Today's most viewed
Party leader welcomes Rifkind’s ‘elegant’ West Lothian Answer
David Cameron last night talked up the suggestion of creating a special committee of English MPs at Westminster to provide an answer to the controversial issue of the West Lothian Question.
The post-devolution subject of Scottish MPs being able to vote on English matters while English MPs cannot vote on similar Scottish matters has increasingly become a bone of contention within the Conservative Party.
For the past two General Elections, it has had the policy of "English votes for English laws", which would effectively result in Scottish MPs being banned from debating and voting on England-only issues.
However, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign and Scottish secretary, has submitted the proposal of
creating an English Grand Committee to the party's Democracy Taskforce, chaired by Ken Clarke, the former Conservative chancellor, which is looking at how to make government and Parliament more accountable.
On Monday, Sir Malcolm expounded what he has called his "East Lothian Answer" to the West Lothian Question - he has a house in Inveresk - and at a fringe a show of hands showed his proposal had majority support among delegates.
The MP for Kensington and Chelsea told them that the Tory policy of "English votes for English laws" - which he had previously dismissed as "a constitutional abortion" - was not properly thought through and had dangerous implications. "You cannot have a Nationalist solution to a Unionist problem. You cannot create two classes of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons." He said it would not work and could be the first stage of the break-up of the UK.
Under his plan, an English Grand Committee would be made up solely of English MPs who could vote on England-only issues and the convention would be that the House of Commons would not overrule its decisions.
Last night, at a Scottish Tory reception at the party's Blackpool conference, the Conservative leader told The Herald: "The point is what Malcolm has suggested to the Ken Clarke Democracy Commission - we will have to make up our mind about it and put it in our manifesto - is quite a good option because it avoids the claim that there are two classes of MP. There are some attractions to it." He described an English Grand Committee as an "elegant" solution to the West Lothian Question, provided the House of Commons as a whole could not override its decisions.
Earlier in the conference hall, Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, insisted English MPs would have the "decisive say" over English laws under a future Conservative government. Interestingly, his use of language conspicuously did not rule out Sir Malcolm's East Lothian Answer.
The shadow minister told delegates that the government's "unbalanced" devolution system in Scotland and Wales had fuelled the flames of nationalism; nationalist parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, are now in government.
"The West Lothian Question, first posed by a Scottish Labour MP (Tam Dalyell) about devolution remains unanswered," said Mr Herbert. "The government," he went on, "is following the principled advice of Lord Irvine - that's Lord Irvine of the wallpaper, in case you'd forgotten - who said that the best answer to the West Lothian Question was not to ask it in the first place. But we believe in the United Kingdom and we believe in fairness."
The Democracy Taskforce is due to report before Christmas. However, a snap General Election will bring it forward with Mr Cameron and his colleagues having to decide whether or not they stick to "English votes for English laws" or go for the "elegant" solution of an English Grand Committee.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 10:32pm Tue 2 Oct 07
There is only one correct answer to the West Lothian Question - Independence for England and Scotland.
There is only one correct answer to the West Lothian Question - Independence for England and Scotland.
Posted by: Im not really here on 10:45pm Tue 2 Oct 07
Wait a minute!!!! This English Grand Committee can vote on English Only matters and NOT have their decision overturned by the House of Commons, but The Scottish Government decision CAN be overturned by the House of Commons.
Is this ANOTHER benefit of the Union?
Why don't they just go the whole hog and have their own Parliament. If this isn't saying the union is over, what is.
An English Grand Committee, consisting of English MP's only, voting on English only matters. Tell me Mr Rifkind, just where does this differ from "English Votes for English Laws"? Just what is the difference.?
Seems to me this solution isn't that "elegant", and just another cobbled together "abortion" because you don't have the balls to say the union has outlived it's usefulness.
If this goes ahead the Scotland Act will have to be changed to include the "convention" that the Westminster cannot overrule Scottish Government decisions.
Wait a minute!!!! This English Grand Committee can vote on English Only matters and NOT have their decision overturned by the House of Commons, but The Scottish Government decision CAN be overturned by the House of Commons.
Is this ANOTHER benefit of the Union?
Why don't they just go the whole hog and have their own Parliament. If this isn't saying the union is over, what is.
An English Grand Committee, consisting of English MP's only, voting on English only matters. Tell me Mr Rifkind, just where does this differ from "English Votes for English Laws"? Just what is the difference.?
Seems to me this solution isn't that "elegant", and just another cobbled together "abortion" because you don't have the balls to say the union has outlived it's usefulness.
If this goes ahead the Scotland Act will have to be changed to include the "convention" that the Westminster cannot overrule Scottish Government decisions.
Posted by: Sanny, Glasgow on 10:46pm Tue 2 Oct 07
Correct Albert and the sooner the better. An English Grand Committee seems and other word for a devolved parliament. Let's go the whole hog.
Correct Albert and the sooner the better. An English Grand Committee seems and other word for a devolved parliament. Let's go the whole hog.
Posted by: Im not really here on 10:59pm Tue 2 Oct 07
Just remember that after May 3rd, all the opposition parties changed their policies regarding more Devolution because they were playing catch-up politics. This seems to be the case here. "English Votes for English Laws" was dismissed out-of-hand a few weeks ago. Now it looks to become part of the Tory manifesto.
It will be interesting to see what Maggie Brown's response to this will be.
Just remember that after May 3rd, all the opposition parties changed their policies regarding more Devolution because they were playing catch-up politics. This seems to be the case here. "English Votes for English Laws" was dismissed out-of-hand a few weeks ago. Now it looks to become part of the Tory manifesto.
It will be interesting to see what Maggie Brown's response to this will be.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 11:01pm Tue 2 Oct 07
Well, to employ that hoary old cliche often spouted by unionists on these threads, this is yet "Another case of rearranging the deck chairs on the [italic]Titanic.[/italic]"
LOL
I always wanted to toss that one back at them.
Well, to employ that hoary old cliche often spouted by unionists on these threads, this is yet "Another case of rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic."
LOL
I always wanted to toss that one back at them.
Posted by: Paul R. on 11:09pm Tue 2 Oct 07
[quote]Independence for England and Scotland[/quote]
Albert, Glasgow
Never looked at it this way until now. What are the consequences, and since when was this an option?
I'm serious.
Independence for England and Scotland
Albert, Glasgow
Never looked at it this way until now. What are the consequences, and since when was this an option?
I'm serious.
Posted by: Jason4queen, Ayrshire on 11:43pm Tue 2 Oct 07
Ofcourse Alex Salmond would never vote for matters only of importance to England. He certainly would never have voted on the Tuition Fees issue when it last went through Westminster.
Oh wait. YES HE DID.
Is Banff and Buchan in England?.
Ofcourse Alex Salmond would never vote for matters only of importance to England. He certainly would never have voted on the Tuition Fees issue when it last went through Westminster.
