I like how that European Federation paper genuinely has as its logic "we're faced with continent-sized economies, so we must have a continent-sized one". That's literally the level of economic understanding in a formal policy paper.
@david_herdson - Eventually, yes, but over what timescale? In countries with PR, it's easier for new or minor parties to grow and for new coalitions or arrangements to form. With our FPTP system, we could easily be talking three parliamentary terms or more. In any case, your argument also works the other way: an unpopular Labour Party could reform itself and move back towards the centre, mitigating the unpopularity and perhaps mitigating the disaster, but not getting the country any closer to UKIP's aim of leaving the European Union.
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
Why not? If the opposition are divided, unmitigated disasters get reelected faute de mieux
Like Thatcher.
No. This is a left-wing myth.
Thatcher would have won in 1983 and 1987 without the SDP splitting, if the Conservative vote had remained the same - though her majorities would have been much reduced.
Obviously, the whole timeline would have been different and perhaps Labour would have returned to the centre much faster had the SDP not split - or perhaps not, given that they'd probably have mostly been deselected anyway.
But the main point is that Thatcher's (and Major's) constant 42% was enough to win outright majorities, irrespective of the Labour/third-party split.
The left-wing myth also conveniently lumps the Alliance in with Labour as 'left-wing', which quite simply wasn't true. Clearly, the SDP were centre-left but the classical Liberals weren't and in any case, IIRC, the Alliance's voters were more inclined to the Conservatives than Labour in both 1980s general elections.
(Oh, and the article goes by the ludicrous "8.4 million lines of code" argument, that shows that the author and politicians should be locked in a room and not let out until they learn about software development).
There was a company I was involved in - a software development one - where the MD kept firing the head of development because code wasn't been written fast enough. He would then hire the person who promised to build stuff quickest.
I bought him a copy of the Mythical Man Month. But it still took him three years to learn his lesson.
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
Why not? If the opposition are divided, unmitigated disasters get reelected faute de mieux
Milibrand will undoubtedly be a disaster for the country
Cameron has undoubtedly failed the country
The roof is falling in and cameron is doing the political equivalent of putting up new curtains and desperately hopes no one is noticing.
When being shat on we don't care which arsehole (unless you are a particular ex mp) it is coming out of we merely wish it to stop.
A vote for cameron, clegg or milibrand therefore is like putting a big sign over our heads claiming our support for all things coprophilliac.
Will farage or any of the other small parties be any better? Who knows but we do know that a vote for the big 3 is a vote for more borrowing, more state , more loss of civil liberties.
I presume the Cameroons also know how they would stop Eurosceptic tory MPs demanding a mandate referendum in 2015 should Cammie win? We know those Eurosceptics don't trust Cammie's secret 'red lines' so what's to stop them agitating for a quick referendum before the IN/OUT one to strengthen Cammie's hand for the supposed renegotiation? Those Eurosceptics might even begin to wonder if a referendum on immigration might be worthwhile after Switzerland.
Impractical? Unrealistic? Not something that has bothered them before.
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
Part of me would like to.. you should try and leave your mark, after all... but how much digging into your past would people do etc... ? I think id take the criticism too personally as well
You Got It by Roy Orbison just came on Absolute 80s. Sounds like the soundtrack to Cameron's approach to flood defences if the 'money no object' line is correct.
Mr. Jessop, I'm more familiar with mail and war elephants when it comes to military things, but that price tag sounds quite stupid.
To be fair (why?) the support costs will reduce as we buy more of the things. But even with them factored out, they're still probably at £70 million a pop. And that's another point: no-one can really tell how much these things cost.
If only the last government had specced the carriers with good, old-fashioned steam catas and arresters, instead of lying about them being able to be retrofitted.
(Oh, and the article goes by the ludicrous "8.4 million lines of code" argument, that shows that the author and politicians should be locked in a room and not let out until they learn about software development).
There was a company I was involved in - a software development one - where the MD kept firing the head of development because code wasn't been written fast enough. He would then hire the person who promised to build stuff quickest.
