Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

.string. wrote: »

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.

Clearly one region/nation within a larger single nation devolving on its own or at a different speed is not federalism.
Cameron`s post-indyref EVEL announcement was more than blatant politicking it was also an example of Westminster desperately trying to make a now busted constitutional model fit old style Westminster politics. If the Scot`s send a dozen or so SNP MP`s to Westminster then constitutionally the cracks in our system can be papered over for another 5 years, sending 40 to 50 is a different matter however.
The UK will be a federal country within three general elections.

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

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.

I still don't know (in all seriousness) what you are moaning about - the first sentence of the vow is what I quoted.

The process is on-going to deliver precisely what was offered.

Unless, of course, someone is daft enough to imagine that these things are instantaneous and that was what was promised, it is following a planned process and will be implemented in the next Parliament as promised.


...

By the way, I am signing off soon and won't be back at my computer until late Sunday or Monday, so apologies if I don't respond immediately to any reply you send, if such is needed.

.string.

For Homework - Federalism in Canada: Basic Framework and Operation

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

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.

That's the case with everything in the UK though as no Parliament can bind the decisions of future ones.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

That's the case with everything in the UK though as no Parliament can bind the decisions of future ones.

Certainly that's currently the dominant view south of the Tweed. The UK's a fundamentally weird constitutional hybrid though from the perspective of someone from the north.
This article raises a few points. In Scotland, the people are sovereign, as it should be. Parliaments are devices through which they may speak.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Certainly that's currently the dominant view south of the Tweed. The UK's a fundamentally weird constitutional hybrid though from the perspective of someone from the north.
This article raises a few points. In Scotland, the people are sovereign, as it should be. Parliaments are devices through which they may speak.

For me, this is the important bit:

A third possibility is that the courts might regard a provision stipulating that the Scottish Parliament was sovereign to be a “constitutional” provision.

Ultimately, a constitution is worth the extent to which it will be defended by the institutions of state. Jim Crow laws and MacCarthyism would both be considered unconstitutional by US courts today I suspect but both were recognised by courts of the time.

If the UK Government were to declare the Scottish Parliament to be extant with certain defined powers for ever more it would be if the courts agreed. If they didn't it wouldn't.

Take a future time where a Conservative Government in Scotland decided to dissolve the Scottish Parliament following a referendum and a British Unionist Republican Party Government in London rubber stamped that policy, is it likely that the courts would overrule that decision following a request for judicial review from the SNP? It seems unlikely regardless of what the UK Parliament says in 2016.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Certainly that's currently the dominant view south of the Tweed. The UK's a fundamentally weird constitutional hybrid though from the perspective of someone from the north.
This article raises a few points. In Scotland, the people are sovereign, as it should be. Parliaments are devices through which they may speak.

if the people are sovereign how can they bind future generations of people ?

ruggedtoast

Another masterful performance from Sturgeon last night. She is fast becoming the UK's one to watch. I hope she manages to escape Scottish provincialism.

Reflected terribly on Cleggeron that he didn't bother to show up. Millipede beginning to get a hope that he will be in number 10 if he sticks by the SNP.

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Another masterful performance from Sturgeon last night. She is fast becoming the UK's one to watch. I hope she manages to escape Scottish provincialism.

Reflected terribly on Cleggeron that he didn't bother to show up. Millipede beginning to get a hope that he will be in number 10 if he sticks by the SNP.

He seems somewhat determined not to though.

Clegg tweeted last night that he wasn't invited !

Leanne1812

Scottish Labour manifesto :-)

https://twitter.com/falconerbrian/status/589042245199855616