Oh wait. YES HE DID.
Is Banff and Buchan in England?.
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 11:49pm Tue 2 Oct 07
The whole tory allience is about to crumble as they vie to see who can deliver English Independence first.
F*CKING WELLDONE SNP, TOTALLY OUTMANOUVERED THE LOT OF THEM
The whole tory allience is about to crumble as they vie to see who can deliver English Independence first.
F*CKING WELLDONE SNP, TOTALLY OUTMANOUVERED THE LOT OF THEM
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 11:52pm Tue 2 Oct 07
J 4 Q,
I asked you to provide a link to that remark yesterday.
I note you failed then, just as you will today you sorry pathetic fool
J 4 Q,
I asked you to provide a link to that remark yesterday.
I note you failed then, just as you will today you sorry pathetic fool
Posted by: Im not really here on 12:04am Wed 3 Oct 07
Oh dear, is that all you have to say J4Q? Even if it were true - SO WHAT??
Oh dear, is that all you have to say J4Q? Even if it were true - SO WHAT??
Posted by: Pictus on 12:20am Wed 3 Oct 07
Sir Malcolm Rifkind has proposed an English Grand Committee. I cannot imagine anything which would more excite the English population than this. Surely dancing in the streets tonight and bus loads of new tory supporters.
I remember listening to Rifkind on one occasion. I can't remember what it was about but I do remember he had the most contrived accent I have ever heard. It was the awful thing to listen to. To think his mammy actually paid for it is extraordinary. I sure he believes, some tories believe the grating tones will attract rather than repel.
Not up here they won't.
Surely the English don't fall for that kind of thing any more.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind has proposed an English Grand Committee. I cannot imagine anything which would more excite the English population than this. Surely dancing in the streets tonight and bus loads of new tory supporters.
I remember listening to Rifkind on one occasion. I can't remember what it was about but I do remember he had the most contrived accent I have ever heard. It was the awful thing to listen to. To think his mammy actually paid for it is extraordinary. I sure he believes, some tories believe the grating tones will attract rather than repel.
Not up here they won't.
Surely the English don't fall for that kind of thing any more.
Posted by: martin, dundee on 12:40am Wed 3 Oct 07
Bye Bye England!!
Posted by: Eckwatch on 1:31am Wed 3 Oct 07
I see the green ink brigade are being allowed to stay up late tonight.
I see the green ink brigade are being allowed to stay up late tonight.
Posted by: Andy, Cambs, England on 1:33am Wed 3 Oct 07
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 1:53am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
Let\'s just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won\'t cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.[/quote] Think you have that the wrong way round old bean
The Maritime boundary was actually moved north at the time devolution came into being
England does not have ANY oil fields, just the gas fileds off Gt Yarmouth
Andy wrote:
Let\'s just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won\'t cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.
Think you have that the wrong way round old bean
The Maritime boundary was actually moved north at the time devolution came into being
England does not have ANY oil fields, just the gas fileds off Gt Yarmouth
Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 1:56am Wed 3 Oct 07
Well Andy I hate to burst your bubble but the border will result in Scotland will return to its original borders before the signing of the Contract of Union. That means Berwick on Tweed and the land that england bought at the time will mean a big loss for you lot. Now the way I calculate it that means that the oil companies will be required to close their head offices in London which the Westminster Government set up to make the oil income disappear into English Coffers. They will relocate to Edinburgh or be in breech of their contracts of licenses and that also includes BP. Should be a nice little earner for us and a loss for you lot. The other thing that you probably didnt have the nounce to work out is that the Scottish Government has already stated that they intend to reduce Corporate Tax from 25% down to 10% and reduce Vat by at least 5%. I think quite a few companies will do the same as some did for the Irish and relocate to Scotland. Nice little earner from the jobs.
We have a population of just over 1 million in just over a third of the main island while you lot are stuck with 55 million and very little in resources. But we will sell you oil especially when it goes to the expected level of 200 dollars a barrel and we will sell you fish which we have the most of in Europe.
Have a nice day, ya dickhead.
Well Andy I hate to burst your bubble but the border will result in Scotland will return to its original borders before the signing of the Contract of Union. That means Berwick on Tweed and the land that england bought at the time will mean a big loss for you lot. Now the way I calculate it that means that the oil companies will be required to close their head offices in London which the Westminster Government set up to make the oil income disappear into English Coffers. They will relocate to Edinburgh or be in breech of their contracts of licenses and that also includes BP. Should be a nice little earner for us and a loss for you lot. The other thing that you probably didnt have the nounce to work out is that the Scottish Government has already stated that they intend to reduce Corporate Tax from 25% down to 10% and reduce Vat by at least 5%. I think quite a few companies will do the same as some did for the Irish and relocate to Scotland. Nice little earner from the jobs.
We have a population of just over 1 million in just over a third of the main island while you lot are stuck with 55 million and very little in resources. But we will sell you oil especially when it goes to the expected level of 200 dollars a barrel and we will sell you fish which we have the most of in Europe.
Have a nice day, ya dickhead.
Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 2:02am Wed 3 Oct 07
Aye I forgot to mention we will have a defence only force of say 1000 and our share of the existing equipment that has been bought including ships. You lot can keep your forces but have trident to yourselfs in your own country. We wont send our troops to illegal wars so Iraq and Afghanistan are out of bounds for Scots. Which is a pity because from what I have read they have been doing the usual and carrying the English Lads. We were designed to fight, its in the blood,
Aye I forgot to mention we will have a defence only force of say 1000 and our share of the existing equipment that has been bought including ships. You lot can keep your forces but have trident to yourselfs in your own country. We wont send our troops to illegal wars so Iraq and Afghanistan are out of bounds for Scots. Which is a pity because from what I have read they have been doing the usual and carrying the English Lads. We were designed to fight, its in the blood,
Posted by: Anne Murphy, London on 2:29am Wed 3 Oct 07
Isn't this all a bit irrelevant as a debate? Assuming the Tories get in to implement English votes on English issues (or some obscure grand committee to the same effect,) how long would it be before Mr Salmond had his majority for independence? Isn't it one thing for Labour voting Scots to want to stay part of the Union while they have the ball, (and the jobs, and the purse strings) but quite another if and when their old enemy is in charge?
Isn't this all a bit irrelevant as a debate? Assuming the Tories get in to implement English votes on English issues (or some obscure grand committee to the same effect,) how long would it be before Mr Salmond had his majority for independence? Isn't it one thing for Labour voting Scots to want to stay part of the Union while they have the ball, (and the jobs, and the purse strings) but quite another if and when their old enemy is in charge?
Posted by: David, NZ on 3:08am Wed 3 Oct 07
'We wont send our troops to illegal wars so Iraq and Afghanistan are out of bounds for Scots. [bold]Which is a pity because from what I have read they have been doing the usual and carrying the English Lads. We were designed to fight, its in the blood'[/bold]
And what have you been reading ? Designed to be utterly offensive in your case.
