Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jambo1185]

Except it doesn't say anything much. He doesn't even manage to get the usual anonymous quotes that normally fill such articles.

 

On the so-called Yes Alliance, the reason it doesn't work is because there are no seats that it makes sense for the SNP to stand down for the Greens, and a Green Yes Alliance candidate would probably get substantially fewer votes than a standard SNP candidate would in the same seat. It's interesting to note that the Greens have not been all that keen on a Yes Alliance either.

 

On Sturgeon saying nasty things about other parties at an SNP rally, I await your condemnation of any Labour leadership candidate who said bad things about any of the other parties while campaigning. Or is it possibly different standards for different parties?

 

Am I right in thinking the only person bleating on about a YES Alliance was Sheridan, most likely as a desperate attempt to keep himself and whatever party he is now aligned to relevant? I was pretty sure both the Greens and the SNP quickly distanced themselves from that kind of talk, partlybecause as two parties they don't really like each other very much (might change under Sturgeon's leadership though I suppose).

 

If people joined the SNP on an assumption that there would be some kind of YES Alliance then more fool them.

[jambo89]

Is one vote not for the Union i.e. members vote for who they want the Union to back, and your Labour Party vote would have been in the election.

 

So, yes, you had two votes, but only your Labour vote would have counted in the election, your Union vote would be eaten up by all the other Union votes to decide the preferred candidate.

 

i.e. you could vote for Murphy but the rest of the Union votes say choose Findlay, so Findlay gets the Union vote.

 

As a Labour member, you get a vote in the ballot and choose Murphy.

 

If that makes sense!

Yeh that makes sense now. Basically my union vote is a vote within a vote. Whoever wins that gets the union vote and the rest is made up of party members and MSPs etc.

 

Would've voted for Findlay regardless as he is MSP through here and I quite like him.

[jambo89]

If your a member of a union do you automatically get a vote on labour leader?

I'm sure it's split in to 3 for the labour leader. A third from the union, a third from its members and a third from their MPs.

 

Where I wasn't sure is the weighting of the vote. From boris' reply it would appear that the union had only 1 vote but counts as 33%. I think......

[Boris]

If your a member of a union do you automatically get a vote on labour leader?

 

No.  Only if that Union is affiliated to the Labour Party.

 

In my case, Unison, part of your subs go to the political fund.  This can then go to the general fund (non-partisan) or to the affiliate fund, in Unisons case, the Labour Party is the current affiliated party.

 

I'm afraid I can't speak for any other union as I don't know how they operate.

[Boab Mugabe]

Government approved newspapers.

 

:rofl:

[TheMaganator]

Government approved newspapers.

 

:rofl:

Big Boab would approve of this. 

 

I am sure he would enjoy reading it after a hard day of land-grabbing. 

 

Thank God we would never have to endure land-grabs in this country...

[Boris]

Thank God we would never have to endure land-grabs in this country...

 

One day Comrade, one day...

 

[Boris]

Ahh I didn't realise this. Not sure why I find it strange but I do.

 

Do you know if any Union who is affialated with another party? Or two party syst effectively mean unions always gone labour.

 

Traditionally, the Unions backed Labour, although it seems today that some or dis-affiliating in protest.

 

I'm sure there used to be a union that funded the Liberals, but could be wrong.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Ahh I didn't realise this. Not sure why I find it strange but I do.

 

Do you know if any Union who is affialated with another party? Or two party syst effectively mean unions always gone labour.

The RMT unaffiliated with the Labour Party as they no longer represented their members interests and decided to back individuals rather than parties .

Not sure but the Fire brigade Union and maybe the Posties Union the same .

[JamboX2]

Ahh I didn't realise this. Not sure why I find it strange but I do.

 

Do you know if any Union who is affialated with another party? Or two party syst effectively mean unions always gone labour.

Some have backed the Trade Union Alliance party, but think that comes out of the general fund. Majority of the big unions in the UK are in an affiliation with Labour. After all to the Union leaders it's their party in their eyes. They bankroll it and pay for it.

 

Sandra White of the SNP was calling on the RiC to infiltrate the Trade Unions and switch their backing to the SNP. Don't know how far that will go.

[JamboX2]

Am I right in thinking the only person bleating on about a YES Alliance was Sheridan, most likely as a desperate attempt to keep himself and whatever party he is now aligned to relevant? I was pretty sure both the Greens and the SNP quickly distanced themselves from that kind of talk, partlybecause as two parties they don't really like each other very much (might change under Sturgeon's leadership though I suppose).

