The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

PS: if Scotland doesn't like being marginalised, perhaps it shouldn't have chosen to marginalised itself

You keep telling us we voted to be in the club:

now we voted to be marginalised apparently

sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

[LJS]

And I despise the idea of Scottish MPs having the same powers twice-over.

A politically mature Scotland would look to solve the issue, and not out-right reject all attempts at addressing it.

Nicely summarised.

No, anyone who thinks that Scotland should have devolved powers but still vote on English-only issues are the hypocrites.

There should be no dispute over the idea. The only arguments should be about the method.

The English Votes for English Laws thing seems perfectly sensible & indeed I have no argument with the principle.

Common sense would suggest that, just as the Scots have a parliament so we have Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws (similarly the welsh & the Norn Irish) the English should have their own Parliament to vote for their own laws. However there is no significant desire for such a thing in England & perhaps this hints at the demise of the United Kingdom - as the bits at the edge demand more & more power closer to home, federalism is the obvious answer ... but federalism where one part of the federation contains over 80% of the population just doesn't make sense.

So we're left with trying to separate out what affects England from what affects the various other bits of the UK. How easy is that to define? Take education or health - devolved issues so any vote on these should exclude non English MP's. but what if the legislation has funding implications which have a knock on effect on funding in the other bits of the UK? So it's just not going to be that simple.

Add to that the fact that the Scottish, Welsh & NI Parliaments/ assemblies have different powers devolved so on some issues you might only be excluding Scottish MP's, on other ones Scottish & Welsh & on other ones all three. And what about London MP's. Are some powers not devolved to Boris's London Assembly. Should they be excluded from some votes?

And what about a situation where Labour has a UK Majority but the Tories have a majority when you remove Scotland & Wales? Who is the Government?

I'm not saying all these problems are insurmountable but they are real problems & no one seems to be addressing them.

[LJS]

nah, it's really not.

There was an article on the front page of the Guardian's website yesterday, with a title of something about a move to the left, but within the article detail it made clear that it was the normal 'anti' reaction to the sitting govt.

So what is wanted is something slightly to the left of what we have now, which will be followed a few years down the line by something to the right of what we might get after this election.

As I've kept pointing out to LJS and others, if the UK is to the left, where are the people who vote for the left? Even in Scotland where there's 'proper left' parties and an electoral system that works for minor parties, those 'left' parties get fuck all support.

& as I keep pointing out to Neil, when were the electorate last given the opportunity to vote for a left wing option? In reality voters can only choose from the options they are given. & they haven't had a realistic left wing option for years.

However in 2003 the Scottish Socialist party won 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament, not a socialist landslide but a pretty good result for a small party. Sadly they disintegrated in the bonfire of Tommy Sheridan's pants, however just a hint that maybe there is something of an appetite for something to the left of labour.

People are not voting for the right wing parties because Labour is not left enough.

They're* voting for those right wing parties (SNP included) because they're self-interested money grubbing w*nkers with few cares for those worse off then them. Chuck them a few middle-class crumbs and you've bought their heart til the next bribe comes along.

(* just to make clear, I mean 'people of the UK' and not just 'Scotland').

You may include the SNP in your list of right wing parties - I'm tired of arguing that point with you.- but the point is that polls show that people think they are further left than Labour - in other words they want something further left. Whether they are misguided is another question.

[LJS]

have her diary meetings been published yet, for us to be able to know if she's been sucking Murdoch's cock just as Salmond did?

Get back to me when you know one way or another.

So, to summarise, because no one has revealed any meetings between Miliband & Murdoch , he is presumed innocent

Because no one has revealed any meetings between sturgeon & Murdoch she is presumed guilty.

[LJS]

In exactly the same way as Scotland is permitted to decide its constitutional structure and pass laws on its own behalf, the same equal right should apply to others.

Go one, tell me that's wrong.

Next up, how the Barnet formula will keep funding an uneconomic indy Scotland?

a red squirrel!!!

