Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Can Scotland drag the rest of the UK towards 'progressive' (I hate this word: it's used so much the meaning of it has become diluted) policies?

 

Scotland took the lead on a smoking ban in public places, first floated the idea of a minimum unit price on alcohol, and began the conversation of legalising gay marriage (?). Those are just off the top of my head. However, there's a clear divergence in health and education policy, for better or for worse.

 

We can't influence welfare policy or taxation as we don't have those powers.

Er no.

 

Chances of legalised abortion and gay marriage in Northern Ireland - none.

[Sarah O]

 

 

Oh absolutely, but the referendum is nothing to do with political parties, it's to do with Scotland. I voted SNP to get to this stage, if and when the Yes vote carries the day, I may not be voting SNP again, the political landscape will change. There are many more like that and there are many non-SNP voters/supporters who will be voting Yes as they see that as a better future for our country than continuing with what we have, which is a very bleak prospect indeed.

[luckydug]

Oh absolutely, but the referendum is nothing to do with political parties, it's to do with Scotland. I voted SNP to get to this stage, if and when the Yes vote carries the day, I may not be voting SNP again, the political landscape will change. There are many more like that and there are many non-SNP voters/supporters who will be voting Yes as they see that as a better future for our country than continuing with what we have, which is a very bleak prospect indeed.

 

 

This is exactly my position as well.

I used to vote Labour all the time but I have always favoured independence. I started voting SNP to get to this stage and when we get independence I will become a floating voter with leanings towards the centre-left parties.

The future both excites me and frightens me if NO win the vote coupled with a Tory win in the UK election I think Scotland especially in the poorer areas will pay a high price.

[Gorgiewave]

Can Scotland drag the rest of the UK towards 'progressive' (I hate this word: it's used so much the meaning of it has become diluted) policies?

 

Scotland took the lead on a smoking ban in public places, first floated the idea of a minimum unit price on alcohol, and began the conversation of legalising gay marriage (?). Those are just off the top of my head. However, there's a clear divergence in health and education policy, for better or for worse.

 

We can't influence welfare policy or taxation as we don't have those powers.

Can Scotland drag the rest of the UK towards 'progressive' (I hate this word: it's used so much the meaning of it has become diluted) policies?

 

Scotland took the lead on a smoking ban in public places, first floated the idea of a minimum unit price on alcohol, and began the conversation of legalising gay marriage (?). Those are just off the top of my head. However, there's a clear divergence in health and education policy, for better or for worse.

 

We can't influence welfare policy or taxation as we don't have those powers.

 

The ideas you mention are unique to Scotland and did not originate in Scotland. Alberta already has minimum alcohol pricing, there were several smoking bans in the US in the 1980s and numerous countries (including some rather less liberal ones such as Argentina and South Africa) have already legalised gay marriage. All that's great and the sooner it's taken for granted the better. I think most of these ideas probably emerge in grassroots campaigns and crystallise in academic and legal circles. I think they are thereafter much of a muchness from one place to another. This why I say that independence, in one sense, doesn't matter: Scotland in the UK or independent Scotland will be beige, consumer capitalist and mostly boring.

 

Scottish people and Scottish politicians can influence welfare policy and taxation.

[Gorgiewave]

Er no.

 

Chances of legalised abortion and gay marriage in Northern Ireland - none.

 

What do your friends and family in Northern Ireland make of this referendum, Geoff?

[JamboX2]

Aye, true enough. Although given that the SNP have put in place the majority (not all) of their pre-election promises I would be more inclined to believe them in comparison to the UK Government who have been trying to erase their pre-election manifesto from the internet as if it did not exist! And we all know why!

Why are they offering "more powers" at this stage of the game? I recall them shouting "Let's have the referendum now" when the September referendum date was announced by Salmond. I don't recall their Jam tomorrow back then or their version of the white paper now!

 

The Unionists have fulfilled all pledges on devolution when called on to deliver in the past 20 years. A sign of commitment to devolution. And it's not a "new" pledge on devolution. Since 1999 there were enhancements on Scotland's powers in 2003, 2011 and now again we are seeing commissions and reports, not just from parties but from other groups - Unions and Reform groups. There is an intent here - looking to Wales and Northern Ireland you see that too.

