum then I don’t see why there shouldn’t be one.

If the SNP make significant progress in the Westminster elections and retain a majority in the Scottish Parliament then it’d only take something like say the UK being run by a Tory/UKIP coalition for there to be some considerable weight behind another independence referendum.

He will donate the pension paid by the Scottish government whilst he is still earning his salary as a Scottish MSP. As far as I understood he was intending to stand down as an MSP, so he’s donating what exactly, 6 months, 12 months ? Also what a bizarre pension entitlement, one you can claim whilst you are still working for the same employer.

If he stands down as an MSP and is re-elected as an MP then I’d expect him to continue donating that pension to charity. When he was an MP and an MSP at the same time he used to donate one of those salaries to the same charitable trust.

I don’t disagree on the pension entitlement thing though – it’s an example of politicians feathering their nests. I know one chap who was briefly a minister in the Labour led Scottish government before losing his seat. He now takes his MSP & minister pensions at the same time as running his own lobbying firm. A long, long way from the days I remember him as being a socialist activist – although he no doubt still classes himself as a socialist.

I assume people have seen the quote from the head of the BBC who described Salmond as a paranoid loser

Was that the same ex head of the BBC who himself was formerly a Tory councillor?

Tory/UKIP coalition

The mere thought of it makes me want to set up a Peoples Republic of Piemonsters

So here are the facts, not so generous in any way shape or form. Another perfect example of the Salmond spin

Mr Salmond will donate £42,501 to the charity he founded in honour of his late mother, Mary Salmond, in 2007, every year for as long as he serves as an MSP.

Donating £42,501 every year to charity is “not so generous in any way shape or form” ? What would you consider to be a proper generous amount ?

But he’s not donating it every year, it’s short term piece of politics, see my post about how long is it before he stands down as a MSP. Also what a complete farce you can claim a First Minister pension of £42k pa whilst you are still earning a salary as an MSP !

My point is he should be getting that pension whilst he is still working for the same employer. Giving away something which should never have been allowed is not generous. It is also total spin to say he is giving away his pension, that’s a headline designed to suggest he is forgoing it permanently which he is absolutely not. A £42k pension in Scotland is very generous and that for 7 years work. i wonder what other pensions he’ll be getting paid for by the Scottish tax payer.