Westminster backs review of devolution
 |
| CLARIFICATION: The funding of the Scottish Parliament is to be reviewed |
The Westminster Government has thrown its weight behind the planned review of Holyrood's powers, with a promise to clarify the funding of the Scottish Parliament.
The significant shift of position comes after weeks of the UK Government's refusal to endorse the approach to the Constitutional Commission being set up by Labour, Conservative and LibDem leaders at both Holyrood and Westminster.
Although Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, attended two meetings with five other leaders to discuss the review, it was stressed he did so as leader of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually, not as a government minister.
Now the Labour Government is willing to welcome the review for which a majority of MSPs voted in the Scottish Parliament in December, and on which Wendy Alexander has staked her Labour leadership at Holyrood.
Whitehall has indicated it is willing to contribute resources to the commission's work without which it could fail to get started.
It was also announced that Chancellor Alistair Darling is to publish a paper on the funding of devolved administrations, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As both the Chancellor and Prime Minister represent Scottish constituencies, they have been under pressure from the English-based media and Conservative MPs over the impression that Scotland gets more than its fair share of public spending.
Mr Darling will publish "a factual paper on the funding mechanisms for the devolved administrations", to help inform the commission's review of the 1998 Scotland Act, under which the Scottish Parliament was set up.
This will allow ministers at Westminster to counter the attack on Scottish funding, making it clear half the funding of Scottish services, including pensions and welfare, does not go through Holyrood, while the funding formula for Holyrood leads to a block grant from which MSPs have to make spending choices.
There is no indication yet that the funding formula will be reformed, though that would be a likely consequence of the commission's work.
The announcement was made in answer to a House of Lords question. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a UK Justice Department minister, said: "The government welcome the Scottish Parliament's support in this aim and welcome the review."
The response at Westminster helps the troubled leadership of Wendy Alexander in trying to make progress and take reluctant party colleagues with her.
The UK Government's broader constitutional review, which will lead to a white paper scheduled for publication next month, includes discussion of a British statement of values, a bill of rights and increasing the powers of Parliament on treaty making and declarations of war.
Gordon Brown's administration has also yet to declare its intentions for further House of Lords reform.
The constitutional commission is distinct from the "national conversation on choosing Scotland's future" started last August by the SNP-led Government and aimed towards a referendum on independence in 2010.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols, do not even own a heater. on 12:09am Sat 2 Feb 08
presumably this will show the funding from north sea oil in its true column in the accountants figure, now that the ruse to count it ias non specific consolidated revenue has been shown to be a facade. when that happens everyone south of hadrian's wall would keep quiet on funding matters methinks.
if it does not show it, then the true costs of revenue and costs from scotland will be the ongoing whitewash it is now, designed to keep voters in check throughout the u.k. with a fine balnace of truth and vague comments.
any chance of an investigation or an estimate on what the true figures will be for this financial year? at 100usd a barrel then hard to think it is not looking good on the bopttom line.
this assumes the money has not already been "used' now and in the future to pay debts related to paying for nuclear clean ups, weapons and wars.
presumably this will show the funding from north sea oil in its true column in the accountants figure, now that the ruse to count it ias non specific consolidated revenue has been shown to be a facade. when that happens everyone south of hadrian's wall would keep quiet on funding matters methinks.
if it does not show it, then the true costs of revenue and costs from scotland will be the ongoing whitewash it is now, designed to keep voters in check throughout the u.k. with a fine balnace of truth and vague comments.
any chance of an investigation or an estimate on what the true figures will be for this financial year? at 100usd a barrel then hard to think it is not looking good on the bopttom line.
this assumes the money has not already been "used' now and in the future to pay debts related to paying for nuclear clean ups, weapons and wars.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Vermin HQ on 12:20am Sat 2 Feb 08
"Although Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, attended two meetings with five other leaders to discuss the review, it was stressed he did so as leader of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually, not as a government minister."
Oh I love this one. Sir Sidney Roughdiamond has two fancy hats. One as Governor General of Scotland where he states that devolution is an event not a process and the other as a flat cap tugging serf to Scottish Unionist politicians demanding that which will never be devolved.
Geez peace Des.
"Although Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, attended two meetings with five other leaders to discuss the review, it was stressed he did so as leader of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually, not as a government minister."
Oh I love this one. Sir Sidney Roughdiamond has two fancy hats. One as Governor General of Scotland where he states that devolution is an event not a process and the other as a flat cap tugging serf to Scottish Unionist politicians demanding that which will never be devolved.
Geez peace Des.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:21am Sat 2 Feb 08
Redcliffe Wants It In The Black Column[quote]Presumably this will show the funding from north sea oil in its true column in the accountants?[/quote] Did a pig just fly by?