 

If people joined the SNP on an assumption that there would be some kind of YES Alliance then more fool them.

Stewart Hosie and Angela Constance were pushing it. Ones now the Deputy Leader of the SNP. The Greens don't very much care for the SNP at all. Harvie pulled them out of Yes Scotland to begin with and only got back in reluctantly. The SNP leadership apparently aren't very much happy to deal with them or many else. Very closed shop party at times.

[JamboX2]

Except it doesn't say anything much. He doesn't even manage to get the usual anonymous quotes that normally fill such articles.

 

On the so-called Yes Alliance, the reason it doesn't work is because there are no seats that it makes sense for the SNP to stand down for the Greens, and a Green Yes Alliance candidate would probably get substantially fewer votes than a standard SNP candidate would in the same seat. It's interesting to note that the Greens have not been all that keen on a Yes Alliance either.

 

But at Westminster there are few seats the SNP are within a reasonable distance of to Labour. In many in Glasgow and the west you are still talking 15,000-25,000 votes between Labour and 2nd place. If you stand on an alliance footing then it goes that Green-Yes Candidate A should stand the same chance SNP-Yes Candidate B or SSP-Yes Candidate C as the whole point is that the yes candidates support each other and so do their parties.

 

The SNP deputy leadership candidates were keen for it, again why fracture the appearance of unity in the Yes camp when it's still relevant. The Greens and SSP don't want swamped. And fair play. They are unique parties.

 

On Sturgeon saying nasty things about other parties at an SNP rally, I await your condemnation of any Labour leadership candidate who said bad things about any of the other parties while campaigning. Or is it possibly different standards for different parties?

No. I thought Lamont's stuff on childless Salmond was harsh and unnecessary. Critique of policy is fair game. Personal lives are off limits. But to play the open and bipartisan leader of the nation on Thursday and then trash the notion of it was a bit steep for me.

[Malinga the Swinga]

Just watched Scotland today on STV and saw the 3 candidates trying for leader of Labour Party in Scotland. All I can say is deary deary me! If that collection of misfits is the best on offer, then Labour should just chuck it now, because a more clueless pathetic insipid lot would be hard to find.

 

Years of wilderness coming for Labour and it is well deserved.

[Boris]

Just watched Scotland today on STV and saw the 3 candidates trying for leader of Labour Party in Scotland. All I can say is deary deary me! If that collection of misfits is the best on offer, then Labour should just chuck it now, because a more clueless pathetic insipid lot would be hard to find.

 

Years of wilderness coming for Labour and it is well deserved.

Joining their Tory allies in that wilderness.

[Socrates]

This doesn't make any sense. All the parties (except for Orange Tommy) have decided that a Yes alliance isn't really in their interests, but the SNP are being narrow-minded in not wanting it, while the others are protecting their identity.

 

Having some sort of Yes alliance only makes sense if you are trying to make the election into a single-issue campaign to get another referendum or seeking a mandate for some sort of UDI nonsense. The other problem with the idea is that there are plenty of Yes people who would never vote SSP, along with some who would never vote Green and a few who would never vote SNP, so I don't think it maximises votes or seats for pro-independence parties. I think the thing that the SNP are looking at, which is positive, is allowing people who are either new members or not currently members to stand for Parliament.

But at Westminster there are few seats the SNP are within a reasonable distance of to Labour. In many in Glasgow and the west you are still talking 15,000-25,000 votes between Labour and 2nd place. If you stand on an alliance footing then it goes that Green-Yes Candidate A should stand the same chance SNP-Yes Candidate B or SSP-Yes Candidate C as the whole point is that the yes candidates support each other and so do their parties.

The SNP deputy leadership candidates were keen for it, again why fracture the appearance of unity in the Yes camp when it's still relevant. The Greens and SSP don't want swamped. And fair play. They are unique parties.
 

[jambo1185]

I agree with that Socrates, it just wouldn't work because there are few examples I can think of where the Greens are more likely to win a seat than the SNP, and none where the SSP are more likely to win a seat than the SNP, so why would SNP voters ever switch allegiance? There was never any intent as far as I can tell for SNP to stand down candidates in an area if they thought it would be more likely to get an independence supporting candidate in ahead of Labour, so why would/should the Greens/SSP be expected to do likewise, particularly given all 3 parties have fundamentally different core policies, and they don't like each others.