'We wont send our troops to illegal wars so Iraq and Afghanistan are out of bounds for Scots.
Which is a pity because from what I have read they have been doing the usual and carrying the English Lads. We were designed to fight, its in the blood'
And what have you been reading ? Designed to be utterly offensive in your case.
Posted by: donald, glasgow on 4:23am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote]Party leader welcomes Rifkind’s ‘elegant’ West Lothian Answer[/quote] Move to Kent.
Engurland has its own Parliament. It's called [bold]Westminster[/bold] and have been outvoting Scots MPs ever since they were bought and paid for in 1707.
Party leader welcomes Rifkind’s ‘elegant’ West Lothian Answer
Move to Kent.
Engurland has its own Parliament. It's called
Westminster and have been outvoting Scots MPs ever since they were bought and paid for in 1707.
Posted by: Bruce on 5:26am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.[/quote] Andy, I don't know where you get this from, except other posters from England who repeat this myth... the continental shelf act is an administrative exercise only. The borders between Scotland and England would be set fair by international conventions.
Andy wrote:
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.
Andy, I don't know where you get this from, except other posters from England who repeat this myth... the continental shelf act is an administrative exercise only. The borders between Scotland and England would be set fair by international conventions.
Posted by: Willie, West Dumbarton on 5:29am Wed 3 Oct 07
I think Chelsea and Kensington is the best place for Sir Malky to stay.
He got the bum's rush from Scotland along with the rest of his small band.
Who cares about his party's Democracy Taskforce. It didn;t bother his party much when they had no democratic mandate in Scotland but were in power in England.
Best for him to stay in his London bolt hole where the electorate appreciate his type.
I think Chelsea and Kensington is the best place for Sir Malky to stay.
He got the bum's rush from Scotland along with the rest of his small band.
Who cares about his party's Democracy Taskforce. It didn;t bother his party much when they had no democratic mandate in Scotland but were in power in England.
Best for him to stay in his London bolt hole where the electorate appreciate his type.
Posted by: Miles, Better away fro Glasgow on 6:10am Wed 3 Oct 07
Mike - you need to get to bed earlier in time to get to school and either learn to count or type. The population of Scotland exceeds 5 million.
Perhaps even better, given the rest of the lunatic ranting you need to look somewhere for functioning brain cells.
Mike - you need to get to bed earlier in time to get to school and either learn to count or type. The population of Scotland exceeds 5 million.
Perhaps even better, given the rest of the lunatic ranting you need to look somewhere for functioning brain cells.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 6:44am Wed 3 Oct 07
Miles at Dawn says[quote]Perhaps even better, given the rest of the lunatic ranting you need to look somewhere for functioning brain cells.[/quote] A good, sound, rational argument. One worth getting out of bed at 6am to post.
Miles at Dawn says
Perhaps even better, given the rest of the lunatic ranting you need to look somewhere for functioning brain cells.
A good, sound, rational argument. One worth getting out of bed at 6am to post.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 6:49am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote]GOODBYE SCOTLAND!![/quote] India, West Indies, Australia, Suez Canal, The Americas, African States...
Not many friends left.
Uh, oh, there's still wales sponging off you.
GOODBYE SCOTLAND!!
India, West Indies, Australia, Suez Canal, The Americas, African States...
Not many friends left.
Uh, oh, there's still wales sponging off you.
Posted by: Im not really here on 7:42am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.[/quote] Your quite right - and after an election there will be even fewer Labour MP's to hold us back.
Andy wrote:
Let's just correct the maritime border (tweaked in the 1960s to suit the Scots with no consultation for the English by the UK Government, which has always favoured Scotland), get our share of the oil back in English waters and then GOODBYE SCOTLAND!! I won't cry. Never have so many been held back by so few.
Your quite right - and after an election there will be even fewer Labour MP's to hold us back.
Posted by: bullyweealba, Edinburgh on 7:56am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Jason4queen[/bold] wrote:
Ofcourse Alex Salmond would never vote for matters only of importance to England. He certainly would never have voted on the Tuition Fees issue when it last went through Westminster. Oh wait. YES HE DID. Is Banff and Buchan in England?. [/quote] Alex Salmond did indeed vote against the imposition of top-up fees in England and Wales
This quote is from 4 Dec 2003.
Alex Salmond: “Occasionally, I despair. I have carefully argued that the Bills that we are talking about—concerning top-up fees and foundation hospitals—affect Scotland. What I find incredible is not that Scottish Labour Members voted, but that they voted in favour of a measure that will reduce public expenditure in Scotland as a consequence of Barnett. …”
Quite clearly, this is an issue which is not confined to England.
Back to the drawing board Jason.
Jason4queen wrote:
Ofcourse Alex Salmond would never vote for matters only of importance to England. He certainly would never have voted on the Tuition Fees issue when it last went through Westminster. Oh wait. YES HE DID. Is Banff and Buchan in England?.
Alex Salmond did indeed vote against the imposition of top-up fees in England and Wales
This quote is from 4 Dec 2003.
Alex Salmond: “Occasionally, I despair. I have carefully argued that the Bills that we are talking about—concerning top-up fees and foundation hospitals—affect Scotland. What I find incredible is not that Scottish Labour Members voted, but that they voted in favour of a measure that will reduce public expenditure in Scotland as a consequence of Barnett. …”
Quite clearly, this is an issue which is not confined to England.
Back to the drawing board Jason.
Posted by: David B, Larkhall on 8:05am Wed 3 Oct 07
What about a federal state solution? Why are we only given the choices of Independence, Status Quo - which is unfair to the English or the Old Union - which is unfair to everyone except the English. If they and we are all beneficiaries of a union then why is a Federation not a better arrangement. In the EU each member gets a Veto, the big countries get a bit more clout, susidiarity is gaining ground as an idea.
The right solution to this endless argument is a federal UK.
What about a federal state solution? Why are we only given the choices of Independence, Status Quo - which is unfair to the English or the Old Union - which is unfair to everyone except the English. If they and we are all beneficiaries of a union then why is a Federation not a better arrangement. In the EU each member gets a Veto, the big countries get a bit more clout, susidiarity is gaining ground as an idea.
The right solution to this endless argument is a federal UK.
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 8:43am Wed 3 Oct 07
Bullyweealba @ 7;56,
Thankyou for clearing that up.
However I now have to apologise to J4Q, but even he'll have to admit there was a good reason for it.
Bullyweealba @ 7;56,
Thankyou for clearing that up.
However I now have to apologise to J4Q, but even he'll have to admit there was a good reason for it.
Posted by: Stew, Aberdeen on 9:07am Wed 3 Oct 07
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.
Posted by: Mr Lachie Todd, Edinburgh on 9:08am Wed 3 Oct 07
This nonsense about an English Grand Committee is a distraction.