Let's see how ruthlessly honest our fellow Scots, wedded to Britain, are in opening the books and establishing a fairer system.
Redcliffe Wants It In The Black Column
Presumably this will show the funding from north sea oil in its true column in the accountants?
Did a pig just fly by?
Let's see how ruthlessly honest our fellow Scots, wedded to Britain, are in opening the books and establishing a fairer system.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 12:43am Sat 2 Feb 08
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'.
Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation.
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'.
Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 12:44am Sat 2 Feb 08
This ''review'' will show precisely what the Treasury want it to show and nothing else. If you are negotiating something you always start off by asking for a lot more than you think you will get. This is a charade.
This ''review'' will show precisely what the Treasury want it to show and nothing else. If you are negotiating something you always start off by asking for a lot more than you think you will get. This is a charade.
Posted by: media lies on 12:45am Sat 2 Feb 08
The Scottish Parliament can have full powers. The launch of the Scottish Independence Convention, a petition to get a referendum on independence, was launched on the 24th of January. This wasn't reported in most sections of the media but all it needs is about 100000 signatures to take to parliament.
The Scottish Parliament can have full powers. The launch of the Scottish Independence Convention, a petition to get a referendum on independence, was launched on the 24th of January. This wasn't reported in most sections of the media but all it needs is about 100000 signatures to take to parliament.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 12:51am Sat 2 Feb 08
Cant wait for the scots to pick up there ownsocial security tab!
Cant wait for the scots to pick up there ownsocial security tab!
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Settled on 1:02am Sat 2 Feb 08
Or, from another angle, pays for the huge social security bill for a larger neighbour. No?
Or, from another angle, pays for the huge social security bill for a larger neighbour. No?
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 1:11am Sat 2 Feb 08
mr 8 against 11, i accept that the unwashed of greater lanarkshire do skew those figures, compared to lower figures in more salubrious areas, but their ongoing siesta at the costa del clyde is easily covered by the billions in revenue that end up surreptitiously and through administrative coercion in london's coffers as allegedly not being of scottish origin.
a valid question you could ask, which requires you to go further than your one liner, would be if scotland did not as now have the oil and the chance to sort itself out, would the unemployable masses mean going alone would be such a good idea. would it be the deal breaker?
i personally would say it would make a positive financial outcome based under full fiscal control in edinburgh far less certain.
we have always talked about oil revenue being all or nothing, but if "we" split the oil 50-50 so uk pty ltd does not go belly up, giving a fair share to all, and making sure that pro rata scots would get far more, then that might get common approval north of carlisle.
it would be construed as a meanss to an end, as scotland needs to pay uk pty ltd some monies as its share of national accrued debt if it went independent, so this revenue share could be a contribution until that share is paid off, then all oil revenues could revert to edinburgh. that part might take a fair few years, although we would need to have facts to quantify timescales.
so yes, evn you ccan surely agree the scots could pick up their social security tab, dropping the tab for paying england's in the process!
mr 8 against 11, i accept that the unwashed of greater lanarkshire do skew those figures, compared to lower figures in more salubrious areas, but their ongoing siesta at the costa del clyde is easily covered by the billions in revenue that end up surreptitiously and through administrative coercion in london's coffers as allegedly not being of scottish origin.
a valid question you could ask, which requires you to go further than your one liner, would be if scotland did not as now have the oil and the chance to sort itself out, would the unemployable masses mean going alone would be such a good idea. would it be the deal breaker?
i personally would say it would make a positive financial outcome based under full fiscal control in edinburgh far less certain.
we have always talked about oil revenue being all or nothing, but if "we" split the oil 50-50 so uk pty ltd does not go belly up, giving a fair share to all, and making sure that pro rata scots would get far more, then that might get common approval north of carlisle.
it would be construed as a meanss to an end, as scotland needs to pay uk pty ltd some monies as its share of national accrued debt if it went independent, so this revenue share could be a contribution until that share is paid off, then all oil revenues could revert to edinburgh. that part might take a fair few years, although we would need to have facts to quantify timescales.
so yes, evn you ccan surely agree the scots could pick up their social security tab, dropping the tab for paying england's in the process!
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 1:13am Sat 2 Feb 08
Scotland only 8% of UK and 100% of North Sea Oil.
If Scotland is such a drain,why is London holding on to Scotland then ?
Scotland only 8% of UK and 100% of North Sea Oil.
If Scotland is such a drain,why is London holding on to Scotland then ?