 

Your basing your opinions on the trustworthyness of two governments on the current political compositions. That's only a temporary composition and commitment from both. Who knows you could get a woefully inept party running Scotland next and an excellent one running things from Westminster. On top of that many SNP pledges have slowly unravelled in recent years - the NHS is having huge staffing issues based on their policies. Class sizes are on the increase. School meals have taken years to implement. Council housing stocks are still too low. It's not a glowing report card. Though, neither is the Westminster administration - then again most day to day matters run there have little effect on Scotland - Health and Education and Policing for starters.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

What do your friends and family in Northern Ireland make of this referendum, Geoff?

No idea. It isn't exactly top of mind when I talk to them.

[House]

The ideas you mention are unique to Scotland and did not originate in Scotland. Alberta already has minimum alcohol pricing, there were several smoking bans in the US in the 1980s and numerous countries (including some rather less liberal ones such as Argentina and South Africa) have already legalised gay marriage. All that's great and the sooner it's taken for granted the better. I think most of these ideas probably emerge in grassroots campaigns and crystallise in academic and legal circles. I think they are thereafter much of a muchness from one place to another. This why I say that independence, in one sense, doesn't matter: Scotland in the UK or independent Scotland will be beige, consumer capitalist and mostly boring.

 

Scottish people and Scottish politicians can influence welfare policy and taxation.

 

Granted. Although I wasn't claiming those ideas originated in Scotland. Scotland was the first unit in UK politics to consider them; and with some, implement them.

 

For the second point (maybe I should have made clear) I was playing off the assertion that Scotland can be a "progressive beacon" (or whatever) if independent. In relation to the first point, Scotland, with already devolved powers, brought these ideas and policies into the (British) national consciousness.

[reaths17]

Can Scotland drag the rest of the UK towards 'progressive' (I hate this word: it's used so much the meaning of it has become diluted) policies?

 

Scotland took the lead on a smoking ban in public places, first floated the idea of a minimum unit price on alcohol, and began the conversation of legalising gay marriage (?). Those are just off the top of my head. However, there's a clear divergence in health and education policy, for better or for worse.

 

We can't influence welfare policy or taxation as we don't have those powers.

 

unless your a politician as they are entitled due to the hypocritic oath to have smoking rooms while the people they banned have to face the shitty weather if they wish to continue smoking.

 

minimum pricing would be great if it caught all the jakeballs but its only collecting those that are to skint for a happy life in the 1st place, while our politicians will still be guzzling wine, brandies, port, sherries, beer vodka, gin n tonics at their work on their lunch breaks while you can't drive a car after a pint but you can run peoples lives while your sloshed.

[luckydug]

Its going to be an interesting few months to the vote.

It feels to me as if the tide is turning towards a Yes vote. Just like the turnaround in opinion that got the SNP their overall majority in Holyrood.

Perhaps round about July/August we will be accepting that an independent Scotland is a probability rather than a possibility.

One thing that may be swaying people is that its more than just the SNP that want independence.

[Brian Whittaker's Tache]

Don't know if this has posted here before (I cant see it)

 

[Gorgiewave]

Don't know if this has posted here before (I cant see it)

 

http://youtu.be/h6GsEKrCvgw

 

Mostly nice sentiments but socialism will get absolutely nowhere under independence. Nowhere at all.

[Serge]

There have been a few posts in the debate mentioning the quality of the current Holyrood politicians. It's worth remembering that a Yes vote will effectively bring back every Scottish MP from Westminster and, I would imagine, every Scottish Lord.

Added to this, I suspect that a lot of academics, lawyers, businessmen and free thinkers may want to be involved in national politics on a scale that's small enough for their input to make a difference.

In short - We will have capable people who will have the skills, knowledge and vision to help Scotland succeed.

[Brian Whittaker's Tache]

Mostly nice sentiments but socialism will get absolutely nowhere under independence. Nowhere at all.