It It only serves to remind the Scots that despite Devolution,
England is still totally unwilling to let go of the past!
England has a 'devolved' parliament?
It is called Westminster where, until very recently, it has always had its way at the expense of the other 'Member States' in the U.K.!
The Tories are presently an unattractive and unelectable party in England where there are 529 English seats for the taking!
Why don't they try and win some of them and make some sensible plans before coming out with this ridiculous proposal which could well end in tears?
It is high time the 'English National Party' faced up to the stark fact that the the U.K. is already a quasi-Federal State in everything but
constitutional name.
The centralised British State ended last century.
The only way forward is a Federal or Confederal arrangement, or 'Subsidiarity', as the Tories refer to it!
Any attempt to by the Tories to turn the clock back can only have one outcome?
A further upsurge in Nationalism and, ultimately, Scotland's exit from the U.K.
This nonsense about an English Grand Committee is a distraction.
It It only serves to remind the Scots that despite Devolution,
England is still totally unwilling to let go of the past!
England has a 'devolved' parliament?
It is called Westminster where, until very recently, it has always had its way at the expense of the other 'Member States' in the U.K.!
The Tories are presently an unattractive and unelectable party in England where there are 529 English seats for the taking!
Why don't they try and win some of them and make some sensible plans before coming out with this ridiculous proposal which could well end in tears?
It is high time the 'English National Party' faced up to the stark fact that the the U.K. is already a quasi-Federal State in everything but
constitutional name.
The centralised British State ended last century.
The only way forward is a Federal or Confederal arrangement, or 'Subsidiarity', as the Tories refer to it!
Any attempt to by the Tories to turn the clock back can only have one outcome?
A further upsurge in Nationalism and, ultimately, Scotland's exit from the U.K.
Posted by: Red McGregor, Scotland, Europe on 9:14am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote]Andy, I don't know where you get this from, except other posters from England who repeat this myth... the continental shelf act is an administrative exercise only. The borders between Scotland and England would be set fair by international conventions.[/quote]
I've bumped into this myth countless times when discussing politics of independence with people from England on my travels. It is false because the UK has sovereignty of the waters just now so come independence the Continental Shelf Act, I think it's called, would apply and so an independent Scotland would be soverign of around 90% of the oil-fields. The movement of borders between the UK is irrelevant as all the oil money goes to Westminster anyway so quite how Scotland benefits to a greater extent, as many say on this issue, is nonsense.
I don't know what border or other they're getting themselves mixed up with but it's irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
Oh, and bye-bye Andy, we'll all give you a wee wave over the border once we're independent.
Andy, I don't know where you get this from, except other posters from England who repeat this myth... the continental shelf act is an administrative exercise only. The borders between Scotland and England would be set fair by international conventions.
I've bumped into this myth countless times when discussing politics of independence with people from England on my travels. It is false because the UK has sovereignty of the waters just now so come independence the Continental Shelf Act, I think it's called, would apply and so an independent Scotland would be soverign of around 90% of the oil-fields. The movement of borders between the UK is irrelevant as all the oil money goes to Westminster anyway so quite how Scotland benefits to a greater extent, as many say on this issue, is nonsense.
I don't know what border or other they're getting themselves mixed up with but it's irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
Oh, and bye-bye Andy, we'll all give you a wee wave over the border once we're independent.
Posted by: Red McGregor, Scotland, Europe on 9:18am Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Stew[/bold] wrote:
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.[/quote] The same downsides as any other nation-state, it's called independence and standing on your own two feet, and it's a good thing.
Why, in your opinion, is Scotland to be determined to remain a stateless nation?
Stew wrote:
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.
The same downsides as any other nation-state, it's called independence and standing on your own two feet, and it's a good thing.
Why, in your opinion, is Scotland to be determined to remain a stateless nation?
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 9:19am Wed 3 Oct 07
Paul R @ 11:09pm Tues.
Independence for Scotland and England has never been offered as an option but the rise of English nationalism since 1997 is significant. British nationalism fostered by NuLabour is a different kettle of fish.
Of course there is some disentanglement to be done. Better it happens in an atmosphere of mutual respect than a bitter divorce with both parties hurling abuse and smashing plates over each other's heads.
Look to the Czech Republic and Slovakia as an example of a common sense solution.
Paul R @ 11:09pm Tues.
Independence for Scotland and England has never been offered as an option but the rise of English nationalism since 1997 is significant. British nationalism fostered by NuLabour is a different kettle of fish.
Of course there is some disentanglement to be done. Better it happens in an atmosphere of mutual respect than a bitter divorce with both parties hurling abuse and smashing plates over each other's heads.
Look to the Czech Republic and Slovakia as an example of a common sense solution.
Posted by: Red McGregor, Scotland, Europe on 9:21am Wed 3 Oct 07
PS
Stew, if you reply directly to me and I don't respond it's not because I'm being rude but I might not check into this site again today, it depends on work schedule.
PS
Stew, if you reply directly to me and I don't respond it's not because I'm being rude but I might not check into this site again today, it depends on work schedule.
Posted by: Buddie1959, paisley on 9:41am Wed 3 Oct 07
Its a funny thing, but I don't remember the Tories complaining about the John Major government being propped up in Parliament by the Ulster Unionists.
Let me get this right - they were a party representing a country within the UK which also had a devolved Parliament, so no Scottish English or Welsh MP's could vote on many issues relating to Ulster, but Ian Paisley and co could (and did) vote on Scottish, English and Welsh matters and indeed propped up a dead duck Government.
Same old Tories, same old double standards!!
Its a funny thing, but I don't remember the Tories complaining about the John Major government being propped up in Parliament by the Ulster Unionists.
Let me get this right - they were a party representing a country within the UK which also had a devolved Parliament, so no Scottish English or Welsh MP's could vote on many issues relating to Ulster, but Ian Paisley and co could (and did) vote on Scottish, English and Welsh matters and indeed propped up a dead duck Government.
Same old Tories, same old double standards!!
Posted by: Scamp on 9:44am Wed 3 Oct 07
The way to spike Malcolm Rifkind's guns is to ensure that at the next election Scotland returns no Labour MPs to Westminster.
There's one in particular that is deserving of loosing his seat... Broon, Braun, Brine? Whatever his name is he has to go after the economic devestation he is wreaking on small Scottish companies by putting their corporation tax up and increasing their fuel bills.
The way to spike Malcolm Rifkind's guns is to ensure that at the next election Scotland returns no Labour MPs to Westminster.
There's one in particular that is deserving of loosing his seat... Broon, Braun, Brine? Whatever his name is he has to go after the economic devestation he is wreaking on small Scottish companies by putting their corporation tax up and increasing their fuel bills.
