Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

The SNP have policies and values that I agree with, (apart from their nationalism of course).
Re. the 'subjection' point I made....you do realise don't you that Scotland didn't suddenly become nationalistic? There are reasons for this and you banging on the way you do is not going to change that. If the SNP toned down their Scotland first, separation no matter what agenda I'd have no problem with them and could see no valid reason why Salmond, shouldn't sit in the cabinet in the event of a minority Labour Govmt. We live in a new world, we should embrace it!

do you think it right that the 5 million people of Scotland should have a larger share of the UK income than the e.g. the 5 million people of Yorkshire?

do you think that the people 5 million people of scotland should have higher representation in the UK government than the 5 million people of Yorkshire?


do you think that the Barnett formula ought to be scrapped and the peoples of e.g. scotland, yorkshire and the SW et al all ought to treated fairly and equally?

do you think that the SNP - a party whose whole existence is about Scottish independence, is about to tone that down or would agree to abolishing their financial advantage over the other peoples of the UK?

do you think they are fit to have a larger say in the running of UK on behalf of ALL the peoples?

Moby

Yes to all. It's the price of keeping the Union!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Yes to all. It's the price of keeping the Union!

I am true appalled and repelled that such behaviour should be rewarded.
Clearly no socialist regard for fairness and equality.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am true appalled and repelled that such behaviour should be rewarded.
Clearly no socialist regard for fairness and equality.

I simply don't buy into your definition of 'fairness and equality'. Comparing Scotland and Yorkshire simply due to their similar populations is tendentious at best puerile at worst. Scotland is a country with a rich history and many who live there have ambitions for it to be a nation state. If you wish to keep the union going in name at least surely you have to accept that and perhaps we are looking in future at a federal structure of some sort. They manage to do it in the USA.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I simply don't buy into your definition of 'fairness and equality'. Comparing Scotland and Yorkshire simply due to their similar populations is tendentious at best puerile at worst. Scotland is a country with a rich history and many who live there have ambitions for it to be a nation state. If you wish to keep the union going in name at least surely you have to accept that and perhaps we are looking in future at a federal structure of some sort. They manage to do it in the USA.

The debate isn't about a federal structure but whether the people of Scotland 'deserve' more (in money) than the people of Yorkshire (or the SW etc) simply because they threaten to break away.

How is that fair or just or equal?

Why is being fair to all the people of the UK 'puerile'?

On what basis are you saying that in USA, the states that threaten to break away get bigger handouts from the centre than those that don't?

It simply rewards vile behaviour and punishes the decent folk of Yorkshire.

Whats's your price? : if they hold the balance of power will you give them 20, 30 , 40 % more than everyone else.

What is your definition of 'fairness' to all the people of the UK?

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

Yes to all. It's the price of keeping the Union!

I have a feeling the Union won`t survive too much longer if the current inequitable funding arrangements in favour of the Scots continue anyway.
There is in England a growing political capital to be had in ending the `subsidy` the Scots receive, we have a manifesto launch today with a pledge to end the Barnett formula contained within it.
A federal UK is the only solution I can see as it potentially frees the Scots from Westminster and the English from an infantilised and financially dependent Scottish population.
A coalition government between a Labour party promising a constitutional convention and the Lib Dems with a traditional sympathy for federalism might solve the`Scottish Problem`once and for all.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

A coalition government between a Labour party promising a constitutional convention and the Lib Dems with a traditional sympathy for federalism might solve the`Scottish Problem`once and for all.

Maybe but there are some "complications".

Such a convention would need to be done, in my opinion, before finalising the new Devolution deal for Scotland to be sure that what was being offered to the Scots was consistent with the grander scheme of a UK-wide Constitution. This is because parity and fairness needs to be a UK-wide matter, and not one that unilaterally or disadvantages or favours the Scots.

To get that done in time would need proper bipartisan agreement and a very urgent timescale indeed in order to be true to the three party "Vow". In my view that would mean starting in May. I don't think that is actually practical although it should be tried if Labour win the GE.

For those reasons, Cameron was absolutely right in stating that coincident with the Scottish Devolution thing, some consideration should be given to the arrangements for the rest of the Union.

All that bleating about Cameron being partisan was, actually, simply itself partisan, a knee jerk reaction without proper thought.

One solution could be to reach an intermediate Devolution stage which can be modified in a second stage in the light of the results a Constitutional Convention with a planned timescale (and made conditional upon it).

Of course the SNP would not like that and would bleat to high heaven, but I don't care a stuff. A good solution for the Union is more important than tribal fanaticism.

Another point to make is that Devolution itself is a Federal solution under a different name.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

Another point to make is that Devolution itself is a Federal solution under a different name.

It's nothing of the sort. Federal arrangements give constitutional protection to autonomy. Secure autonomy, even if not called federation, was in the first paragraph of the Vow, and hasn't been delivered on schedule or at all.

Devolution is found in pseudofederal unitary states like Spain, and frankly, even they trust their peoples enough to devolve far, far more.

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

It's nothing of the sort. Federal arrangements give constitutional protection to autonomy. Secure autonomy, even if not called federation, was in the first paragraph of the Vow, and hasn't been delivered on schedule or at all.

Devolution is found in pseudofederal unitary states like Spain, and frankly, even they trust their peoples enough to devolve far, far more.

The first para of the Vow was

The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September.

Don't see what your beef is, other than semantic nit-picking.

We are talkng hypothetical here anyway.

I stand by what I said about Devolution being a form of federalism - not every federal solution conforms to a single model and certainly not to outright autonomy; there will always be provincial powers and federal powers.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

The first para of the Vow was

Don't see what your beef is, other than semantic nit-picking.

We are talkng hypothetical here anyway.

I stand by what I said about Devolution being a form of federalism - not every federal solution conforms to a single model and certainly not to outright autonomy; there will always be provincial powers and federal powers.

It was the first sentence/phrase/statement of the Vow and they never delivered it. It may have escaped your attention but it won't have escaped the Scots.

And where you say nitpicking they might say "the devil's in the detail".

There's a difference between being somebody's partner and their pet!

In all seriousness, there's nothing to stop a demagogue coming along and abolishing Holyrood by simple act of parliament at Westminster. If the Vow had delivered devo plus, never mind, devo max, that couldn't happen.