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 1:14am Sat 2 Feb 08
nouveauxscum, just saw your comment, sentiments on english social similar to yours, but we need to help some people onto the ladder as thinking requires a process of engagement in the hemisphers of one's own head. 8 to 11 needs to make that step.
nouveauxscum, just saw your comment, sentiments on english social similar to yours, but we need to help some people onto the ladder as thinking requires a process of engagement in the hemisphers of one's own head. 8 to 11 needs to make that step.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, red-eyed on 1:15am Sat 2 Feb 08
Any chance of some spacing Red?
Yer stuff is great to read but........
Any chance of some spacing Red?
Yer stuff is great to read but........
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:17am Sat 2 Feb 08
An SNP Government can do a great deal to lift people out of the benefit trap which quite frankly Labour are quite happy for people to remain in, which is why they have designed the benefit system to make it attractive to people who would be only marginally better off working. It's not an England v Scotland thing it's about good government.
An SNP Government can do a great deal to lift people out of the benefit trap which quite frankly Labour are quite happy for people to remain in, which is why they have designed the benefit system to make it attractive to people who would be only marginally better off working. It's not an England v Scotland thing it's about good government.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 1:26am Sat 2 Feb 08
[bold]85%[/bold] of unemployed in Scotland are white. ([bold]72,000[/bold] out of a population of [bold]5[/bold] million)
[bold]34%[/bold] of unemployed in London are white. ([bold]55,000[/bold] out of a population of [bold]7[/bold] million)
85% of unemployed in Scotland are white. (
72,000 out of a population of
5 million)
34% of unemployed in London are white. (
55,000 out of a population of
7 million)
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Sherlock on 1:26am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
An SNP Government can do a great deal to lift people out of the benefit trap which quite frankly Labour are quite happy for people to remain in, which is why they have designed the benefit system to make it attractive to people who would be only marginally better off working. It's not an England v Scotland thing it's about good government.[/quote] Indubitably Observer. If we are to draw lines in the sand then it is Scot v Scot. Well it was wasn't it? Them were the days eh?
Onward for the good of Scotland.
Observer wrote:
An SNP Government can do a great deal to lift people out of the benefit trap which quite frankly Labour are quite happy for people to remain in, which is why they have designed the benefit system to make it attractive to people who would be only marginally better off working. It's not an England v Scotland thing it's about good government.
Indubitably Observer. If we are to draw lines in the sand then it is Scot v Scot. Well it was wasn't it? Them were the days eh?
Onward for the good of Scotland.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Seth on 1:28am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[bold]85%[/bold] of unemployed in Scotland are white. ([bold]72,000[/bold] out of a population of [bold]5[/bold] million) [bold]34%[/bold] of unemployed in London are white. ([bold]55,000[/bold] out of a population of [bold]7[/bold] million) [/quote] You're that person from Yorkshire aren't you?
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
85% of unemployed in Scotland are white. (72,000 out of a population of 5 million) 34% of unemployed in London are white. (55,000 out of a population of 7 million)
You're that person from Yorkshire aren't you?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:29am Sat 2 Feb 08
I have always thought nouveaux that our battle was with ourselves.(mainly) I think we can win it.
I have always thought nouveaux that our battle was with ourselves.(mainly) I think we can win it.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 1:38am Sat 2 Feb 08
Yorkshire is nice, it even has a larger population than scotland.
It has 3 less MPs at westminister than scotland.
It has 100,000 less public sector workers than scotland.
But sadly it has 12,000 more unemployed than scotland.
Yorkshire is nice, it even has a larger population than scotland.
It has 3 less MPs at westminister than scotland.
It has 100,000 less public sector workers than scotland.
But sadly it has 12,000 more unemployed than scotland.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Sett on 1:43am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
I have always thought nouveaux that our battle was with ourselves.(mainly) I think we can win it. [/quote] I think we may have already won it Observer. I'm pleased that opinion, in my social circles, is not Scot v Scot but Scots together.
Can this fanciful optimism continue?
Observer wrote:
I have always thought nouveaux that our battle was with ourselves.(mainly) I think we can win it.
I think we may have already won it Observer. I'm pleased that opinion, in my social circles, is not Scot v Scot but Scots together.
Can this fanciful optimism continue?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:49am Sat 2 Feb 08
Depends where you are Nouveaux! There are some in Glasgow and the West Central belt who just don't accept any of this and eventually they'll get some kind of act together, just now they are reeling, but yes I think we can be optimistic.
Depends where you are Nouveaux! There are some in Glasgow and the West Central belt who just don't accept any of this and eventually they'll get some kind of act together, just now they are reeling, but yes I think we can be optimistic.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Scurrying somewhere on 1:57am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Depends where you are Nouveaux! There are some in Glasgow and the West Central belt who just don't accept any of this and eventually they'll get some kind of act together, just now they are reeling, but yes I think we can be optimistic. [/quote] Their rags have turned against Ms Alexander this week - How can they come back?