 

As you say, it only works if its to be a single issue platform, immediate UDI, and then re-election in an independent Scotland, otherwise it would be political suicide for the Greens to effectively take themselves out of an election completely and say 'everyone vote for the SNP', only for there not to be a pro-independence majority, for the UDI to fail, or for the SNP to decide not to run fresh elections. In any of those circumstances Green supporters either have no independence and no representation, or independence but no representation, and a government enacting policies which fundamentally oppose some of their base ideology and no power to do anything about it.

 

I do wonder if some of the newer joiners to the independence movement feel Sturgeon isn't working hard or fast enough, or is being too conciliatory with her opponents (even if it's all perfectly sensible and appropriate and a demonstration of good and effective governance), the movement could splinter in a few years time, taking some of the more fundamental historic SNP members with it? Or will it continue to be unity at all costs and playing the long game? That tactic (the NATO vote being perhaps the best example in recent times) failed to win them the referendum, so will some of their members be willing to continue to make those types of compromises?

Edited November 26, 2014 by jambo1185

[jambo1185]

Also, rumours are circulating that the Smith proposals will be most closely aligned to what the Tories submitted, as they are effectively a natural compromise position - being by far the most devolvement of the three main parties but short of what the SNP are asking for (and know full well they wouldn't get).

[jambo89]

Also, rumours are circulating that the Smith proposals will be most closely aligned to what the Tories submitted, as they are effectively a natural compromise position - being by far the most devolvement of the three main parties but short of what the SNP are asking for (and know full well they wouldn't get).

I thought it was it was the liberals that offered the most?

 

Regardless of the powers I'm still hoping for a SNPLAB coalition and full Devi max come May.

[jambo1185]

And who might they be?

 

I thought it was obvious who I was referring to, but in case you thought I was including the Greens to the exclusion of one of Labour/Tory/Lib Dem, I meant the three current main "UK"/"Unionist" parties who submitted proposals (although if recent results are anything to go by the Greens may shortly find themselves as close to being one of the 3 main UK parties!). The Greens also advocate a middle ground position, slightly further than the Tories, but not as far as SNP.

 

Jambo89, in terms of devolving money raising powers, the Tories plans would result in a greater % transfer than Labour and Lib Dem. The Lib Dems, for example, didn't want to devolve any aspects of welfare (such as housing benefit), although they have done a u-turn on that which probably now means, at the last stage, they are offering more powers overall.

 

Commission report out tomorrow. Labour said to be the least happy of all the parties involved due to the income tax proposals being way beyond what they were comfortable giving. But I don't see how they can be surprised, the SNP and the Tories have got them over a barrel in this process.

Edited November 26, 2014 by jambo1185

[jambos are go!]

The ambush is set. We just need the SNP to walk through the door!

[TheMaganator]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30193791

 

SNP set out plans to legalise governmental land-grabs. 

 

Only if the government deem you to own too much land though - or if your ownership of land stops development.

 

 

Land grabs. In Scotland. In 2014. 

[Gorgiewave]

The ambush is set. We just need the SNP to walk through the door!

 

Please explain this.

[jambos are go!]

Please explain this.

Ive said enough already.

[Don Draper]

Ive said enough already.

 

JAG is ITK.

[flecktimus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30193791

 

SNP set out plans to legalise governmental land-grabs. 

 

Only if the government deem you to own too much land though - or if your ownership of land stops development.

 

 

Land grabs. In Scotland. In 2014. 

Thought you may be the first on this thread claiming Land Grab

 

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-buggers-are-out-to-get-us.html

[JamboX2]

The ambush is set. We just need the SNP to walk through the door!

Channel 4's political correspondent is saying that the Scottish Labour MPs have already conceded indepndence is unstoppable now with full income tax powers as it breaks one of the UK welfare stabilisers.

[smallfaces]

It's not really land grabbing is it. Just seems an extension of cpo's which exist for certain organisations anyway.

Compulsory purchase orders don't extend to determining if a single person or entity has ownership of too much land or if that person/entity is non-EU resident, which I recall are some of the recommendations of the Land Reform Group.