 

I think he mentions that.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

The Unionists have fulfilled all pledges on devolution when called on to deliver in the past 20 years. A sign of commitment to devolution. And it's not a "new" pledge on devolution. Since 1999 there were enhancements on Scotland's powers in 2003, 2011 and now again we are seeing commissions and reports, not just from parties but from other groups - Unions and Reform groups. There is an intent here - looking to Wales and Northern Ireland you see that too.

 

Devolution had to be fought for and half the numpties who said it couldn't be done or it would turn Scotland into a barren wasteland are saying the same thing now about independence. Enhancements? What massive ground breaking enhancements were those? The intent is to placate the electorate up here with their fake promises. Why would we want only 15% control over our finances when we can have 100% (who wouldn't)?

 

Your basing your opinions on the trustworthyness of two governments on the current political compositions. That's only a temporary composition and commitment from both. Who knows you could get a woefully inept party running Scotland next and an excellent one running things from Westminster. On top of that many SNP pledges have slowly unravelled in recent years - the NHS is having huge staffing issues based on their policies. Class sizes are on the increase. School meals have taken years to implement. Council housing stocks are still too low. It's not a glowing report card. Though, neither is the Westminster administration - then again most day to day matters run there have little effect on Scotland - Health and Education and Policing for starters.

A woefully inept Scottish Government after independence is a possibility however; it will be a government voted in by the majority of Scots and at least we could then do something about it. ALL of the policies you mention above are still an issue but they have improved massively under the SNP led administration considering we only have 7% control of our finances. Take the bedroom tax mitigation, Scotland STILL needs to beg Westminster to allow us to do this! Why? Because it's their train set!

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

There's a good point here. Edinburgh will vote No but may be forced into independence by the west & Highlands.

The same may happen to Orkney & Shetland too.

Edinburgh will vote no! Are you ITK?

The people of Scotland will be asked to vote.

The majority vote will carry the day

It's called democracy get over it.

If it's a No vote I am unlikely to move my family to Canada or wherever because I'm not happy with the result!

 

[jack D and coke]

 

Edinburgh will vote no! Are you ITK?

The people of Scotland will be asked to vote.

The majority vote will carry the day

It's called democracy get over it.

If it's a No vote I am unlikely to move my family to Canada or wherever because I'm not happy with the result!

These are the same posters who say we should accept the majority vote when it's the UK who goes to the polls but if Scotland doesn't vote the way they want it's toys out the pram time. Although I'm undecided there is without doubt a smell of fear running through voters who will be voting for the status quo IMO. Some of the nonsense you read on social media is just insane.

[flecktimus]

& FFS Salmond didn't want the Devo option on the ballot!

 

Had it been there it would have guaranteed a loss in the independence referendum. Guaranteed. He knows that, the SNP knows that. You think he'd do that to something he's worked his whole life for? That's not even getting into the territory of the SNP having no mandate to offer that to the people.

 

I think you could be wrong there, if my memory serves me right Salmond wanted Devo max on the ballot but Cameron said no.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think you could be wrong there, if my memory serves me right Salmond wanted Devo max on the ballot but Cameron said no.

 

I think you are right.

[TheMaganator]

Edinburgh will vote no! Are you ITK?

The people of Scotland will be asked to vote.

The majority vote will carry the day

It's called democracy get over it.

If it's a No vote I am unlikely to move my family to Canada or wherever because I'm not happy with the result!

I am aware of what democracy is.

 

The point is - we are often told that in Scotland we don't get the government we vote for in Westminster - I am sure Edinburgh will vote No (imo, obviously) yet we may be removed from the UK anyway - the same could happen for any other region that votes No - and that is irreversable.

 

The point R17 was making above is, why should we stop at independence for Scotland - if Edinburgh votes No - we shouldnt we be able to have our own independence ref?

 

It is not toys out the pram stuff (well, no more than the 'we dont get what we vote for brigade' that are voting Yes). At what stage does regional democracy out trump national? The Scottish government may make decisions that are for the benefit of Glasgow and the central belt over the highlands - its the same as the 'Westminster only serves London' argument. How far do we break it down when we are not happy with what the government does?

[TheMaganator]

I think you could be wrong there, if my memory serves me right Salmond wanted Devo max on the ballot but Cameron said no.

I think you are right.

What he said and what he wanted are different.