[kaosmark2]

The English Votes for English Laws thing seems perfectly sensible & indeed I have no argument with the principle.

Common sense would suggest that, just as the Scots have a parliament so we have Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws (similarly the welsh & the Norn Irish) the English should have their own Parliament to vote for their own laws. However there is no significant desire for such a thing in England & perhaps this hints at the demise of the United Kingdom - as the bits at the edge demand more & more power closer to home, federalism is the obvious answer ... but federalism where one part of the federation contains over 80% of the population just doesn't make sense.

So we're left with trying to separate out what affects England from what affects the various other bits of the UK. How easy is that to define? Take education or health - devolved issues so any vote on these should exclude non English MP's. but what if the legislation has funding implications which have a knock on effect on funding in the other bits of the UK? So it's just not going to be that simple.

Add to that the fact that the Scottish, Welsh & NI Parliaments/ assemblies have different powers devolved so on some issues you might only be excluding Scottish MP's, on other ones Scottish & Welsh & on other ones all three. And what about London MP's. Are some powers not devolved to Boris's London Assembly. Should they be excluded from some votes?

And what about a situation where Labour has a UK Majority but the Tories have a majority when you remove Scotland & Wales? Who is the Government?

I'm not saying all these problems are insurmountable but they are real problems & no one seems to be addressing them.

Good common sense talk.

My argument re. federalism would be that there are plenty of regions of England worth splitting up into regions. I'm in favour of such a system, but failing massive devolution, I don't agree with different regions having semi-devolution, such things just make people feel there are different rules.

[LJS]

If the SNP get to decide how they distribute Scotland's share of UK money to Scottish councils - as they do - why the fuck do you think England shouldn't be allowed to politicise its money distribution in exactly the same way?

They don't. The Scottish government decides the total amount to go to Scottish councils - the way it is distributed is agreed with COSLA (convention of Scottish Local Authorities)

There have been complaints about this system - Glasgow claims it should get more than it currently does - however I guess there are always such disputes - have we ever heard local authority complain of getting too much money?

[eFestivals]

now we voted to be marginalised apparently

sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

What don't get you understand about your own choices? Do you ne3ed someone to explain them to you?

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The English Votes for English Laws thing seems perfectly sensible & indeed I have no argument with the principle.

If only more snippers held the same views and could recognise facts, it would be possible to have a sensible debate about Scotland.

Common sense would suggest that, just as the Scots have a parliament so we have Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws (similarly the welsh & the Norn Irish) the English should have their own Parliament to vote for their own laws. However there is no significant desire for such a thing in England & perhaps this hints at the demise of the United Kingdom - as the bits at the edge demand more & more power closer to home, federalism is the obvious answer ... but federalism where one part of the federation contains over 80% of the population just doesn't make sense.

Just as Scotland has been allowed to make its own decisions so should England. And that means that England could have it's Parliament within Westminster exactly as Hague has proposed (tho I disagree), or no Parliament at all. Each time Scotland intervenes it shows Scottish thinking for what it is.

As you've pointed out, federalism ISN'T the obvious answer.

When Scotland has the answer for the situation its created for itself and very obviously doesn't like, get back to me.

What the answer isn't is indy, just in case Sept 18th 2014 has been erased from your memory.

I'm not saying all these problems are insurmountable but they are real problems & no one seems to be addressing them.

Scotland included, just in case it's passing you by.

[eFestivals]

as I keep pointing out to Neil, when were the electorate last given the opportunity to vote for a left wing option?

In Scotland? In 2011, when Scotland rejected all of the left wing options for the centre ground.

In the UK? In 2010, when the UK rejected all of the left wing options for the centre ground.

What of democracy is passing you by?

All of it, clearly.... which is how you come up with the answer of re-drawing the rules to try and get the result YOU think EVERYONE should have, and nothing of democracy.

I don't like what democracy says, but i'm not pretending about what its saying.