Posted by: megz, glasgow on 10:12am Wed 3 Oct 07
Independence for england now lol
Independence for england now lol
Posted by: Citibhoy, London on 11:23am Wed 3 Oct 07
Whilst independence for England and Scotland is a desireable notion it aint going to happen whilst the West of Scotland Muppets continue to vote Lovely Lovely Labour at General Elections - despite their abysmal record - [italic]'Cos their Faither did'[/italic]
Whilst independence for England and Scotland is a desireable notion it aint going to happen whilst the West of Scotland Muppets continue to vote Lovely Lovely Labour at General Elections - despite their abysmal record -
'Cos their Faither did' Posted by: Glen Gillespie, denmark on 11:34am Wed 3 Oct 07
Glengillie
Call it what you want A grand commitee with english votes for english laws is a de facto english parliament -a parliment within a parliament and can't and won't work. All of these scottish quislings would be banned from voting on 75% of their own legislation. I'll bet many of them won't even bother beating a hasty repeat back to scotland which i consider to be a another huge plus. With regards to the so called West Lothian qustion. This was never asked by oor Tam as a question. It was uttered as a statement to point out that a scottish parliament within the UK framework couldn't work and wouldn't work. It was his way of saying so don't even try it.
Glengillie
Call it what you want A grand commitee with english votes for english laws is a de facto english parliament -a parliment within a parliament and can't and won't work. All of these scottish quislings would be banned from voting on 75% of their own legislation. I'll bet many of them won't even bother beating a hasty repeat back to scotland which i consider to be a another huge plus. With regards to the so called West Lothian qustion. This was never asked by oor Tam as a question. It was uttered as a statement to point out that a scottish parliament within the UK framework couldn't work and wouldn't work. It was his way of saying so don't even try it.
Posted by: Mike, London on 11:43am Wed 3 Oct 07
Oh thank you Mr Rifkind and Mr Cameron,we are ever so humble.
Oh thank you Mr Rifkind and Mr Cameron,we are ever so humble.
Posted by: Addison De Witt, Buenos Aires Polo Country Club on 11:56am Wed 3 Oct 07
Enoch Powell coined the phrase The West Lothian Question in
response to a 9 hour Demented and very very very boring speech
by that old FARTT and Windbag Tam Dalyell gave.
Malcom Rifkind MP for Trumpton and Camberwick Green and
part time LIoyd Grossman impressionist wants to stop
Scottish Labour CHIMPS from voting on English matters
The best place for these Labourite baboons would be at the ZOO
eating bananas.
The most elegant solution would be for the two countries
Scotland and England to be independent.
Simple. HUH. !!!!
So simple a LABOUR CHIMP can understand it.
Addison De Witt At the Zoo Feeding Labour Chimps Bananas.
Enoch Powell coined the phrase The West Lothian Question in
response to a 9 hour Demented and very very very boring speech
by that old FARTT and Windbag Tam Dalyell gave.
Malcom Rifkind MP for Trumpton and Camberwick Green and
part time LIoyd Grossman impressionist wants to stop
Scottish Labour CHIMPS from voting on English matters
The best place for these Labourite baboons would be at the ZOO
eating bananas.
The most elegant solution would be for the two countries
Scotland and England to be independent.
Simple. HUH. !!!!
So simple a LABOUR CHIMP can understand it.
Addison De Witt At the Zoo Feeding Labour Chimps Bananas.
Posted by: nic, wales on 12:13pm Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Los Angeles[/bold] wrote:
[quote]GOODBYE SCOTLAND!![/quote] India, West Indies, Australia, Suez Canal, The Americas, African States... Not many friends left. Uh, oh, there's still wales sponging off you.[/quote] We're not too happy in Wales either. Let's turn the water off.
Los Angeles wrote:
GOODBYE SCOTLAND!!
India, West Indies, Australia, Suez Canal, The Americas, African States... Not many friends left. Uh, oh, there's still wales sponging off you.
We're not too happy in Wales either. Let's turn the water off.
Posted by: Thomas Widmann, Glasgow on 12:43pm Wed 3 Oct 07
As others have already said, this English Grand Committee would effectively be an English Parliament within Westminster.
While this might work reasonably well when the same party has a majority both in England and in the UK as a whole, how would that work if, say, the Tories had a majority of English seats and Labour a majority in Westminster as a whole? Would the non-English MPs be required to rubberstamp decisions made by the EGC? Would there still be a UK Education Secretary (given that education is a devolved area), or would this post be replaced by an EGC Education Secretary? If the post of UK Education Secretary was retained, would this person come from the UK majority (Labour) or EGC majority (Tory)?
All in all a big mess. There are only three real solutions to the West Lothian Question: (1) Roll back devolution. (2) Devolution for England, too (= an English Parliament). (3) Independence for England and Scotland.
As others have already said, this English Grand Committee would effectively be an English Parliament within Westminster.
While this might work reasonably well when the same party has a majority both in England and in the UK as a whole, how would that work if, say, the Tories had a majority of English seats and Labour a majority in Westminster as a whole? Would the non-English MPs be required to rubberstamp decisions made by the EGC? Would there still be a UK Education Secretary (given that education is a devolved area), or would this post be replaced by an EGC Education Secretary? If the post of UK Education Secretary was retained, would this person come from the UK majority (Labour) or EGC majority (Tory)?
All in all a big mess. There are only three real solutions to the West Lothian Question: (1) Roll back devolution. (2) Devolution for England, too (= an English Parliament). (3) Independence for England and Scotland.
Posted by: Stew, Aberdeen on 12:48pm Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Red McGregor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Stew[/bold] wrote: A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.[/quote] The same downsides as any other nation-state, it's called independence and standing on your own two feet, and it's a good thing. Why, in your opinion, is Scotland to be determined to remain a stateless nation?[/quote] You didn't really make a point there but at least you tried. No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?
Red McGregor wrote:
Stew wrote: A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.
The same downsides as any other nation-state, it's called independence and standing on your own two feet, and it's a good thing. Why, in your opinion, is Scotland to be determined to remain a stateless nation?
You didn't really make a point there but at least you tried. No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?
Posted by: Dougthedug on 12:51pm Wed 3 Oct 07
The idea of an English Grand committee is tied in closely to the view of Britain as a Greater England. A view with which both Malkie and Cameron seem to agree.
If you're going to have devolution then why not do it properly and have four parliaments. England, Scotland, Wales and NI with an overarching UK parliament? It won't happen.
It all stems from the asymmetric way that devolution was imposed on the UK on the basis of nationalist threat.
Powers were not devolved from the UK parliament to all of the national partners in the Union, which would be symmetrical devolution, but were devolved to outlying "secessionist" regions of the UK, aka Greater England.
In simple terms the UK and England were not seen as different entities so the idea of devolution for England was unthinkable and therefore the Westminster UK parliament remained the English parliament. How can you devolve power to yourself?
The new Scottish parliament was viewed correctly as another layer of local government in the UK.
However the architects of devolution failed to see that the collapse of the tory party in Scotland would leave Scotland a labour fiefdom in Westminster whose MP's could be used to push through English Legislation in the UK parliament.
