Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scottish-Irish Skier

    8874

  • mountain shadow

    1528

  • skifreak

    1435

  • frogesque

    1306

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

Posted Images

Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

    Well, be careful here as you may be falling into the Tory trap.

     

    My daughter doesn't get child benefit any more; the Tories have taken that away (from her, not me incidentally).

     

    Is that fair? Well on the surface it seems so as I earn well enough so can look after Mini Miss SS. Mrs SS is just part-time so more time spent with said daughter, so overall we are reasonably comfortable.

     

    I do however pay a lot in tax, ergo pay the child benefit of many, many children. The child benefit we used to receive was a small 'thanks' for the huge contribution we make each month to help others less fortunate. Comes off my salary as tax. Lets call child benefit one of the 'little thank you gifts' for those putting the most into the communal pot. A tiny fraction of what they pay in. In return, they get the same benefits as everyone else.

     

    Now, I know why the Tories took it away. They want me to resent paying tax for 'scroungers (© BetterTogether) who are getting child benefit for their kids out of my pocket while I get nothing'. If they had the chance, I'd be e.g. paying for many teenagers to go to uni but I'd also have to pay for my own kid too.

     

    Aye, they want me to resent those less fortunate and vote low tax right-wing so that the communal pot dries up and everyone loses, the poor the most. 

     

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~chri3110/Details/Universalism%20McKee%20Stuckler.pdf

     

     

    Are you that easily bought? What's the point in paying more tax so you can end up at the same spot you started at? The admin costs of any benefit system mean that some of your tax is then lost to the system, again, what's the point in that? Would you be happy to pay an extra £5,000 a year in tax so you can receive a cheque back for £4,950 at the end of the year? Mebbes naw?

     

    I've always thought Child Benefit for comfortable families was wrong, in part it's a throwback to my mum's attitude to collecting the money from the post office when I was little. It came across as being a hassle for her, I told her once that if it was that much of a hassle I'd go and get it for her and keep it for pocket money. I suppose I've never grown out of that attitude, it's simply developed from that starting point over time.

     

    Edit: I'd also be careful of thinking that receiving Child Benefit is "A tiny fraction of what they pay in". For someone on £50,000 the total tax and NI bill is £13,900 so Child Benefit of £1,050 per year would be a 7.6% return, for two kids it is a 12.7% return and for three it's 17.8%. Defo a fraction, but not "tiny".

    Edited by CatchMyDrift
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Are you that easily bought? 

     

    Not sure what you mean here CMD. I can't actually be bought in the sense I vote based equally on what I think is my responsibility to society and myself (centre social democrat).

     

    I personally support a higher wage, moderately higher tax system. It reduces the need for income support and provides the best value public services. It limits your ability to be overly wealthy, but also limits your ability to be very poor. 

     

    Whether child benefit is a sensible benefit or not is a different argument (maybe childcare should be a higher priority for example) to the one I put forward which concerns means testing vs universality. I value children as the future and universal child benefits are a common feature of the most prosperous societies.

     

    You also forget the other taxes people who earn more pay; the buy larger houses so pay more council tax. They spend more in shops so pay more VAT. They might employ people for childcare so paying them wages. There are really very few very wealthy people and means testing is divisive and discriminatory; it is an attack on those that work hard and pay quite a bit of tax without complaint. Its like me paying more car insurance than someone, us both having an accident of equal fault with each other, but me having no claim and the other person getting their car fixed for nothing.

     

    Means testing is a neoliberal / right-wing model designed to ultimately end the welfare state / make it almost negligible by dividing society. Universal benefits are the social democratic model designed to bind society together.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Three_worlds_of_the_welfare_state

     

    Esping-Andersen's welfare classification acknowledges the historical role of three dominant twentieth-century Western European and American political movements: Social Democracy, Christian Democracy (conservatism); and Liberalism.[45]

    1. The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market.[46] In this context, social policies are perceived as "politics against the market".[47]
    2. The Christian-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of subsidiarity (decentralization) and the dominance of social insurance schemes, offering a medium level of decommodification and permitting a high degree of social stratification.
    3. The [neo]Liberal model is based on market dominance and private provision; ideally, in this model, the state only interferes to ameliorate poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis. Hence, the decommodification potential of state benefits is assumed to be low and social stratification high.[46]

     

     

     

    I voted Yes in the full knowledge that it would not likely financially benefit me personally, in fact it would most likely cost me more tax if a more social democratic model was followed. However I see that as being of benefit to society as a whole, making it more prosperous overall, so I'd benefit indirectly in the longer term (still having the NHS, not having to pay thousands for my kid to go to uni etc).