However in 2003 the Scottish Socialist party won 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament, not a socialist landslide but a pretty good result for a small party. Sadly they disintegrated in the bonfire of Tommy Sheridan's pants, however just a hint that maybe there is something of an appetite for something to the left of labour.

PMSL - winning shows an appetite, but losing shows broken democracy?

Do you really need me to point out where your errors are?

You may include the SNP in your list of right wing parties - I'm tired of arguing that point with you.- but the point is that polls show that people think they are further left than Labour - in other words they want something further left. Whether they are misguided is another question.

If what you say is true, show me the Labour govt.

If what you say is true, show me a majority of even centre-left voters.

When the facts don't show what you claim, make it up and hope no one notices?

[LJS]

What don't get you understand about your own choices? Do you ne3ed someone to explain them to you?

Yes please, we thought you loved us.

[eFestivals]

So, to summarise, because no one has revealed any meetings between Miliband & Murdoch , he is presumed innocent

Because no one has revealed any meetings between sturgeon & Murdoch she is presumed guilty.

The positions parties take in idea and in actions, known as "facts", now mean fuck all?

Labour have both condemned Murdoch's doings, and told him to fuck off. Care to show me anything of the same by either Salmond or Sturgeon?

Get back to me if Sturgeon ever gets around to telling Murdoch to fuck off. Until then, the SNP are what they are - suckers of Murdoch's cock.

Yet another example of a snipper who won't face up to the facts of the party he supports, and he wonders why the SNP get laughed at from the south.

[eFestivals]

Yes please, we thought you loved us.

Not enough to let devolved Scotland set policy for both Scotland and England.

PS.... have you ever noticed the over-representation of Scots in high positions in Westminster? Or do the SNP now support the removal of citizenship of anyone who disagrees with them?

[eFestivals]

a red squirrel!!!

if you want to play the squirrel game, you have to follow the rules.

So ... What does GERS say about the state of the Scottish economy?

[eFestivals]

They don't. The Scottish government decides the total amount to go to Scottish councils - the way it is distributed is agreed with COSLA (convention of Scottish Local Authorities)

There have been complaints about this system - Glasgow claims it should get more than it currently does - however I guess there are always such disputes - have we ever heard local authority complain of getting too much money?

The SG tells Scottish Councils that refuse SNP diktats that those councils HAVE TO take on debts to do what the SNP say.

What of that has passed you by?

And if it hasn't passed you by, can you now recognise that the SNP have failed to balance Scotland's budget?

(and the claims that they do are bullshit!)

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Re EVEL and impact on funding - it seems a bit one sided. As most of the UK income come from England and more is proportionally spent outside of England, then and spending / tax decision in England could have a knock on effect to Scottish funding. I.e. a Eng tax decision dramatically reduces the income, then the there is less to be spent in the UK, so Scotland gets less to play with - does that mean Scotland can vote on English tax issues as well as Scottish?

[Comfy Bean]

MP's who are elected in the Scottish region can vote on matters that affect the UK as a whole....which seems only fair. This wouldn't change as far as I can gather. The most often given example is the nhs. If the Tories run with a privatisation agenda in England then we could in future see less public cash being spent on health which would have a knock on affect to health spending in Scotland even though health is devolved.

[gary1979666]

Sounds like there needs to be a review of how the health spending in Scotland is determined. As on the face of it, it seems pretty strange for Scot MPs to vote on English healthcare policy.

[Comfy Bean]

It's the funding though rather than the policy. Tories would push a privatisation agenda in nhs England which would in time lead to less public funding. This would lead to Scotland taking a hit and we won't be running an agenda to privatise our nhs.....I think I can say our nhs as it's devolved :-)

[kaosmark2]

Actually, this makes me think we should brutalise the twats who are trying to privatise the NHS. Beat them to a pulp, rob their money, and then charge them so they can't get treated for being beaten and robbed.