I'm struggling to think how they can now get thier act together now. lol
Observer wrote:
Depends where you are Nouveaux! There are some in Glasgow and the West Central belt who just don't accept any of this and eventually they'll get some kind of act together, just now they are reeling, but yes I think we can be optimistic.
Their rags have turned against Ms Alexander this week - How can they come back?
I'm struggling to think how they can now get thier act together now. lol
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 2:00am Sat 2 Feb 08
She's getting well set up IMO, first the Record then the Sun. Labour are a bunch of back stabbing two faced buzzards. But what is interesting is that they are clearly going against the control freak Brown. But the thing with them is I think they are going one day at a time in all this and fighting like ferrets in a sack while they are at it. There is no long game.
She's getting well set up IMO, first the Record then the Sun. Labour are a bunch of back stabbing two faced buzzards. But what is interesting is that they are clearly going against the control freak Brown. But the thing with them is I think they are going one day at a time in all this and fighting like ferrets in a sack while they are at it. There is no long game.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Scotland on 2:10am Sat 2 Feb 08
Exactly - there is no long game supporting what will eventually become the losing side.
Newspapers need to exist regardless of previous bias - I say give them all a fair crack in independent Scotland.
For the record, I quite like Wendy.
Exactly - there is no long game supporting what will eventually become the losing side.
Newspapers need to exist regardless of previous bias - I say give them all a fair crack in independent Scotland.
For the record, I quite like Wendy.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 2:25am Sat 2 Feb 08
Dream on.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 2:32am Sat 2 Feb 08
Hello Forbes I saw your comments in the ET on the McKeever thing and I thought you were completely bang on the nail.
Nouveaux, Wendy was imposed by the big boss. I hope she goes on to do better things I have found some of the attacks made on her revolting. But that is politics. As Forbes can testify Nicola gets it just as bad.
Hello Forbes I saw your comments in the ET on the McKeever thing and I thought you were completely bang on the nail.
Nouveaux, Wendy was imposed by the big boss. I hope she goes on to do better things I have found some of the attacks made on her revolting. But that is politics. As Forbes can testify Nicola gets it just as bad.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 4:01am Sat 2 Feb 08
nouveaux, i will introduce spacing, but draw the line at capitals.
i normally write and send, without changing any words, even the spelling, as it will probably end up more politically correct if i take time and go over it, and in my case anyway my first thoughts tend to be my real thoughts.
if it is too lateral then maybe i need to at least have a second look though.....!
nouveaux, i will introduce spacing, but draw the line at capitals.
i normally write and send, without changing any words, even the spelling, as it will probably end up more politically correct if i take time and go over it, and in my case anyway my first thoughts tend to be my real thoughts.
if it is too lateral then maybe i need to at least have a second look though.....!
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols, tescos, asda., morrisons etc on 4:05am Sat 2 Feb 08
i do wish 8/11 would go by a definable name rather than his pet interest.
what if it turns out that the 8% being scottish get 12 % of the social, will he have to change his name?
and even worse, if it turns out it is 7/11, can he be removed on the basis he is advertising for a shopping chain?
i do wish 8/11 would go by a definable name rather than his pet interest.
what if it turns out that the 8% being scottish get 12 % of the social, will he have to change his name?
and even worse, if it turns out it is 7/11, can he be removed on the basis he is advertising for a shopping chain?
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:23am Sat 2 Feb 08
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:23am Sat 2 Feb 08
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:23am Sat 2 Feb 08
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Oh what a tangled web Devolution has weaved.
Posted by: pencildick on 5:32am Sat 2 Feb 08
"Although Des Brown, the secretary of state for Scotland
attended two meetings, it was stressed he did so as leader
of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually , not as a Government Minister".
Is there no limit to this mans talents, does he have two heads,
one for Westminster ,one for here.
Does he think we are stupid.
Two heads Browne along with two faces Browne.
"Although Des Brown, the secretary of state for Scotland
attended two meetings, it was stressed he did so as leader
of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually , not as a Government Minister".
Is there no limit to this mans talents, does he have two heads,
one for Westminster ,one for here.
Does he think we are stupid.
Two heads Browne along with two faces Browne.
Posted by: pencildick on 7:09am Sat 2 Feb 08
Des "two heads" Brown
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:04am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]pencildick[/bold] wrote:
"Although Des Brown, the secretary of state for Scotland attended two meetings, it was stressed he did so as leader of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually , not as a Government Minister". Is there no limit to this mans talents, does he have two heads, one for Westminster ,one for here. Does he think we are stupid. Two heads Browne along with two faces Browne.[/quote] If you are the First Minister however, this leads to all sorts of headlines and accusations suggesting skullduggery.