     

    ---

     

    20 point lead for the SNP this morning with labour on 23%. 

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

     

    You also forget the other taxes people who earn more pay; the buy larger houses so pay more council tax. They spend more in shops so pay more VAT. They might employ people for childcare so paying them wages. There are really very few very wealthy people and means testing is divisive and discriminatory; it is an attack on those that work hard and pay quite a bit of tax without complaint.

     

     

     

    Now you sound like a hardcore right wing lunatic (hope you can hear me laughing and don't take it the wrong way as it's said tongue in cheek :) ).

     

    Indirect tax eats up more as a proportion of income for those on low incomes than those on high incomes. Council tax is a classic example of an extremely regressive tax dressed up to make it look as if those on a higher income pay more. They pay more as an absolute £ value, but as a % of income they pay less. As a % of income most people pay roughly the same amount of tax between direct and indirect taxes, some studies would show that those on a lower income pay more as a proportion in tax than those on higher incomes, but I don't have a linky at the moment so I'll leave it at calling it equal. I find it very disingenuous when people start saying that those on higher incomes contribute more when they don't (and they always seem to "work hard"...do those on lower incomes not work hard?).

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Now you sound like a hardcore right wing lunatic (hope you can hear me laughing and don't take it the wrong way as it's said tongue in cheek :) ).

     

    Indirect tax eats up more as a proportion of income for those on low incomes than those on high incomes. Council tax is a classic example of an extremely regressive tax dressed up to make it look as if those on a higher income pay more. They pay more as an absolute £ value, but as a % of income they pay less. As a % of income most people pay roughly the same amount of tax between direct and indirect taxes, some studies would show that those on a lower income pay more as a proportion in tax than those on higher incomes, but I don't have a linky at the moment so I'll leave it at calling it equal. I find it very disingenuous when people start saying that those on higher incomes contribute more when they don't (and they always seem to "work hard"...do those on lower incomes not work hard?).

     

    I'm not an us vs them person; hence I don't attack the poor, nor those who have higher responsibility jobs which pay higher salaries (unless they are well out of proportion).

     

    I totally agree with you on the topic of indirect taxes; this is a right-wing approach. I also feel the council tax is a poor form of local tax. Land value taxes might be better or a local income tax. 

     

    People on higher salaries do pay more tax into the pot, presuming they don't go out of their way to avoid taxes. They shouldn't be attacked for that. I'm not talking mult-millionaires here (there are very few of them), but head teachers, doctors, engineers (like myself), lecturers.

     

    My parents came from poor council house estates in Glasgow. Due to the universal benefit of free higher education they managed to get degrees and have decent careers. As a result, I was brought up reasonably comfortably. Times were tough at points; no new cars all the time, exotic holidays, but I didn't starve and went to a decent state school. If they had not had that universal benefit, I might have grown up on a poor estate in Glasgow with little hope nor drive.

     

    My decent upbringing helped me in terms of going to school and getting the grades for uni. Meanwhile, my parents added to society by earning more than their parents and paying more into the tax system as a result of their degrees. The universal benefit of free education allowed me in turn to get into uni. I now part own a small company employing up to 14 people; something that may not have happened without the universal benefit of higher education.

     

    In terms of 'working hard' that's not the right word. A waiter can work as hard as a heart surgeon. However, the former has far less responsibility, needed far less time and devotion to learning than the latter, so salaries should be appropriate. One mistake and the heart surgeon kills someone.

     

    A guy doing overtime stacking shelves in tesco may work as hard as me. However, it's highly unlikely he'll cost a customer 1 million a day in lost production if he makes a bad call as is the case for my job. If I made such a mistake it could have major implications for the client and indirectly our company, costing people their jobs and all that entails.

     

    I like it when I'm in Norway and the waiter serving me is on 20k and not claiming tax credits, income support etc, has a decent flat and can afford to go out to restaurants too. Sitting beside me is an engineer from Statoil earning a very good salary too, albeit with a fair bit of tax. However, they're not complaining due to the good public services they get for that. They're also not calling the waiter a scrounger for getting state benefits to supplement a meagre salary.