[Coco]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/scottish-parliament-control-income-tax-welfare-spending

 

Find it quite incredible that this lot are actually going to rewrite the constitution of the UK on the basis of a bidding war on 'powers'.  We've just had an exhaustive public debate on independence - with huge amounts of information offered by all sides - and the public had their say.  Yet that has been interpreted as a desire for a changed constitution. 

 

But now this Yalta Conference (Goldie and Swinney for goodness sake) is creating a new constitutional setup without any chance for the public to have their say - and seemingly with no scrutiny of what they come up with.  Just to pick one area - if income tax is fully devolved, who is providing the dosh to bail out the Scottish banking sector if that is required?  Will Government funding costs rise as a result?  Where are the stabilisers intra-regionally within the UK - and why should there be any now?

 

What is proposed is like adopting the costs of independence without the benefits of remaining in the union.  An unstable mess.  Change the constitution - but not in this rushed shambles of a process.

[jambos are go!]

Channel 4's political correspondent is saying that the Scottish Labour MPs have already conceded indepndence is unstoppable now with full income tax powers as it breaks one of the UK welfare stabilisers.

with power comes responsibility and the electorate will know who is responsible.

[djf]

 Should have just went independent tbh.

[jambo1185]

If the parties have today reached agreement on the Smith proposals does that mean we will be spared endless moaning about the detail?

 

Or are we going to get months of 'yes I know we agreed to this but we actually think it's terrible'?

[smallfaces]

Fair enough only read man article which suggests ministers will get involved, if the land owner is preventing development.

 

What the bit about non eu resident?

Sorry, I had a look last night but can't find it. Would have been Scotsman, herald or BBC a few days ago. It wasn't a quote from Nicola Sturgeon but one of the recommendations of the Land Reform Group that land ownership should be restricted to EU only. A rather worrying thought and another example of the sledgehammer approach taken by the SNP to some issues.

[Coco]

If the parties have today reached agreement on the Smith proposals does that mean we will be spared endless moaning about the detail?

 

Or are we going to get months of 'yes I know we agreed to this but we actually think it's terrible'?

 

The idea is that it is a process.  For some reason all the political parties have agreed to the proposition that more devolution of powers equals better governance.  Thus even more transfer of powers will always be better.  So the process continues until all powers are transferred.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/smith-commission-fails-to-live-up-to-the-vow-1-3617249

[TheMaganator]

The idea is that it is a process. For some reason all the political parties have agreed to the proposition that more devolution of powers equals better governance. Thus even more transfer of powers will always be better. So the process continues until all powers are transferred.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/smith-commission-fails-to-live-up-to-the-vow-1-3617249

I, for one, am shocked that the SNP thinks the vow has been broken.

 

The grievance politics will continue.

[Socrates]

I, for one, am shocked that the SNP thinks the vow has been broken.

 

The grievance politics will continue.

 

You're reading it all wrong. Especially given that a month or so back, I suspect you would have been astonished to have John Swinney standing up at the launch of the Smith Commission report, welcoming the new powers for the Parliament and pledging to work constructively with the UK Government to implement them. The fact that they think there are some missed opportunities is hardly surprising

 

This is Sturgeon maneuvering to avoid having to campaign on another referendum in 2015, which is something that you should welcome. You should probably be hoping that a Labour Government is elected next year - that would probably allow her to avoid putting a referendum in the 2016 manifesto too.

[Boris]

I still think that giving Scotland extra powers is only solving half the problem.

 

Until the Westminster system is reformed, discontent will still exist.  IMO.

[Optimus Prime]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30193791

 

SNP set out plans to legalise governmental land-grabs. 

 

Only if the government deem you to own too much land though - or if your ownership of land stops development.

 

 

Land grabs. In Scotland. In 2014. 

 

 

Describing a reforming of compulsary purchase agreements as land grabbing.........

[TheMaganator]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30193791

 

SNP set out plans to legalise governmental land-grabs. 

 

Only if the government deem you to own too much land though - or if your ownership of land stops development.

 

 

Land grabs. In Scotland. In 2014. 

 

 

Describing a reforming of compulsary purchase agreements as land grabbing.........

 

If it is compulsory it is not an agreement - it is an order.

[TheMaganator]

https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

 

Smith Commission Report out. 

[Optimus Prime]

If it is compulsory it is not an agreement - it is an order.

 

Ok Compulsory Purchase Order, point still stands though.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Optimus Prime

[Socrates]

CPOs are hardly new. We don't call it a land grab when people's houses are CPOd to build a motorway or whatever.

