Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......

tomterm8

CLAPTON wrote: »

all sorts of haste make for unintended consequences


how would a two part parliament work


if the 'English' bit is say tory and the UK was labour how would a vote of no confidence work? each could vote the other down and make parliament ineffective.

You'd have an English First Minister, and a British Prime Minister.

A vote of no confidence could work for both (i.e. English members could vote in a no confidence motion against the English First Minister) but only a no confidence motion against the UK government would cause Parliament to be dissolved.

The English First Minister would appoint those ministries that only have territorial effect in England. The Prime Minister would appoint all other ministers.

British MPs could speak in all debates, but only vote on bills or parts of bills that have effect within the territorial boundaries of their nation.

CLAPTON wrote: »

the current system isn't broken a.

The current system can't survive if there is widespread devolution of powers.

CLAPTON

tomterm8 wrote: »

You'd have an English First Minister, and a British Prime Minister.

A vote of no confidence could work for both (i.e. English members could vote in a no confidence motion against the English First Minister) but only a no confidence motion against the UK government would cause Parliament to be dissolved.

The English First Minister would appoint those ministries that only have territorial effect in England. The Prime Minister would appoint all other ministers.

British MPs could speak in all debates, but only vote on bills or parts of bills that have effect within the territorial boundaries of their nation.



The current system can't survive if there is widespread devolution of powers.

there is no need for a 'federal ' system but it's too late now;
the pre Scottish Parliament system worked well


given we are where we are it would only be sensible if a new English parliament was created for English affairs and a completely different one for UK affairs


otherwise we have the absurd situation that Scotland, NI and Wales have fulltime parliaments for small population whilst England would have a part time parliament for 55million people.

ruggedtoast

I wonder what the results would have been if 16-18 year olds were excluded?

I personally disagree with giving them the vote. I love my 16 year old self but I would not put him in charge of choosing a government. Or any of his friends.

tomterm8

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is no need for a 'federal ' system but it's too late now;
the pre Scottish Parliament system worked well
.

Given that 45% of Scots want to leave the Union, and the original devolution referendum was voted for by a large percentage of Scots, it's reasonable to conclude that a very large number of Scots don't like the current system and didn't like the pre Scottish parliament system.

It's not unreasonable for Scots to get more say over their affairs if that is what they want. If they want that say, though, it is pretty unreasonable to have Scottish voters decide on English issues.

Thrugelmir

tomterm8 wrote: »

Given that 45% of Scots want to leave the Union,

Of those who voted.

600,000 or so people didn't bother to vote at all. So one assumes they weren't pro independence.

So falls to nearer a third of the population.

tomterm8

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Of those who voted.

600,000 or so people didn't bother to vote at all. So one assumes they weren't pro independence.

So falls to nearer a third of the population.

?

Far more people voted on this referendum than have voted on any general election since 1970. The result is legitimate.

Anyone who decides not to vote has to accept the result of a vote. That's the British way.

Thrugelmir

tomterm8 wrote: »

?

Far more people voted on this referendum than have voted on any general election since 1970. The result is legitimate.

Anyone who decides not to vote has to accept the result of a vote. That's the British way.

Agreed. However 2/3 of the population did not vote for independence. This was a huge blow for Salmond given the 20 plus years he's been campaigning towards last Thursday.

tomterm8

Yes, obviously he lost.

That's good news:D

Now we've got to tackle the scenario where such a high proportion of people in Scotland don't want to be in the union...

CLAPTON

tomterm8 wrote: »

Yes, obviously he lost.

That's good news:D

Now we've got to tackle the scenario where such a high proportion of people in Scotland don't want to be in the union...

so about a third of people don't want to be in the union at this time.


in five years time it might be 20% of people not wanting to be in the union or it might be 60%


what conclusion does one draw?


just consider Quebec : 49.42% of those voting in 1995 said they wanted to leave


however that support subsequently waned.

ruggedtoast

You know, every now and again I think of the UK still being a country, Alex Salmond resigning, and all those nationalists crying on Thursday night, and it just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

I'm not even nearly done gloating either. The Wings comments are hilarious. What a load of bozos. I bet they all have hpc.co.uk logins too. They are now planning to start some kind of cyber commune called Common Weal. They have tattoos and everything.

Tattoos!

Why don't they just get "I am a giant Loser" t shirts printed and be done with it?