     

    That's what I prefer. It's also how we run our company; a john-lewis type model where we pay our staff as much as we can and collectively share profits.

     

    Now I'm off to join the Tories...

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 6
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

    I'm not an us vs them person; hence I don't attack the poor, nor those who have higher responsibility jobs which pay higher salaries (unless they are well out of proportion).

     

    I totally agree with you on the topic of indirect taxes; this is a right-wing approach. I also feel the council tax is a poor form of local tax. Land value taxes might be better or a local income tax. 

     

    People on higher salaries do pay more tax into the pot, presuming they don't go out of their way to avoid taxes. They shouldn't be attacked for that. I'm not talking mult-millionaires here (there are very few of them), but head teachers, doctors, engineers (like myself), lecturers.

     

    My parents came from poor council house estates in Glasgow. Due to the universal benefit of free higher education they managed to get degrees and have decent careers. As a result, I was brought up reasonably comfortably. Times were tough at points; no new cars all the time, exotic holidays, but I didn't starve and went to a decent state school. If they had not had that universal benefit, I might have grown up on a poor estate in Glasgow with little hope nor drive.

     

    My decent upbringing helped me in terms of going to school and getting the grades for uni. Meanwhile, my parents added to society by earning more than their parents and paying more into the tax system as a result of their degrees. The universal benefit of free education allowed me in turn to get into uni. I now part own a small company employing up to 14 people; something that may not have happened without the universal benefit of higher education.

     

    In terms of 'working hard' that's not the right word. A waiter can work as hard as a heart surgeon. However, the former has far less responsibility, needed far less time and devotion to learning than the latter, so salaries should be appropriate. One mistake and the heart surgeon kills someone.

     

    A guy doing overtime stacking shelves in tesco may work as hard as me. However, it's highly unlikely he'll cost a customer 1 million a day in lost production if he makes a bad call as is the case for my job. If I made such a mistake it could have major implications for the client and indirectly our company, costing people their jobs and all that entails.

     

    I like it when I'm in Norway and the waiter serving me is on 20k and not claiming tax credits, income support etc, has a decent flat and can afford to go out to restaurants too. Sitting beside me is an engineer from Statoil earning a very good salary too, albeit with a fair bit of tax. However, they're not complaining due to the good public services they get for that. They're also not calling the waiter a scrounger for getting state benefits to supplement a meagre salary.

     

    That's what I prefer. It's also how we run our company; a john-lewis type model where we pay our staff as much as we can and collectively share profits.

     

    Now I'm off to join the Tories...

     

    I agree with most of this, still not convinced by your argument about those in low paid jobs not taking responsibilities, I think you're using the wrong word again (and yes, I'm being picky).

     

    How about the person who works for Sainsbury's who put the internal poster up in their shop window, how much has that cost the company? I doubt Sainsbury's will let the person off with a wee slap on the wrists.

     

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/30/sainsburys-sales-strategy-public

     

    How about the low paid who work with food? If they make the wrong call or don't follow process they can very easily put someone's health at risk or kill them. How much would a major outbreak of food poisoning cost a company like McDonald's?

     

    How about bus drivers on low incomes (maybe working long hours to compensate for low pay) who are then under pressure to keep to a schedule?

     

    How about delivery drivers on low pay? They have one of the most dangerous jobs in the UK, they take that responsibility on their own shoulders without needing massive pay to do so.

     

    How about anyone working in retail who sells alcohol to people? There are huge responsibilities involved, many of which are not taken seriously by those selling the alcohol or those making the purchase.

     

    I fully agree with the idea that some jobs should pay far more than others, but is that down to responsibility or skill?

     

    To get back vaguely on topic, if you had to design a taxation & benefits system and had a clean start (blank sheet of paper), then what would your system look like?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

     

    I fully agree with the idea that some jobs should pay far more than others, but is that down to responsibility or skill?

     

     

    Both.

     

    I believe in equality of opportunity. The waiter can become flow assurance engineer with no barrier to that if they wish (ergo no fees for higher education etc). That's me. Served my time in the Marine Hotel, North Berwick. Also stacked shelves at Tescos and worked behind the counter of a deli for many years (whilst at uni).