I bought him a copy of the Mythical Man Month. But it still took him three years to learn his lesson.
Ah, you mention the holiest of holy bibles. ;-)
In nearly twenty years of professional, semi-professional and amateur software development, I have never once heard a manager use the "lines of code" metric outside of McCabe or similar analysis tools. As an aside, a version of McCabe I used to use calculated "Programmer intelligence", which was always a laugh ...
I doubt anyone would bother to dig into a Cllr's private life but anything of public record could be rehashed (a spate of UKIP Cllrs had to resign after last year's locals as a result of this). And, yes, think of it as pbc style baiting but in real life!
The problem with being a minor party representative is that you'd have to do almost everything yourself. That said the chances of accidental election are really low.
Mr. Jessop, I'm more familiar with mail and war elephants when it comes to military things, but that price tag sounds quite stupid.
To be fair (why?) the support costs will reduce as we buy more of the things. But even with them factored out, they're still probably at £70 million a pop. And that's another point: no-one can really tell how much these things cost.
If only the last government had specced the carriers with good, old-fashioned steam catas and arresters, instead of lying about them being able to be retrofitted.
Quite. Which also prevents use of other aircraft such as fixed wing AEW and supply planes comparable to the E-2 Hawkeye. Moreover, unless perhaps one buys Russian, there is I believe no alternative to the F-35B as the carriers are committed to the V/STOL variant of the F-35. What happens, I wonder, if it is cancelled like the F-111B was in the 1960s? Some very expensive holes will be torn in some very expensive decks ...and even if they aren't cancelled, there's such a thing as a captive market.
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs.
You're getting ahead of yourself. A yes vote will not result in Scotland being independent by Spring 2015.
No I'm not. Do you really think that Salmond would risk allowing Scottish Labour to somehow influence the negotiations and other matters from Westminster outside of his control. If I was Salmond having won the referendum I would do everything in my power to recall all Scottish MPs from Westminster along the lines that Sinn Fein do not attend (allowing them to focus on constituency work) and ensure that all further business with Scotland went through his administration including all negotiations regarding independence.
Not only that do you seriously think England will accept Scottish MPs voting on English matters when Scotland is leaving the Union? I suspect if Miliband tried to keep his Scottish MP's in play in such circumstances it would just make him increasingly unpopular. In my opinion if the Scots vote for independence then a Tory majority becomes a possibility but still an unlikely one.
In my view should Scotland vote for independence apart from the leaving parties the Scottish MPs are gone. It is the most powerful demonstration of Salmond's victory and new found power there could be.
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
If you do (mistakenly or otherwise) get elected as a local councillor - how much time commitment does it actually take? (The being a councillor part, not the telling the electorate how good or otherwise you are...)
As a rough guide, an average two evenings a week should do it - one or two meetings and a bit of time for discussing issues with officers or members of the public. Add a day every week or two on the PR aspect and you've got the basic deal. If you're keen, there are loads of committees etc. you can get onto. At borough council level, your reward for all this will be modest. The basic councillor salary in my patch is around £4000/year, as I recall, which won't stop antifrank saying you're only doing it to enrich yourself. (Or you could stand for the town council, and get paid nothing whatever.)
I doubt anyone would bother to dig into a Cllr's private life but anything of public record could be rehashed (a spate of UKIP Cllrs had to resign after last year's locals as a result of this).
Correct.
In the run-up to the 2013 local elections, UKIP continued to do well in opinion polls and put up a record number of candidates for the party,[60] despite a number of controversies over individual candidates in the weeks before the elections[61][62][63] with the BBC reporting that UKIP was investigating "six candidates over links to the BNP and other far right groups or alleged racist and homophobic comments, following stories in national and local newspapers."[60] Several candidates were suspended from the party for racist views.[64] UKIP accused the Conservative Party's Central Office of trawling through candidates' online presences to "smear" the party, but acknowledged that it did not have the time or money to vet all of its candidates.[60]
I doubt anyone would bother to dig into a Cllr's private life but anything of public record could be rehashed (a spate of UKIP Cllrs had to resign after last year's locals as a result of this). And, yes, think of it as pbc style baiting but in real life!