 

I think he did say he wanted it - knowing full well he didnt have the democratic mandate to put it on the ballot. The SNP had no mandate for Devo Max. None. They had a mandate to hold an independence ref. Saying 'we want it on', knowing it wouldn't and couldn't happen was just another way to say 'look at the nasty tories' dictating to us.

 

I say again, the Devo Max option would have killed the chances of independence. Killed it. Why would Salmond risk that? He didn't want it. The SNPers that I know didnt want it. Just because they said differently in public doesn't change that.

[reaths17]

I am aware of what democracy is.

 

The point is - we are often told that in Scotland we don't get the government we vote for in Westminster - I am sure Edinburgh will vote No (imo, obviously) yet we may be removed from the UK anyway - the same could happen for any other region that votes No - and that is irreversable.

 

The point R17 was making above is, why should we stop at independence for Scotland - if Edinburgh votes No - we shouldnt we be able to have our own independence ref?

 

It is not toys out the pram stuff (well, no more than the 'we dont get what we vote for brigade' that are voting Yes). At what stage does regional democracy out trump national? The Scottish government may make decisions that are for the benefit of Glasgow and the central belt over the highlands - its the same as the 'Westminster only serves London' argument. How far do we break it down when we are not happy with what the government does?

 

are you saying that depending on which part of scotland you live in you might still not have freedom and a government of your choice and that the grass isn't really greener.

 

yip it's all very well greetin about westminster not being local enough for the independence movement, there will be many groups individuals that will benefit not a jot from independence and may infact be greatly put out at an expense for the pleasure, that is democracy, how far do we go before all the gum bumpers are happy with the decision makers, never gonna happen. one look at egypt should have some doubting this greener grass nonsense.

 

so what is the purpose exactly?

 

anything that has nothin more than a scottish face growling the orders needn't bother replying

[Pans Jambo]

are you saying that depending on which part of scotland you live in you might still not have freedom and a government of your choice and that the grass isn't really greener.

 

yip it's all very well greetin about westminster not being local enough for the independence movement, there will be many groups individuals that will benefit not a jot from independence and may infact be greatly put out at an expense for the pleasure, that is democracy, how far do we go before all the gum bumpers are happy with the decision makers, never gonna happen. one look at egypt should have some doubting this greener grass nonsense.

 

so what is the purpose exactly?

 

anything that has nothin more than a scottish face growling the orders needn't bother replying

 

Aye Scottish Independence is the same as Egypt right enough!

[Pans Jambo]

What he said and what he wanted are different.

 

I think he did say he wanted it - knowing full well he didnt have the democratic mandate to put it on the ballot. The SNP had no mandate for Devo Max. None. They had a mandate to hold an independence ref. Saying 'we want it on', knowing it wouldn't and couldn't happen was just another way to say 'look at the nasty tories' dictating to us.

 

I say again, the Devo Max option would have killed the chances of independence. Killed it. Why would Salmond risk that? He didn't want it. The SNPers that I know didnt want it. Just because they said differently in public doesn't change that.

Devo Max NEVER will be offered. If it is then whoever offers it needs to take a polygraph test!

[Pans Jambo]

What he said and what he wanted are different.

 

I think he did say he wanted it - knowing full well he didnt have the democratic mandate to put it on the ballot. The SNP had no mandate for Devo Max. None. They had a mandate to hold an independence ref. Saying 'we want it on', knowing it wouldn't and couldn't happen was just another way to say 'look at the nasty tories' dictating to us.

 

I say again, the Devo Max option would have killed the chances of independence. Killed it. Why would Salmond risk that? He didn't want it. The SNPers that I know didnt want it. Just because they said differently in public doesn't change that.

In any case, Salmond asked for it and it was refused end of.

[TheMaganator]

Devo Max NEVER will be offered. If it is then whoever offers it needs to take a polygraph test!

Labour will be announcing their plans for it at their March convention.

 

Don't believe everything you are told by the Yes camp - the 3 other parties will offer something different. Bisset is not a mind reader - this was always going to happen in the final stretch

[TheMaganator]

In any case, Salmond asked for it and it was refused end of.