Cameron's problem with an English parliament is not so great as Brown's as he would probably control any future English parliament if he got voted in as the UK Prime Minister as it would most likely be Tory. But he's got the Greater England mindset and also fears that it would break up his beloved Union.
Brown's problem is twofold, he can't give England a parliament like Scotland because England is too big. The "First Minister" of England would effectively be more powerful than the Prime Minister and probably Tory. It would also de-emphasise Britishness and threaten his beloved Union.
The problems of ensuring that, "English Grand Committe only", bills and votes in the UK parliament will have no effect on Scotland will be complex and difficult and like our current devolution set up it's a bodge job.
I hope the West Lothian Question continues to cause problems and eventually helps split the Union. Broon can get his English passport, a video of his favourite goal, (Paul Gascoigne scoring for England against Scotland), a copy of the eternally referred to Magna Carta and..you can guess the rest.
Malkie can go south and get his English passport too.
The idea of an English Grand committee is tied in closely to the view of Britain as a Greater England. A view with which both Malkie and Cameron seem to agree.
If you're going to have devolution then why not do it properly and have four parliaments. England, Scotland, Wales and NI with an overarching UK parliament? It won't happen.
It all stems from the asymmetric way that devolution was imposed on the UK on the basis of nationalist threat.
Powers were not devolved from the UK parliament to all of the national partners in the Union, which would be symmetrical devolution, but were devolved to outlying "secessionist" regions of the UK, aka Greater England.
In simple terms the UK and England were not seen as different entities so the idea of devolution for England was unthinkable and therefore the Westminster UK parliament remained the English parliament. How can you devolve power to yourself?
The new Scottish parliament was viewed correctly as another layer of local government in the UK.
However the architects of devolution failed to see that the collapse of the tory party in Scotland would leave Scotland a labour fiefdom in Westminster whose MP's could be used to push through English Legislation in the UK parliament.
Cameron's problem with an English parliament is not so great as Brown's as he would probably control any future English parliament if he got voted in as the UK Prime Minister as it would most likely be Tory. But he's got the Greater England mindset and also fears that it would break up his beloved Union.
Brown's problem is twofold, he can't give England a parliament like Scotland because England is too big. The "First Minister" of England would effectively be more powerful than the Prime Minister and probably Tory. It would also de-emphasise Britishness and threaten his beloved Union.
The problems of ensuring that, "English Grand Committe only", bills and votes in the UK parliament will have no effect on Scotland will be complex and difficult and like our current devolution set up it's a bodge job.
I hope the West Lothian Question continues to cause problems and eventually helps split the Union. Broon can get his English passport, a video of his favourite goal, (Paul Gascoigne scoring for England against Scotland), a copy of the eternally referred to Magna Carta and..you can guess the rest.
Malkie can go south and get his English passport too.
Posted by: torry, lumphie on 12:56pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Well done yet again Addison De Wit you have cheered me up again Your incisive and hunerous posts represent the current feeling in Scotland well me thinks.
Well done yet again Addison De Wit you have cheered me up again Your incisive and hunerous posts represent the current feeling in Scotland well me thinks.
Posted by: The West Awake, Argyll on 1:25pm Wed 3 Oct 07
"You cannot have a Nationalist solution to a Unionist problem"
Answer - Yes you can, it's called democracy.
"You cannot create two classes of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons."
Answer - Yes you can, it's already happened in that Scottish MPs can vote on things English MP's can't. If that's not 2 classes what is?
"He said it would not work and could be the first stage of the break-up of the UK"
Answer - Thats the answer.
"You cannot have a Nationalist solution to a Unionist problem"
Answer - Yes you can, it's called democracy.
"You cannot create two classes of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons."
Answer - Yes you can, it's already happened in that Scottish MPs can vote on things English MP's can't. If that's not 2 classes what is?
"He said it would not work and could be the first stage of the break-up of the UK"
Answer - Thats the answer.
Posted by: AT on 1:32pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Buddie1959: "Let me get this right - they were a party representing a country within the UK which also had a devolved Parliament, so no Scottish English or Welsh MP's could vote on many issues relating to Ulster, but Ian Paisley and co could (and did) vote on Scottish, English and Welsh matters and indeed propped up a dead duck Government."
Not right in two respects:
a) Northern Ireland was under direct rule from Westminster when the Major government had their tacit support; there was no devolution to Stormont then. So there wasn't actually a WLQ-style situation then.
b) The Ulster Unionist Party propped up the Major government but, as far as I recall, Paisley and his two DUP colleagues didn't.
Buddie1959: "Let me get this right - they were a party representing a country within the UK which also had a devolved Parliament, so no Scottish English or Welsh MP's could vote on many issues relating to Ulster, but Ian Paisley and co could (and did) vote on Scottish, English and Welsh matters and indeed propped up a dead duck Government."
Not right in two respects:
a) Northern Ireland was under direct rule from Westminster when the Major government had their tacit support; there was no devolution to Stormont then. So there wasn't actually a WLQ-style situation then.
b) The Ulster Unionist Party propped up the Major government but, as far as I recall, Paisley and his two DUP colleagues didn't.
Posted by: TheGlaswegian, Edinburgh on 1:52pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Stew, are you for real?
[quote]No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?[/quote]
You are asking nationalists to give negatives about independence? There may be some... let me think... erm, Westminster will no longer give us pocket money, erm.. we will need to do something about foreign embassies, erm.., the sun will implode and all the big businesses will leave., it will rain for 40 days and 40 nights.
The problem we have is that basically, there aren't any. Hence the reason more Scots voted for the SNP in both the local and national election than for any other party.
You actually say that unless we talk about the negatives, then we shouldn't be commenting! Your post is the perhaps the most idiotic I've ever read on any forum. Ever.
C'mon, you tell us the negatives. In fact, forget that. Tell us the benefits of independence. If you can't, then by your own rules, you shouldn't be commenting.
Stew, are you for real?
No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?
You are asking nationalists to give negatives about independence? There may be some... let me think... erm, Westminster will no longer give us pocket money, erm.. we will need to do something about foreign embassies, erm.., the sun will implode and all the big businesses will leave., it will rain for 40 days and 40 nights.
The problem we have is that basically, there aren't any. Hence the reason more Scots voted for the SNP in both the local and national election than for any other party.
You actually say that unless we talk about the negatives, then we shouldn't be commenting! Your post is the perhaps the most idiotic I've ever read on any forum. Ever.
C'mon, you tell us the negatives. In fact, forget that. Tell us the benefits of independence. If you can't, then by your own rules, you shouldn't be commenting.
Posted by: Citibhoy, London on 3:42pm Wed 3 Oct 07
where are all the west coast Lovely Lovely Labour Muppets.... the ones who voted fro Mc Cartney - Worthington... et al .