Not sure if there is such a title of as leader of Scottish MP's, what about Gordon Brown? To me Des Browne is clearly epresenting Westminsters interests and is indeed there as a minister.
Yes, both Des and Douglas do think that the readership are stupid. See Douglas's bolg for an insight into how he views readers who comment on articles.
pencildick wrote:
"Although Des Brown, the secretary of state for Scotland attended two meetings, it was stressed he did so as leader of Scottish Labour MPs and, unusually , not as a Government Minister". Is there no limit to this mans talents, does he have two heads, one for Westminster ,one for here. Does he think we are stupid. Two heads Browne along with two faces Browne.
If you are the First Minister however, this leads to all sorts of headlines and accusations suggesting skullduggery.
Not sure if there is such a title of as leader of Scottish MP's, what about Gordon Brown? To me Des Browne is clearly epresenting Westminsters interests and is indeed there as a minister.
Yes, both Des and Douglas do think that the readership are stupid. See Douglas's bolg for an insight into how he views readers who comment on articles.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 8:58am Sat 2 Feb 08
" not as a government minister." "as leader of Scottish Labour MPs"
Complete and utter crap Mr Frazer. Was this article meant as some kind of reassurance to the remaining cringe audience elements?
Ok so they were all represnting Scotland we need an investigation as to why they all had a 'jolly' to London then at tax payers expense and to Ensure Browne did not break ministerial code. Was there some multi million pound investment on the cards or was it really just a "Colony Commision" discussion about how to deal with the restless natives in a modern day version of the East Indea Club?
Only in Scotland could you get three minorities discussing with the Elected government of another political state (90% of whom represent other peoples interests) to the total exlusion of the Scottish Government we actually voted for. It is a complete disgrace, totally undemocratic and smacks of Empirical interference and control.
UK? No - UKenya. Rant over!
" not as a government minister." "as leader of Scottish Labour MPs"
Complete and utter crap Mr Frazer. Was this article meant as some kind of reassurance to the remaining cringe audience elements?
Ok so they were all represnting Scotland we need an investigation as to why they all had a 'jolly' to London then at tax payers expense and to Ensure Browne did not break ministerial code. Was there some multi million pound investment on the cards or was it really just a "Colony Commision" discussion about how to deal with the restless natives in a modern day version of the East Indea Club?
Only in Scotland could you get three minorities discussing with the Elected government of another political state (90% of whom represent other peoples interests) to the total exlusion of the Scottish Government we actually voted for. It is a complete disgrace, totally undemocratic and smacks of Empirical interference and control.
UK? No - UKenya. Rant over!
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 8:59am Sat 2 Feb 08
As Wendy's alleged to have a brain the size of Dumbarton Rock, should we start calling her "two brains"?
Wendy "two brains" Alexander.
Naa, "two bairns" is, at least, accurate.
As Wendy's alleged to have a brain the size of Dumbarton Rock, should we start calling her "two brains"?
Wendy "two brains" Alexander.
Naa, "two bairns" is, at least, accurate.
Posted by: jomellon, Lodève, France on 9:00am Sat 2 Feb 08
> scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security
... which means the union has been disasterous for many Scots, and caused rampant poverty. Not much of an argument for staying in the UK is it?
The union was even worse for Ireland but now happily they have recovered.
> scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security
... which means the union has been disasterous for many Scots, and caused rampant poverty. Not much of an argument for staying in the UK is it?
The union was even worse for Ireland but now happily they have recovered.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 9:01am Sat 2 Feb 08
" not as a government minister." "as leader of Scottish Labour MPs"
Complete and utter crap Mr Frazer. Was this article meant as some kind of reassurance to the remaining cringe audience elements?
Ok so they were all represnting Scotland we need an investigation as to why they all had a 'jolly' to London then at tax payers expense and to Ensure Browne did not break ministerial code. Was there some multi million pound investment on the cards or was it really just a "Colony Commision" discussion about how to deal with the restless natives in a modern day version of the East Indea Club?
Only in Scotland could you get three minorities discussing with the Elected government of another political state (90% of whom represent other peoples interests) to the total exlusion of the Scottish Government we actually voted for. It is a complete disgrace, totally undemocratic and smacks of Empirical interference and control.
UK? No - UKenya. Rant over!
" not as a government minister." "as leader of Scottish Labour MPs"
Complete and utter crap Mr Frazer. Was this article meant as some kind of reassurance to the remaining cringe audience elements?