     

    I certainly don't recall feeling a heavy burden of serious responsibilities in those jobs, although I get what you mean.

     

    Some people are lucky enough to be born cleverer / more intelligent than others. They are the ones who can give us a heart bypass or invent a way to purify water. We should encourage them.

     

    Sadly, the world is not full of selfless people willing to save the planet on a pittance; humans are humans. Ergo, our best incentive is to wave a higher salary at our brightest whilst encouraging them to do their bit for society in the form of paying tax too. 

     

    I prefer a narrow Gaussian distribution type salary model. Most people earn a decent salary around the mean. A few earn less, a few earn more. Very few poor and very few rich. Social democratic model.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

     

    I prefer a narrow Gaussian distribution type salary model. Most people earn a decent salary around the mean. A few earn less, a few earn more. Very few poor and very few rich. Social democratic model.

     

    Definitely, there's something wrong with a country when the mean income is 25% higher than the median income.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    Very much enjoying this debate between SS and CMD. IMO it's upto governments to drive a narrative that is good for society , they're not there just to drive the economy .

    On this measure the Tories have been a complete failure.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Back to main topic in hand...

     

    STATGEEK at UKPR's charts based on Yougov data.

     

    And Yougov is historically bad for the SNP due to heavy down-weighting.

     

    scotland-poll-trends-over-time.png

     

    Colours should be obvious.

     

    Not confined to Yougov; being seen in other UK-wide polls too; SNP racing ahead for Westminster VI.

     

    Labour may have killed themselves to save the union, possibly temporarily in the latter case.

     

    Broon desperately pleading with Scots voters to save his Labour MPs and allow them to keep undemocratically voting on English matters by rejecting devolution, presumably.

     

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/brown-accuses-cameron-of-setting-trap-for-scots-voters.25475080

     

    Less than a fortnight after the former Labour Prime Minister was credited with helping to save Mr Cameron's job, Mr Brown urged the people of Scotland to band together against proposals to restrict Scottish MPs' voting rights.

     

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

     

     

    Not confined to Yougov; being seen in other UK-wide polls too; SNP racing ahead for Westminster VI.

     

     

     

    The SNP have performed poorly at most Westminster elections, I hope they nail this one. Any expectation that a NO vote would kill the SNP certainly doesn't seem to be adding up. I don't think anyone should be getting ahead of themselves as this surge for the SNP may not be sustained, but it currently looks very healthy for them. I've heard from my local SNP branch, their membership has trebled in two weeks.

     

    Interesting to note it isn't only Labour taking a bashing, the Tories are well down too. Nowt weird as folk, vote NO in the referendum then switch support to the SNP.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    Interesting to note it isn't only Labour taking a bashing, the Tories are well down too. Nowt weird as folk, vote NO in the referendum then switch support to the SNP.

     

    As I said not so long ago, Scottish politics is complicated!

     

    Could be taken as people saying "We're not convinced about Independence" but at the same time "don't dare think about taking us for granted now" or even "you should have offered (proper) Devo Max on the ballot".

     

    Funny, those of us of a Yes persuasion should be depressed and disinterested after the No result, but anything of the kind. I think the next few months are going to be utterly fascinating!

    • Like 3
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    And of course with the General Election based on first past the post, if those SNP figures were reflected across the Scottish region then it is not inconceivable that they return 35+ MP's.

     

    Devo Max/full federalisation is the only way the Unionists can stop another fast approaching constitutional crisis.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    This is worth a read from Prof Curtice: 'What should be done about the Vow?'

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/done-vow-public-opinion-devolution/

    As MS said just a moment ago, DevoMax is the only way out of this. The bottom line is the majority want Scotland to effectively be independent, just they would rather not have to break up the UK to get that autonomy.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    BBC's James Cook has also just put up a lengthy piece on the Vow and it's consequences / aftermath. Have to say as far as BBC people go he is a rarity in that his stock has risen with both sides of the referendum divide.

    The referendum is already history.

    But this is not over yet. Not by a long way.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29443603

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    Interestingly in reading both those items, it is clear what Scots want is simple Democracy.