He didn't have the mandate to ask for it - do you agree with that at least? Their manifesto was for independence and that was what they were voted in for - not Devo Max

[Pans Jambo]

Labour will be announcing their plans for it at their March convention.

 

Don't believe everything you are told by the Yes camp - the 3 other parties will offer something different. Bisset is not a mind reader - this was always going to happen in the final stretch

Which will be what? Now Scotland can have 15% control of it's finances and the UK will still decide what happens to the other 85% as well as all the other nice things like Trident etc?

 

No thanks, I will be voting for more, a lot more.

[reaths17]

Aye Scottish Independence is the same as Egypt right enough!

 

yeah, your right it's nowt like independence for scotland but it's everything like independence. they fought to get rid of a dictator expecting thing's to be better only to find that like the desert, there isn't actually much grass kickin about and in some cases there was none at all.

[Pans Jambo]

He didn't have the mandate to ask for it - do you agree with that at least? Their manifesto was for independence and that was what they were voted in for - not Devo Max

Why did'nt he? He is the First Minister and was negotiating on Scotland's behalf with the Prime Minister on the Edinburgh agreement. Whether he was remotely interested in it or not isn't the argument, the point is that he offered it and it was refused by the UK.

I dont want devo max and I suspect neither does our FM but there you go!

[Pans Jambo]

yeah, your right it's nowt like independence for scotland but it's everything like independence. they fought to get rid of a dictator expecting thing's to be better only to find that like the desert, there isn't actually much grass kickin about and in some cases there was none at all.

There is no dictator in Scotland though reaths.

I think the army and religion had more to do with the story in Egypt. Is the old firm going to start a civil war or something? is that it?

I have to say, your posts are a bit gloomy, even the staunch No voters on here dont paint a picture as bad as that.

Cheer up mate, Berwick is quite nice if it all goes Pete Tong for you!

[2NaFish]

yeah, your right it's nowt like independence for scotland but it's everything like independence. they fought to get rid of a dictator expecting thing's to be better only to find that like the desert, there isn't actually much grass kickin about and in some cases there was none at all.

 

Mind that time someone got rid of something and things got better? Vote Yes!!

 

Christ, is this the level of debate you're offering? Something totally unrelated bad happened, so vote no?

[TheMaganator]

Why did'nt he? He is the First Minister and was negotiating on Scotland's behalf with the Prime Minister on the Edinburgh agreement. Whether he was remotely interested in it or not isn't the argument, the point is that he offered it and it was refused by the UK.

I dont want devo max and I suspect neither does our FM but there you go!

 

It is fairly basic, PJ.

 

He did not have the mandate or authority from the people of Scotland that voted him in to negotiate for Devo Max. That would require constitutional change. He had the mandate to negotiate a referendum on Scottish Independence.

 

He, quite simply, did not have the authority to ask for Devo Max. Of course it was not allowed. Forgetting, of course, that he didn?t want it?

[reaths17]

Why did'nt he? He is the First Minister and was negotiating on Scotland's behalf with the Prime Minister on the Edinburgh agreement. Whether he was remotely interested in it or not isn't the argument, the point is that he offered it and it was refused by the UK.

I dont want devo max and I suspect neither does our FM but there you go!

 

being a politician where compromise is the name of the game, having devo max on a ballot slip would be right up your street 2/1 chance of gaining summit MAGIC.

 

alas, this wouldn't get the ego's erse onto the big seat and into the history books.

[Pans Jambo]

It is fairly basic, PJ.

 

He did not have the mandate or authority from the people of Scotland that voted him in to negotiate for Devo Max. That would require constitutional change. He had the mandate to negotiate a referendum on Scottish Independence.

 

He, quite simply, did not have the authority to ask for Devo Max. Of course it was not allowed. Forgetting, of course, that he didn?t want it?

Aye fair enough TM....The PM would have been though and he didnt even want it (at the time).

[reaths17]

There is no dictator in Scotland though reaths.

I think the army and religion had more to do with the story in Egypt. Is the old firm going to start a civil war or something? is that it?

I have to say, your posts are a bit gloomy, even the staunch No voters on here dont paint a picture as bad as that.

Cheer up mate, Berwick is quite nice if it all goes Pete Tong for you!