Ok so they were all represnting Scotland we need an investigation as to why they all had a 'jolly' to London then at tax payers expense and to Ensure Browne did not break ministerial code. Was there some multi million pound investment on the cards or was it really just a "Colony Commision" discussion about how to deal with the restless natives in a modern day version of the East Indea Club?
Only in Scotland could you get three minorities discussing with the Elected government of another political state (90% of whom represent other peoples interests) to the total exlusion of the Scottish Government we actually voted for. It is a complete disgrace, totally undemocratic and smacks of Empirical interference and control.
UK? No - UKenya. Rant over!
Posted by: naylabour, glasgow on 9:14am Sat 2 Feb 08
why are any of the Labour and Lib MSP's spending any time on this when they should be thinking about who will thier new leader?
why are any of the Labour and Lib MSP's spending any time on this when they should be thinking about who will thier new leader?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:20am Sat 2 Feb 08
This sudden U turn by Westminster must be the last dying gasp of Gordon Brown trying to bolster Wendy in her position.
This sudden U turn by Westminster must be the last dying gasp of Gordon Brown trying to bolster Wendy in her position.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 9:22am Sat 2 Feb 08
Cockroach In The Room [quote]Cant wait for the scots to pick up there ownsocial security tab![/quote]We don't have the time, what with gambling our welfare cheques in Las Vegas and sunning ourselves in Morrocco, life is one long plane journey, business class, of course.
Cockroach In The Room
Cant wait for the scots to pick up there ownsocial security tab!
We don't have the time, what with gambling our welfare cheques in Las Vegas and sunning ourselves in Morrocco, life is one long plane journey, business class, of course.
Posted by: Mandy Pumps, Glasgow on 10:29am Sat 2 Feb 08
I'm for going for independence but we need to realise that it isn't going to be sunshine and martinin coctails all day. We need to get some better people into our government. If we think that all the people over at Holyrood are the best this country has to offer were deluded. We also need to look at the benefits system as there is a subculture intent on abusing it both indigenous and migratory.
I'm for going for independence but we need to realise that it isn't going to be sunshine and martinin coctails all day. We need to get some better people into our government. If we think that all the people over at Holyrood are the best this country has to offer were deluded. We also need to look at the benefits system as there is a subculture intent on abusing it both indigenous and migratory.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 10:31am Sat 2 Feb 08
If Scotland is considered by the International Community to be a "Sovereign State" why do we have a situation where the legislative body of a neighbour country (where representatives from Scotland are grossly outnumbered) have any say whatsoever in what "political freedom" the Scots should have.
If we were lucky enough to have oil the Yanks might invade us to liberate us................fe
ck me but we have oil !!!!!!
If Scotland is considered by the International Community to be a "Sovereign State" why do we have a situation where the legislative body of a neighbour country (where representatives from Scotland are grossly outnumbered) have any say whatsoever in what "political freedom" the Scots should have.
If we were lucky enough to have oil the Yanks might invade us to liberate us................fe
ck me but we have oil !!!!!!
Posted by: Toophingers, Bellshill. on 11:08am Sat 2 Feb 08
May I put a cat among the Scottish pigeons by suggesting that if Westminster MPs are dragged kicking and screaming into revealing how many relatives they 'employ' Holyrood will have to do likewise.
May I put a cat among the Scottish pigeons by suggesting that if Westminster MPs are dragged kicking and screaming into revealing how many relatives they 'employ' Holyrood will have to do likewise.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:21am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote]British statement of values, a bill of rights[/quote]
Substitute Scottish and you'd have blinkered unionista's all over this thread claiming that the SNP stood for 'narrow' (their word of choice) nationalism, racism, facism etc etc etc
Instead it comes from Labour Prime-minister in Westminister.....
Isn't it striking that those who make the case for independence are internationalist and outward-looking whereas Unionists tend to cling to British insularism and the politics of fear.
One of the worst arguments made by Unionists against Scottish independence is to invoke the age of ‘globalisation’ and ‘interdependence’ and patronise Nationalists with being 'out of step' with the today's world.
This is the astonishingly insular Unionist argument which ignores what has happened beyond the shores of the UK.
Once again, an article totally on Labour reads like a party proclamation, the UK Government haven't officially attended any of the initial constitutional commission's meetings..... the above pronouncement occurred in the Lords for heavens sake....
They haven't given any support other than to state that they will publish fiscal data - which we can be sure that this will be skewed as always to meet party political ends.... It'll be interesting to see if the Tories and liberals play into this trap being set by Labour......
[bold]Scotland deserves better than this parcel o fearties....[/bold]
British statement of values, a bill of rights
Substitute Scottish and you'd have blinkered unionista's all over this thread claiming that the SNP stood for 'narrow' (their word of choice) nationalism, racism, facism etc etc etc
Instead it comes from Labour Prime-minister in Westminister.....