They dont have any answers - but rest assured they will vote[italic] 'as faither did'[/italic]
No point in asking plebs to think! they cant .
where are all the west coast Lovely Lovely Labour Muppets.... the ones who voted fro Mc Cartney - Worthington... et al .
They dont have any answers - but rest assured they will vote
'as faither did'
No point in asking plebs to think! they cant .
Posted by: schawaldowris on 3:45pm Wed 3 Oct 07
To the question:- What is the downside of independence?
Having given this my most careful consideration and weighing up all the various issues Scotland would face as a free and soveriegn state I have come to the conclusion there may be one problem.
A certain Mr Brown and 49 of his collegues may wish to take up permanent residency. For it is certain the good people of England would wish to deport them as undesirable aliens.
We would therefore be obligated to treat them as political refugees. Never mind there is a certain mansion in Lanarkshire where full board is avaiable. The only downside being it tends to get a bit noisy at dawn.
So there we have it; a downside to independence!
To the question:- What is the downside of independence?
Having given this my most careful consideration and weighing up all the various issues Scotland would face as a free and soveriegn state I have come to the conclusion there may be one problem.
A certain Mr Brown and 49 of his collegues may wish to take up permanent residency. For it is certain the good people of England would wish to deport them as undesirable aliens.
We would therefore be obligated to treat them as political refugees. Never mind there is a certain mansion in Lanarkshire where full board is avaiable. The only downside being it tends to get a bit noisy at dawn.
So there we have it; a downside to independence!
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 4:14pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Stew wrote:
[quote]No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?[/quote]
It's a fair point and deserves a sensible response. Of course some things will change and not necessarily for the better. Just like marriage means your wife will not do all the slavish things your mother did like washing smelly socks.
Similarly, divorce has a downside with feelings of guilt, failure etc.
The test is, on balance will we be better people in a better country - materially and spiritually? I would say yes, because the present set-up has Scotland as an abused spouse, treated as second-class, expected to survive on pocket money and constantly being told, [italic]"You wouldn't last five minutes without me!"[/italic]
As with a divorced couple, far better to live happily apart than miserable together. Scotland and England could easily live in friendship and harmony if each controlled their own destiny and behaved towards other nations in a mutually-respectful way. That may be harder for the Anglo-Saxon than the Celt based on the last 1,000 of experience!
The United Kingdom is a busted flush. It was an 18th century solution to a 17th century problem. Even the pension thief Broon prefers to be a British nationalist than a subject of the United Kingdom. How often does he refer to the UK compared with his favourite, Britain?
Stew wrote:
No one has been able to offer a single negative about going it alone. I know this forum is dominated by Nats but surely you all don't have the land of milk and honey mentality?
It's a fair point and deserves a sensible response. Of course some things will change and not necessarily for the better. Just like marriage means your wife will not do all the slavish things your mother did like washing smelly socks.
Similarly, divorce has a downside with feelings of guilt, failure etc.
The test is, on balance will we be better people in a better country - materially and spiritually? I would say yes, because the present set-up has Scotland as an abused spouse, treated as second-class, expected to survive on pocket money and constantly being told,
"You wouldn't last five minutes without me!"
As with a divorced couple, far better to live happily apart than miserable together. Scotland and England could easily live in friendship and harmony if each controlled their own destiny and behaved towards other nations in a mutually-respectful way. That may be harder for the Anglo-Saxon than the Celt based on the last 1,000 of experience!
The United Kingdom is a busted flush. It was an 18th century solution to a 17th century problem. Even the pension thief Broon prefers to be a British nationalist than a subject of the United Kingdom. How often does he refer to the UK compared with his favourite, Britain?
Posted by: Scamp on 4:39pm Wed 3 Oct 07
I can give you a couple of downsides to independence..
1. It's going to be really, really hard work but worth it in the end
2. Immigration into Scotland will soar. Not just people but companies as well.. Where we put them all will be a major planning exercise.
3. Some companies will leave... I suspect at least one major bank will shift it's HQ to London.. This will create some doubts but is actually not very important.
I can give you a couple of downsides to independence..
1. It's going to be really, really hard work but worth it in the end
2. Immigration into Scotland will soar. Not just people but companies as well.. Where we put them all will be a major planning exercise.
3. Some companies will leave... I suspect at least one major bank will shift it's HQ to London.. This will create some doubts but is actually not very important.
Posted by: DJ, Glasgow on 5:30pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence. I have a rather more realistic attitude to independence - it wont make a blind bit of difference, except perhaps that those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue may perhaps put their brains to more constructive things such as how to get the unemployable into gainful employment, how to improve Glasgows awful education system, and how to stop people getting drunk then murdering and slashing each other.
As for Rifkinds idea - it really is ridiculous, it would mean that if Labour could be re-elected (dont want it to happen, but who knows), but have ministers forced to act on policies passed in this committee by the Tory majority. I dont see how it is a better quagmire than before.
Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence. I have a rather more realistic attitude to independence - it wont make a blind bit of difference, except perhaps that those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue may perhaps put their brains to more constructive things such as how to get the unemployable into gainful employment, how to improve Glasgows awful education system, and how to stop people getting drunk then murdering and slashing each other.
As for Rifkinds idea - it really is ridiculous, it would mean that if Labour could be re-elected (dont want it to happen, but who knows), but have ministers forced to act on policies passed in this committee by the Tory majority. I dont see how it is a better quagmire than before.
Posted by: TheGlaswegian, Edinburgh on 6:03pm Wed 3 Oct 07
DJ, [quote]those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue may perhaps put their brains to more constructive things such as how to get the unemployable into gainful employment, how to improve Glasgows awful education system, and how to stop people getting drunk then murdering and slashing each other[/quote]
Have you even considered that if labour had not been in control of Glasgow for so long that our education system would perhaps be bette? Or the masses dependent on benefits might not have accumulated? Ot the feeling of political apathy and general reliance on the state might not exist? Or that maybe we'd have had more success creating our own solution to crime and punishment?
Independence is not a single issue movement. You show an extreme lack of awareness to even suggest so. Independence is about controlling everyhing to do with Scotland from Scotland and by people who only have only Scotlands interests at heart. Open your eyes man.
Above all other cities in Scotland, Glasgow needs a massive boot up the e rse. This is because, liek no other city in Scotland, Labour have shackled it for so long. The breed voters out of dependency and the crap education services they provide. It is my view that independence will go a long way to changing attitudes in Glasgow - if only the people would wake up and stop their blind and misguided support of labour. Can you not see that?
DJ,
those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue may perhaps put their brains to more constructive things such as how to get the unemployable into gainful employment, how to improve Glasgows awful education system, and how to stop people getting drunk then murdering and slashing each other
Have you even considered that if labour had not been in control of Glasgow for so long that our education system would perhaps be bette? Or the masses dependent on benefits might not have accumulated? Ot the feeling of political apathy and general reliance on the state might not exist? Or that maybe we'd have had more success creating our own solution to crime and punishment?