 

if it wasn't for our good auld scotsmen, i'd still be in scotland as far as newcastle.

 

[modedit]

 

[Pans Jambo]

being a politician where compromise is the name of the game, having devo max on a ballot slip would be right up your street 2/1 chance of gaining summit MAGIC.

 

alas, this wouldn't get the ego's erse onto the big seat and into the history books.

I just said it dont want devo max so it would not have been right up my street at all.

[Pans Jambo]

if it wasn't for our good auld scotsmen, i'd still be in scotland as far as newcastle

Funny you should mention Newcastle, I was in at our factory down there only yesterday and the general consensus was that if they could join Scotland they would. Says quite a lot IMO.

[Boris]

 

Labour will be announcing their plans for it at their March convention.

 

Don't believe everything you are told by the Yes camp - the 3 other parties will offer something different. Bisset is not a mind reader - this was always going to happen in the final stretch

 

Funny how it has taken until now for the Unionist parties to even think about possibly offering something else to devolution. Why is that?

[TheMaganator]

Funny how it has taken until now for the Unionist parties to even think about possibly offering something else to devolution. Why is that?

 

Simply because of where we find ourselves politically. It is quite clear that there is a significant proportion if not, dare I say, a majority that would like some constitutional change.

 

In the face of that ? what political party would not want to offer the people what they want?

 

They will not be the first political party to change or come up with a new policy because of the will of the people.

 

The SNP were ardently against NATO. They realised that would be a vote loser, so they changed their position. The same could be said for the Monarchy and the Pound. Parties change their position based on what they think will get them votes for what they want. Lab, Libs & Cons want to remain part of the Union. They are rightly thinking that if they want that to happen they will have to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the itch of the undecideds.

 

It is hardly groundbreaking stuff.

[Boris]

 

 

Simply because of where we find ourselves politically. It is quite clear that there is a significant proportion if not, dare I say, a majority that would like some constitutional change.

 

In the face of that ? what political party would not want to offer the people what they want?

 

They will not be the first political party to change or come up with a new policy because of the will of the people.

 

The SNP were ardently against NATO. They realised that would be a vote loser, so they changed their position. The same could be said for the Monarchy and the Pound. Parties change their position based on what they think will get them votes for what they want. Lab, Libs & Cons want to remain part of the Union. They are rightly thinking that if they want that to happen they will have to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the itch of the undecideds.

 

It is hardly groundbreaking stuff.

 

Ah, but the mood you refer to in your first paragraph has been around for a while. It requires London to give it so why nothing at the 2010 general election?

 

Too little, too late IMO.

[jack D and coke]

Interesting article from Massie here....

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9131482/union-in-peril/

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Ah, but the mood you refer to in your first paragraph has been around for a while. It requires London to give it so why nothing at the 2010 general election?

 

Too little, too late IMO.

I also think any devo max is bloody unfair on the rest of the UK unless it is offered all round.

[Boris]

 

I also think any devo max is bloody unfair on the rest of the UK unless it is offered all round.

 

I agree! The whole devolution settlement across the UK post 1997 is/was flawed.

 

Probably because senior Westminster types didn't really want to give it in the first place!

[Craigieboy]

You don't think we're heading in that direction under the last 10 years of UK rule?

 

I don't see that much improvement to be honest. Rising living costs and stagnant wages.

 

[modedit]

 

You're deserting the country anyway.

 

Can't believe I'll never see you again.

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

In any case, Salmond asked for it and it was refused end of.

 

It wasnt refused. That's a rewriting of history. Salmond said "Well we could do X on the ballot". When polling came back and trounced a Yes vote he withdrew it. As he and his government are running the show here (setting questions and extending the franchise) itvwas they who with drew it.

 

When asked about this Cameron said he preferred a straight Yes/No vote. Now that could backfire spectacularly on him but he never said "No you cannot do that!" he actually voiced an opinion.

 

Salmind withdrew the option. If he wanted to scupper his opposition amd show how slow they were to reacting to the debate then he should've kept it on. He skipped out of it.