Isn't it striking that those who make the case for independence are internationalist and outward-looking whereas Unionists tend to cling to British insularism and the politics of fear.
One of the worst arguments made by Unionists against Scottish independence is to invoke the age of ‘globalisation’ and ‘interdependence’ and patronise Nationalists with being 'out of step' with the today's world.
This is the astonishingly insular Unionist argument which ignores what has happened beyond the shores of the UK.
Once again, an article totally on Labour reads like a party proclamation, the UK Government haven't officially attended any of the initial constitutional commission's meetings..... the above pronouncement occurred in the Lords for heavens sake....
They haven't given any support other than to state that they will publish fiscal data - which we can be sure that this will be skewed as always to meet party political ends.... It'll be interesting to see if the Tories and liberals play into this trap being set by Labour......
Scotland deserves better than this parcel o fearties.... Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 11:24am Sat 2 Feb 08
Why isn't the sovereign Britnat government negotiating with the sovereign Scottish government re the Devolution arguement? Still not come to terms with it all, lads?
Maybe it's time for UDI?
Why isn't the sovereign Britnat government negotiating with the sovereign Scottish government re the Devolution arguement? Still not come to terms with it all, lads?
Maybe it's time for UDI?
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 11:31am Sat 2 Feb 08
A genuine and constructive response to the all-Party Holyrood proposals - sorry the Nuts opted out and are happy with theiri Numpty "Conversation".
Good on you, Gordon !
A genuine and constructive response to the all-Party Holyrood proposals - sorry the Nuts opted out and are happy with theiri Numpty "Conversation".
Good on you, Gordon !
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:33am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
This sudden U turn by Westminster must be the last dying gasp of Gordon Brown trying to bolster Wendy in her position. [/quote] I don't think there is any U Turn, read the article carefully (it's just another one of Mcavities disappearing tricks....you turn, the 'lady's not for turning......)....Ir
n Broon, a thatcherite too the end....
Words like 'indiciated' 'willing' 'contribute'....the only solid announcement is that Alligator Darling is going to try and foist the discredited GERS figures onto the devolved parliaments again..... as 'factual' evidence.....
He's only doing this because the SNP have promised to review the way Scotland's fiscal funding is reported in June.....they've promised to review GERS and how it omits large amounts of revenue but includes Westminster's funding which is reserved and outside the block grant and therefore always showing a deficit.....
Your so naughty darling!
The old 'scotland's too poor' slogan of Labour didn't work last May and isn't going to work this time...... canna wait to see how this goes down amongst Scotland's growing confidence....if anything the above announcement is more likely characterised as the empire strikes back....this is the first real announcement regarding finance that the Uk Government has made and it will be used to try and hammer the devolved parliaments..... on the way, knocking the constipated commission into the long grass discussing fairly minor tweaks of the current arrangements.....
The UK Government can't even brig itself to properly welcome the commission, what chance will the commission's recommendations, however timid, have?
IT's Time for the Tories & Liberals to joint the real Conversation on Scotland's future and contribute to the National Conversation by forming a real alternative to Independence..... unless ofcourse their talk of federalism and fiscal autonomy with greater powers is simple a sham?...... surely not...... maybe aye....maybe naw.....
[bold]The fence is shooggling, time to pick your side.....[/bold]
Observer wrote:
This sudden U turn by Westminster must be the last dying gasp of Gordon Brown trying to bolster Wendy in her position.
I don't think there is any U Turn, read the article carefully (it's just another one of Mcavities disappearing tricks....you turn, the 'lady's not for turning......)....Ir
n Broon, a thatcherite too the end....
Words like 'indiciated' 'willing' 'contribute'....the only solid announcement is that Alligator Darling is going to try and foist the discredited GERS figures onto the devolved parliaments again..... as 'factual' evidence.....
He's only doing this because the SNP have promised to review the way Scotland's fiscal funding is reported in June.....they've promised to review GERS and how it omits large amounts of revenue but includes Westminster's funding which is reserved and outside the block grant and therefore always showing a deficit.....
Your so naughty darling!
The old 'scotland's too poor' slogan of Labour didn't work last May and isn't going to work this time...... canna wait to see how this goes down amongst Scotland's growing confidence....if anything the above announcement is more likely characterised as the empire strikes back....this is the first real announcement regarding finance that the Uk Government has made and it will be used to try and hammer the devolved parliaments..... on the way, knocking the constipated commission into the long grass discussing fairly minor tweaks of the current arrangements.....
The UK Government can't even brig itself to properly welcome the commission, what chance will the commission's recommendations, however timid, have?