Independence is not a single issue movement. You show an extreme lack of awareness to even suggest so. Independence is about controlling everyhing to do with Scotland from Scotland and by people who only have only Scotlands interests at heart. Open your eyes man.
Above all other cities in Scotland, Glasgow needs a massive boot up the e rse. This is because, liek no other city in Scotland, Labour have shackled it for so long. The breed voters out of dependency and the crap education services they provide. It is my view that independence will go a long way to changing attitudes in Glasgow - if only the people would wake up and stop their blind and misguided support of labour. Can you not see that?
Posted by: Richardinho, borders on 6:24pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Not really an 'elegant' solution at all. More like a 'fudge' in actual fact!
Imagine this 'English Grand commitee' sitting-with all English MPs sitting, and with the arguments heating up over contentious issues, it would end up effectively as an English parliament-and the prime minister couldn't sit in it?
Daft.
Not really an 'elegant' solution at all. More like a 'fudge' in actual fact!
Imagine this 'English Grand commitee' sitting-with all English MPs sitting, and with the arguments heating up over contentious issues, it would end up effectively as an English parliament-and the prime minister couldn't sit in it?
Daft.
Posted by: Melanthios on 6:33pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Would this site not be better if the posts were numbered? I firmly believe that more Scotsman posters would come over here if that were the case.
Would this site not be better if the posts were numbered? I firmly believe that more Scotsman posters would come over here if that were the case.
Posted by: bullyweealba on 6:42pm Wed 3 Oct 07
Tried to find a thread on Wendy demanding more money for Labour in opposition, than was allocated to the SNP when in oppostion.
The BBC have been carrying this story all day, but I don't seem to see it here.
Tried to find a thread on Wendy demanding more money for Labour in opposition, than was allocated to the SNP when in oppostion.
The BBC have been carrying this story all day, but I don't seem to see it here.
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 8:12pm Wed 3 Oct 07
DJ @ 5:30pm said,
[quote]Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence. I have a rather more realistic attitude to independence - it wont make a blind bit of difference, except perhaps that those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue[/quote]
The single issue is otherwise known as LIFE!
I would rather listen to the optimism, hope and vision of nationalists seeking the return of Scotland's national sovereignty than the weeping, wailing and gnashing of false teeth coming from the bored and the boring who would prefer the Scots went back to sleep while the British imperialist burglars went through our house.
DJ @ 5:30pm said,
Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence. I have a rather more realistic attitude to independence - it wont make a blind bit of difference, except perhaps that those who are wasting their time chasing a single issue
The single issue is otherwise known as LIFE!
I would rather listen to the optimism, hope and vision of nationalists seeking the return of Scotland's national sovereignty than the weeping, wailing and gnashing of false teeth coming from the bored and the boring who would prefer the Scots went back to sleep while the British imperialist burglars went through our house.
Posted by: pencildick on 10:49pm Wed 3 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Stew[/bold] wrote:
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.[/quote] I think the downside of independence will be that we will be cut loose and cast adrift into the north sea. We will be an international pariah with no friends anywhere in the world. We will have to learn to fend for ourselves.We will have to learn how to fish ,how to farm,how to build roads , bridges, schools ,houses etc. We will have to learn how to educate ourselves ,educate our children ,our grandchildren and great grandchildren.We will also have to learn how to earn our own money with no help from westminster.We will have to learn how to spend our own money with no help from Westminster.It is frightening to think that we will have to do all of these things for ourselfs with no help from Westminster or anyone else.
I personally cant wait.
Stew wrote:
A question I would like to ask the Nats is what would be a downside of independence? There must be some and if you can't think of any then you haven't considered the full argument and shouldn't really comment.
I think the downside of independence will be that we will be cut loose and cast adrift into the north sea. We will be an international pariah with no friends anywhere in the world. We will have to learn to fend for ourselves.We will have to learn how to fish ,how to farm,how to build roads , bridges, schools ,houses etc. We will have to learn how to educate ourselves ,educate our children ,our grandchildren and great grandchildren.We will also have to learn how to earn our own money with no help from westminster.We will have to learn how to spend our own money with no help from Westminster.It is frightening to think that we will have to do all of these things for ourselfs with no help from Westminster or anyone else.
I personally cant wait.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 9:44am Thu 4 Oct 07
DJ Ps in the WC[quote]Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence.[/quote] And some Disc Jockey to post a comment about "nats bleating on about independence."
DJ Ps in the WC
Yawn - yet another story to allow the nats to bleat on about independence.
And some Disc Jockey to post a comment about "nats bleating on about independence."
Posted by: Ken Mac, Glasgow on 2:07pm Thu 4 Oct 07
Malcolm Rifkind is a clever man though not too popular with most of the posters on this board. But dress it up any way you like it won't work. In fact you could have exactly the same situation as we have in the Scottish Parliament, minority government. It is perfectly possible we could have a UK government with a working majority that was at the same time a minority party in England. Therefore they would have to have the support of the opposition in an English Grand Committee to win votes. Not suprisingly this doesn't bother the Tories because they reckon they would always be in the majority in England. They're right because unless there is a total change in voting in the future the only way there could be a Tory UK government would be if they won England by a substantial amount because they have so little support elsewhere in the UK. The Labour party of course can easily envisage the opposite case for themselves. So the Tories get in and set up an English Grand Committee, then Labour comes back and abolishes it......then the Tories get ba.........
Malcolm Rifkind is a clever man though not too popular with most of the posters on this board. But dress it up any way you like it won't work. In fact you could have exactly the same situation as we have in the Scottish Parliament, minority government. It is perfectly possible we could have a UK government with a working majority that was at the same time a minority party in England. Therefore they would have to have the support of the opposition in an English Grand Committee to win votes. Not suprisingly this doesn't bother the Tories because they reckon they would always be in the majority in England. They're right because unless there is a total change in voting in the future the only way there could be a Tory UK government would be if they won England by a substantial amount because they have so little support elsewhere in the UK. The Labour party of course can easily envisage the opposite case for themselves. So the Tories get in and set up an English Grand Committee, then Labour comes back and abolishes it......then the Tories get ba.........
Posted by: R MacLeod, London on 4:40pm Thu 4 Oct 07
It has been said before by an earlier poster .
well intentioned as it is by the Tories this is just unworkable .
The only solutions are roll back devolution ,or a totally English Parliament and a Federal government .
or independence for both Scotland and England.
The Union is dead it died the day the UK signed the Treaty of Rome and joined the EU.
It has been said before by an earlier poster .
well intentioned as it is by the Tories this is just unworkable .
The only solutions are roll back devolution ,or a totally English Parliament and a Federal government .
or independence for both Scotland and England.
The Union is dead it died the day the UK signed the Treaty of Rome and joined the EU.
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (69)