     

    The clear majority want Devo Max and will support the party best able to deliver it. Those parties which don't will be punished.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    I think what Scots want is a situation where they're not seen as sticking the knife into the UK . That they're okay with the concept of a family of nations, want to remain on good terms with everyone else in the rUK.

     

    This takes good leadership on all sides and some pragmatism. Essentially though this also needs some compromise from all the Unionist parties aswell as the SNP.

     

    I think Westminster may well have offered Devo Max if this was the end of the story, this isn't just about commitments from Westminster but also the SNP.

     

    The problem if you look at it from another angle is will the SNP put independence on the backburner in return for Devo Max?

     

    Is that a compromise too far?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    I think Westminster may well have offered Devo Max if this was the end of the story, this isn't just about commitments from Westminster but also the SNP.

    The problem if you look at it from another angle is will the SNP put independence on the backburner in return for Devo Max?

    Is that a compromise too far?

    If we get DevoMax it wont be any particular party which decides whether that is the final destination on the constitutional journey but the people of Scotland.

    The Indy supporting parties may well continue to argue their case that we should take the final step, that is their democratic right to do so, equally it is the democratic right of the Scottish people to choose not to take that step and if there is no great desire to progress beyond DevoMax then the Indy issue is effectively parked.

    However with DevoMax, the elephant in the room is Trident. This is an issue that may well keep the constitutional debate alive in a DevoMax Scotland.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    I think what Scots want is a situation where they're not seen as sticking the knife into the UK . That they're okay with the concept of a family of nations, want to remain on good terms with everyone else in the rUK.

     

    This takes good leadership on all sides and some pragmatism. Essentially though this also needs some compromise from all the Unionist parties aswell as the SNP.

     

    I think Westminster may well have offered Devo Max if this was the end of the story, this isn't just about commitments from Westminster but also the SNP.

     

    The problem if you look at it from another angle is will the SNP put independence on the backburner in return for Devo Max?

     

    Is that a compromise too far?

     

    I'm not sure whether it's entirely relevant whether the SNP decides to continue to pursue Independence in the longer term. If Scotland is given Devo Max and the Scottish people are happy with that, then if the SNP continue to put Independence at the heart of their policies then one of two things will happen. 1) People stop voting SNP, or 2) They continue to vote SNP (because they want a SNP government in Holyrood) but if the SNP manage to get another Indy Ref then the people vote No again.

     

    Personally I think the SNP will, and should, take Devo Max, or as many powers as it can get for Scotland, as long as they are not structured in such a way that they are a burden rather than a bonus. Start from there, give it a bit of time to settle, then if the people of Scotland then feel that is still not enough then raise the Independence question again.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: The Highlands of West Fife. 650ft ASL. Nr Knockhill Racing Circuit
  • Weather Preferences: Hot N' Sunny / Cauld N' Snawy
  • Location: The Highlands of West Fife. 650ft ASL. Nr Knockhill Racing Circuit

    This currently on the BBC Scotland Page

    Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for 100,000 Scots to sign a petition urging Westminster to keep promises on devolution.

    Mr Brown said there should be "no strings attached" to promises of more powers for Scotland.

    And he claimed Conservative plans to devolve income tax were a "trap" which could result in Scottish MPs losing the right to vote on UK income tax.

    Alex Salmond described the Labour MP's comments as "astonishing".

    The outgoing SNP leader and first minister said Mr Brown was "calling for guarantees on the delivery of something which he himself said during the referendum campaign was already a done deal".

    “Start Quote

    No party leader ever suggested that any further caveats, conditions or even considerations would be introduced then or later into the vowâ€

    End Quote Gordon Brown"

    Mr Brown has proposed allowing the Scottish Parliament to raise a further £2bn in tax revenues and to keep 50% of total VAT income in Scotland - around £4bn.

    This was part of a 14-point plan for more powers for Scotland, which also included more controls over job creation, transport, land use, welfare and employment rights.

    'Tory trap'

    Scotland voted "No" to independence in the referendum of 18 September.

    Ahead of the vote, Mr Brown set out a timetable for boosting the Scottish Parliament's powers if voters rejected independence, which was backed by the leaders of the three main pro-Union parties.

    Prime Minister David Cameron took Labour by surprise on 19 September when he announced plans to end the anomaly which allows 59 Scottish MPs to vote on England-only legislation, such as health and education.