[Pans Jambo]

It wasnt refused. That's a rewriting of history. Salmond said "Well we could do X on the ballot". When polling came back and trounced a Yes vote he withdrew it. As he and his government are running the show here (setting questions and extending the franchise) itvwas they who with drew it.

 

When asked about this Cameron said he preferred a straight Yes/No vote. Now that could backfire spectacularly on him but he never said "No you cannot do that!" he actually voiced an opinion.

 

Salmind withdrew the option. If he wanted to scupper his opposition amd show how slow they were to reacting to the debate then he should've kept it on. He skipped out of it.

 

I stand corrected. You are right JX2! I just found this (see below).

 

The very last part in bold is a proper whopper though!

 

Salmond, the Scottish first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), has abandoned his unofficial campaign to add a second "devo max" question ? a form of enhanced devolution that stops short of independence ? after failing to win support for it in Scotland. The UK government has given ground by allowing the referendum to be held in 2014 ? London had originally favoured next year ? and not blocking Salmond from allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Salmond, whose emphatic victory in the 2011 Scottish parliament elections paved the way for a referendum, said the agreement would allow the vote to be "made in Scotland". The first minister said: "The agreement I expect to reach with the prime minister is one which ensures that not only is the referendum made in Scotland, but that the fundamental right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future is respected by all.

"The agreement will see Scotland take an important step toward independence, and the means to create a fairer and more prosperous Scotland. I look forward to working positively for a yes vote in 2014."

Cameron, who is expected to emphasise Scotland and England's shared military history during his brief visit to Edinburgh on Monday, highlighted the UK government's continued say in Scottish affairs by saying Scotland's "two governments" had reached this historic deal. Cameron then mimicked Salmond's rhetoric by claiming the deal had delivered "the people's referendum".

"Scotland's two governments have come together to deliver a referendum which will be legal, fair and decisive. This marks the beginning of an important chapter in Scotland's story and allows the real debate to begin. It paves the way so that the biggest question of all can be settled: a separate Scotland or a United Kingdom? I will be making a very positive argument for our United Kingdom."

[JamboX2]

 

 

I agree! The whole devolution settlement across the UK post 1997 is/was flawed.

 

Probably because senior Westminster types didn't really want to give it in the first place!

 

No. Not quite. Its because each settlement came about due nations history and own steps to devolution.

 

Scotland had the Constitutional Commission.

Wales had a similar process.

Northern Ireland was a case of wanting to return Home Rule after decades of the troubles - hence more welfare control - Health and welfare evolved differently there due to Home Rule from the 1920s to 1970s.

 

So powers were varied on what was thought needed. Had it been a UK wide commission it may well have been a different settlement.

 

The issue is England - but my view is they are heading to stronger local authorities and mayorships negating a need for a devolution as we know it. What we Wales and NI did was remove over centralusation from London and replicated in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin.

[Gorgiewave]

I had begun to think that there was a pleasant Catch-22 situation in this referendum: that the Scottish public was not swallowing the SNP's BS and so showed themselves capable of running themselves; had they gobbled it down and gone Yes they would have shown themselves to be gullible and pathetic.

 

But no longer. I am now informed by several posters and a good few others that voting No indicates cowardice and that voting Yes implies bravery. I imagine these people are all self-employed? If not, they're surely cowards. This is the kind of infantile level of politics we have to listen to from people who should know better and behave like they want to have the run of their house for a weekend while their parents are away.

 

Or that "it's our destiny". We all know how narrative arcs end up.

 

No means No.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Gorgiewave

[2NaFish]

I had begun to think that there was a pleasant Catch-22 situation in this referendum: that the Scottish public was not swallowing the SNP's BS and so showed themselves capable of running themselves; had they gobbled it down and gone Yes they would have shown themselves to be gullible and pathetic.

 

But no longer. I am now informed by several posters and a good few others that voting No indicates cowardice and that voting Yes implies bravery. I imagine these people are all self-employed? If not, they're surely cowards. This is the kind of infantile level of politics we have to listen to from people who should know better and behave like they want to have the run of their house for a weekend while their parents are away.

 

Or that "it's our destiny". We all know how narrative arcs end up.

 

No means No.

 

Having the courage of your convictions is different to the conviction itself being courageous.