[Stash]

MP's who are elected in the Scottish region can vote on matters that affect the UK as a whole....which seems only fair. This wouldn't change as far as I can gather. The most often given example is the nhs. If the Tories run with a privatisation agenda in England then we could in future see less public cash being spent on health which would have a knock on affect to health spending in Scotland even though health is devolved.

That's not strictly true. A drop in spending in England by any future government would see a drop in the block grant as defined by the Barnett formula. In the same way any possible rises in spending would see the block grant increase.

There is not any correlation between the services where spending drops or increases in England against similar services in Scotland. The Scottish government decides where to spend the block grant. If it chooses to spend more on the NHS in Scotland and cut some other service, they could.

In fact that is what they already do. Scotland spends more per person on health services than England does. But the IFS has said that between 2009/10 and 2015/16 there will be a real terms cut in spending on health in Scotland, compared to a rise in England over the same period.

The block grant isn’t the only source of funding available to the Scottish government, which can also raise some money through taxes, so if Sturgeon wanted, she could raise taxes tomorrow and increase spending on the Scottish NHS immediately.

This would lead to Scotland taking a hit and we won't be running an agenda to privatise our nhs.....I think I can say our nhs as it's devolved :-)

Well strictly speaking the NHS is a collective of all of the public health bodies in the UK, including NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, HSC NI, & NHS England.

[eFestivals]

MP's who are elected in the Scottish region can vote on matters that affect the UK as a whole....which seems only fair. This wouldn't change as far as I can gather. The most often given example is the nhs. If the Tories run with a privatisation agenda in England then we could in future see less public cash being spent on health which would have a knock on affect to health spending in Scotland even though health is devolved.

Then the obvious answer is to have a talk about it resolving the issue, and not saying "this cannot be discussed or changed" - which is the standard view of snippers.

Scotland is clearly shit scared of what it says it wants, "full fiscal autonomy". It's so shit scared of what it says it wants (FFA), that it only wants FFA if it doesn't lose the UK-top-ups under Barnet.

If Scotland got FFA there'd be absolute uproar from every snipper, who would immediately reverse all they've been saying and accuse the nasty English of being nasty by giving Scotland what it says it wants.

It's so very laughable - and is all extremely obvious to people outside of Scotland even if those snippers have stopped all thinking.

Because of that sort of stupidity I'm about at the stage where I'd be happy for Scotland to get FFA as that might suddenly have snippers wake up to their current self-decided ignorance. It's clear that they'll never reference any fact except when it punches them in the face.

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Sounds like there needs to be a review of how the health spending in Scotland is determined.

yep, and not only for health, for all of Scottish spending.

But the snippers won't have it. It puts Barnet top-ups at risk, and it will expose all of the standard snipper bullshit as bullshit.

[eFestivals]

It's the funding though rather than the policy. Tories would push a privatisation agenda in nhs England which would in time lead to less public funding. This would lead to Scotland taking a hit and we won't be running an agenda to privatise our nhs.....I think I can say our nhs as it's devolved :-)

This is absolutely laughable, and exposes snipper economic illiteracy.

If the English NHS is "privatised", then there would be a corresponding tax cut, which would impact onto Scotland's 'block grant' which Scotland could then make back up again with its own taxes - so Scotland cannot lose unless Scotland is riding on English money.

If there's no corresponding tax cut, there's no impact onto Scotland's 'block grant' and no impact onto SNHS.

If 'privatisation' costs the ENHS more to operate services, then SNHS is quids in.

If 'privatisation' costs the ENHS less to operate services, then why would SNHS want to spend more than it had to on delivering services?

The Scottish objections to ENHS changes do NOT impact onto Scotland in any bad way at all. It's an economic impossibility!!!

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS ... meanwhile, the Scottish Govt has been cutting SNHS spending all by itself, fuck all to do with nasty Westminster - and not a word of criticism of the SG is ever heard by snippers for that, which only exposes the idiot bollocks they talk.