    Downing Street later insisted that "one is not conditional upon the other" but Mr Cameron has been under pressure from Conservative MPs calling for more powers for the rest of the UK if Scotland is to get further devolution.

    Mr Brown claimed that "no party leader ever suggested" such conditions in discussions before the referendum.

    In a letter to his Constituency Labour Party in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, he wrote: "The Tory trap that we are in danger of falling into is to devolve all decisions on Scotland's income tax rates away from Westminster and then to deny Scotland representation in votes on budget decisions on income tax rates."

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    If we get DevoMax it wont be any particular party which decides whether that is the final destination on the constitutional journey but the people of Scotland.

    The Indy supporting parties may well continue to argue their case that we should take the final step, that is their democratic right to do so, equally it is the democratic right of the Scottish people to choose not to take that step and if there is no great desire to progress beyond DevoMax then the Indy issue is effectively parked.

    However with DevoMax, the elephant in the room is Trident. This is an issue that may well keep the constitutional debate alive in a DevoMax Scotland.

     

    I'm still not convinced DevoMax is the destination. Certainly i think full economic devolution is but if they got that then i don't think any more domestic powers over health and education ect.. (though there's significant control there anyway) would be clambered for. 

     

    Indeed i wonder if the next PM should do a trade and put it to a referendum.. Full Tax powers but justice ect.. back to Westminster.  My bet is the money would win and put the independence movement somewhat on the backburner.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Full Tax powers but justice ect.. back to Westminster.

     

    Scottish Law and police under London control. Hmmm. Can't see that happening. Would likely breach the Treaty of Union if not send Scotland towards indy.

     

    Also, if the Tories plan to remove people's human rights in Scotland, as per their manifesto, they may have a little trouble. It's a separate legal jurisdiction. It the Scottish parliament says no, then the human rights act will remain in force in Scotland short of London overruling the democratically elected Scottish parliament. Even then, how would it be enforced? The police, courts etc would have to break Scottish law... Could also land London in trouble with the EU, UN for example; removing people's human rights being against their human rights.

     

    I imagine the Scottish government would get strong backing from the electorate against London removing their human rights, so no concerns there. 

     

    Interesting Tory plan to cut the state pension to lower levels than promised previously. Will go down well with the over 55's.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Channel 4 confirm what we had suspicions of:

     

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUK/status/517276133214408704

     

    David Cameron IS evil.

     

    Well, I imagine IS don't like the idea of human rights either.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Inbhir Nis / Inverness - 636 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Freezing fog, frost, snow, sunshine.
  • Location: Inbhir Nis / Inverness - 636 ft asl

    I'm still not convinced DevoMax is the destination. Certainly i think full economic devolution is but if they got that then i don't think any more domestic powers over health and education ect.. (though there's significant control there anyway) would be clambered for. 

     

    Indeed i wonder if the next PM should do a trade and put it to a referendum.. Full Tax powers but justice ect.. back to Westminster.  My bet is the money would win and put the independence movement somewhat on the backburner.

    Justice back to Westminster? Cannot see the Scottish legal community finding that one very appetising, especially with the ongoing reform and historically low crime levels.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Justice back to Westminster? 

     

    Wouldn't be 'back' either - it's never been at Westminster. Neither has health and education.

     

    The Scottish Executive - now Scottish Government - initially just took over the functions of the Scottish Office, which prior to that were managed by the SoS for Scotland.

     

    So it would be 'taking over' and we'd be back at the ballot box in no time at all. 

     

    'London grabs control of justice in Scotland whilst (possibly) ending human rights'

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2021-05-06 08:50:36 Valid: 06/05/2021 0600 - 06/05/2021 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 06 MAY 2021 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      A wintry feel for Thursday but warmth by Sunday. Weekend wind and rain too

      Snow showers for Scotland as the cold May weather continues. A change by the weekend as an Atlantic low brings strong winds and heavy rain but draws up warmth from the south by Sunday. Read the full update here

      Netweather forecasts
      Netweather forecasts
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      Election weather- Still chilly with showers to dodge on May 6th

      Voting takes place on May 6th across Britain with Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections, Mayoral and local councils including for London Mayor. If you've not postal voted, what's the weather for Thursday? Read more here

      Jo Farrow
      Jo Farrow
      Latest weather updates from Netweather
    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...