IT's Time for the Tories & Liberals to joint the real Conversation on Scotland's future and contribute to the National Conversation by forming a real alternative to Independence..... unless ofcourse their talk of federalism and fiscal autonomy with greater powers is simple a sham?...... surely not...... maybe aye....maybe naw.....
The fence is shooggling, time to pick your side..... Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 11:35am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]george alexander[/bold] wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation. [/quote] Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......!
george alexander wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation.
Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......!
Posted by: Grahamski, Falkirk on 11:35am Sat 2 Feb 08
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again.
Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again.
Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:43am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Exiled Aussie[/bold] wrote:
A genuine and constructive response to the all-Party Holyrood proposals - sorry the Nuts opted out and are happy with theiri Numpty "Conversation".
Good on you, Gordon ![/quote] ha ha ha ha [bold]'genuine'[/bold] ....ha ha ha....[bold]'constructive'.[/bold] ...aaaa
Banffer, c'mon, where's yer glasses.....
Do you see any quotes at all in the above article attributed to Gordon Brown?...... do you see any actual quotes at all from ANY member of the Uk Cabinet confirming that the UK Government have accepted the Constitutional Commission?
All I see is a journalists words saying that they have 'indicated' a welcome to the idea of a commission..... and a polite [bold]answer[/bold] from a junior minister in the House of Lords.
I don't think the Liberals will settle for this, they have asked for full recognition of the commission from the UK Government.....
This is a stunt to shore up Wendy without actually confirming anything..... I'ma fraid that the Union Status Quo is dead, the real argument now is whether the so called unionists can put forward an aspirational alternative to independence......
[bold]Don't hold yer breath[/bold]
Exiled Aussie wrote:
A genuine and constructive response to the all-Party Holyrood proposals - sorry the Nuts opted out and are happy with theiri Numpty "Conversation".
Good on you, Gordon !
ha ha ha ha
'genuine' ....ha ha ha....
'constructive'. ...aaaa
Banffer, c'mon, where's yer glasses.....
Do you see any quotes at all in the above article attributed to Gordon Brown?...... do you see any actual quotes at all from ANY member of the Uk Cabinet confirming that the UK Government have accepted the Constitutional Commission?
All I see is a journalists words saying that they have 'indicated' a welcome to the idea of a commission..... and a polite
answer from a junior minister in the House of Lords.
I don't think the Liberals will settle for this, they have asked for full recognition of the commission from the UK Government.....
This is a stunt to shore up Wendy without actually confirming anything..... I'ma fraid that the Union Status Quo is dead, the real argument now is whether the so called unionists can put forward an aspirational alternative to independence......
Don't hold yer breath
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:45am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Exiled Aussie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]george alexander[/bold] wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation. [/quote] Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......![/quote] Are you saying hat the SNP's donations are illegal?
Exiled Aussie wrote:
george alexander wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation.
Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......!
Are you saying hat the SNP's donations are illegal?
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:45am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Exiled Aussie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]george alexander[/bold] wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation. [/quote] Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......![/quote] Are you saying hat the SNP's donations are illegal?
Exiled Aussie wrote:
george alexander wrote:
Oh do give it a rest Douglas, for goodness sake. No ones interested in your commission 'spoiler'. Illegal donation, signed letter of thanks and falsifying the source of the donation.
Remember, £950 as against the thousand upon thousand foreign dosh from a has-been actor who only visits Scotland when he has a "special" reason......!
Are you saying hat the SNP's donations are illegal?
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Such a trifle on 11:46am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Grahamski[/bold] wrote:
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again. Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....[/quote] Yeah you said this yesterday Graham. An interesting name you have - Mr Graham Ski.
Oh the irony. lol
Grahamski wrote:
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again. Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....
Yeah you said this yesterday Graham. An interesting name you have - Mr Graham Ski.
Oh the irony. lol
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:47am Sat 2 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Grahamski[/bold] wrote:
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again.
Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....[/quote] What 'psuedo Gaelic' names?
I don't see any above, unless they've been deleted.
I've only quickly skimmed through them but I don't see any 'vitriolic' posts either......
Grahamski wrote:
It never fails to amuse and amaze when you read the cowardly anonymous attacks from SNP HQ here and elsewhere. These threads do nothing but provide a forum for the green ink brigade and they bring the Herald into disrepute - they should shut them down. Again.
Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym and launches unfounded and personal attacks should be beneath our contempt. Unfortunately these boards are infested by this kind of person. Interestingly the posters who choose the pseudo gaelic names seem the most vitriolic, can't think why....
What 'psuedo Gaelic' names?
I don't see any above, unless they've been deleted.
I've only quickly skimmed through them but I don't see any 'vitriolic' posts either......
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (169)