[jambo89]

https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

 

Smith Commission Report out.

Pretty disappointed with that tbh.

 

Doesn't go as far as I would like of course.

 

Interested to see how the extra cost to the UK regarding the income tax devolution will be calculated.

[GBJambo]

Pretty disappointed with that tbh.

 

Doesn't go as far as I would like of course.

 

Interested to see how the extra cost to the UK regarding the income tax devolution will be calculated.

Some will think it's gone too far that's the problem.

They had to reach a consensus that was fair and what the will of the Scottish people wanted. Which was no to independence however some may have been swayed by the promise of extra powers( not Devo max which was never promised)

[TheMaganator]

Pretty disappointed with that tbh.

 

Doesn't go as far as I would like of course.

 

Interested to see how the extra cost to the UK regarding the income tax devolution will be calculated.

What else would you have wanted?

 

FWIW I've seen loads of people raging that it's gone too far.

 

A balance had to be struck. Nationalists need to respect that 55% voted to remain part of the UK. That means there'll rightly still be lots of reserved matters.

[Socrates]

Some will think it's gone too far that's the problem.

They had to reach a consensus that was fair and what the will of the Scottish people wanted. Which was no to independence however some may have been swayed by the promise of extra powers( not Devo max which was never promised)

 

I think that its a lot closer to a consensus among the No parties than a consensus of the Scottish people. There's not much in there that would have been difficult to swallow for the unionist parties, once they worked out how to fix it so that Scottish Labour MPs could still vote on UK income tax.

[Boris]

What else would you have wanted?

 

FWIW I've seen loads of people raging that it's gone too far.

 

A balance had to be struck. Nationalists need to respect that 55% voted to remain part of the UK. That means there'll rightly still be lots of reserved matters.

 

Remaining part of the UK doesn't mean there there should "rightly still be lots of reserved matters".  You have just spun that to mean what you want.

 

Perhaps we should have had that second question after all?

[TheMaganator]

Remaining part of the UK doesn't mean there there should "rightly still be lots of reserved matters".  You have just spun that to mean what you want.

 

Perhaps we should have had that second question after all?

How can it mean anything else? 

 

There wasn't a Devo Max option on the ballot - even if there had been there would rightfully still have been reserved matters.

[Boris]

How can it mean anything else? 

 

There wasn't a Devo Max option on the ballot - even if there had been there would rightfully still have been reserved matters.

 

Correct, it wasn't on the ballot due to HMG's insistence.  Had it been, I suspect it would have won and of course there may have been certain devolved issues (defence for example).

 

But to equate wanting independence or not to wanting "lots of reserved matters" is simply wrong, IMO.

[jambo1185]

I was against a three option paper because I wasn't keen on any option winning without a majority or based on secondary preferences, but I could probably have been comfortable with two separate questions. I don't know how it would work in practice but maybe vote 1 was y/n to independence and then vote 2 was 'if the independence vote is no do you want devo max y/n' but I am certain that the pro-independence parties wouldn't want that because it would lower the pro-independence vote (maybe not decisively, but by a bit).

 

Maybe it's because I'm a boring old no voter, but I think the package of powers is quite a good one. I'm disappointed in the SNP though, although not surprised. If they thought it was a pile of rubbish they should have refused to sign - but of course that would never happen because they would be seen as a barrier to progress, plus this way they can continue to take credit for the good(look at these new powers we got you, it's great) and blame everyone else for the bad (but its nowhere near enough boo everyone else).

[Boris]

I was against a three option paper because I wasn't keen on any option winning without a majority or based on secondary preferences, but I could probably have been comfortable with two separate questions. I don't know how it would work in practice but maybe vote 1 was y/n to independence and then vote 2 was 'if the independence vote is no do you want devo max y/n' but I am certain that the pro-independence parties wouldn't want that because it would lower the pro-independence vote (maybe not decisively, but by a bit).

 

Maybe it's because I'm a boring old no voter, but I think the package of powers is quite a good one. I'm disappointed in the SNP though, although not surprised. If they thought it was a pile of rubbish they should have refused to sign - but of course that would never happen because they would be seen as a barrier to progress, plus this way they can continue to take credit for the good(look at these new powers we got you, it's great) and blame everyone else for the bad (but its nowhere near enough boo everyone else).

 

 

According to JaG, who went all Admiral Ackbar on us, apparently for the SNP "it's a trap!"