Agreed. Just worked out that since 1979 I have fought 12 local election campaigns (the last four successfully thanks to my pb elite team!) and all but one were extremely friendly affairs between the candidates. The one exception (in 1981) was, as ever, the vile, dirty Liberals as they were then.
It all depends on how aggressively you contest. If one candidates makes it personal then everyone will feel free to join in. But a few relatively mild leaflets and honest, straightforward canvassing and you'll likely have no problems...and might even enjoy the experience.
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
Why not? If the opposition are divided, unmitigated disasters get reelected faute de mieux
Like Thatcher.
No. This is a left-wing myth.
Thatcher would have won in 1983 and 1987 without the SDP splitting, if the Conservative vote had remained the same - though her majorities would have been much reduced.
Obviously, the whole timeline would have been different and perhaps Labour would have returned to the centre much faster had the SDP not split - or perhaps not, given that they'd probably have mostly been deselected anyway.
But the main point is that Thatcher's (and Major's) constant 42% was enough to win outright majorities, irrespective of the Labour/third-party split.
The left-wing myth also conveniently lumps the Alliance in with Labour as 'left-wing', which quite simply wasn't true. Clearly, the SDP were centre-left but the classical Liberals weren't and in any case, IIRC, the Alliance's voters were more inclined to the Conservatives than Labour in both 1980s general elections.
Not sure that's always right, Mr H. I was active in the Liberal Party in the 70's and 80's and certainly where I was the Tories were "the enemy". Members such as myself thought of ourselves as "non-Socialist Left". Older members recalled, and resented, the "National" Liberals.
Many of us could ((and did) work with Labour before the SDP came along and to some extent poisoned the atmosphere.
Mind it was then and still is a strong Tory area. So there could have been an element of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"!
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
If you do (mistakenly or otherwise) get elected as a local councillor - how much time commitment does it actually take? (The being a councillor part, not the telling the electorate how good or otherwise you are...)
As a rough guide, an average two evenings a week should do it - one or two meetings and a bit of time for discussing issues with officers or members of the public. Add a day every week or two on the PR aspect and you've got the basic deal. If you're keen, there are loads of committees etc. you can get onto. At borough council level, your reward for all this will be modest. The basic councillor salary in my patch is around £4000/year, as I recall, which won't stop antifrank saying you're only doing it to enrich yourself. (Or you could stand for the town council, and get paid nothing whatever.)
Thanks for that Nick - more than I hoped, but less than I feared... (not that it makes any difference, the chances of being elected are vanishingly small)
I doubt anyone would bother to dig into a Cllr's private life but anything of public record could be rehashed (a spate of UKIP Cllrs had to resign after last year's locals as a result of this). And, yes, think of it as pbc style baiting but in real life!
The problem with being a minor party representative is that you'd have to do almost everything yourself. That said the chances of accidental election are really low.
Cheers
Despite what some idiots think, I have never been the type to say anything racist or homophobic on social media. The only person I ever blocked on facebook was a BNP propaganda posting wally that I went to school with. I was more worried about stupid things Ive done when drunk, such as one night stands, smashing my head open, smashing my teeth out, drugs etc
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs.
You're getting ahead of yourself. A yes vote will not result in Scotland being independent by Spring 2015.
No I'm not. Do you really think that Salmond would risk allowing Scottish Labour to somehow influence the negotiations and other matters from Westminster outside of his control. If I was Salmond having won the referendum I would do everything in my power to recall all Scottish MPs from Westminster along the lines that Sinn Fein do not attend (allowing them to focus on constituency work) and ensure that all further business with Scotland went through his administration including all negotiations regarding independence.
Not only that do you seriously think England will accept Scottish MPs voting on English matters when Scotland is leaving the Union? I suspect if Miliband tried to keep his Scottish MP's in play in such circumstances it would just make him increasingly unpopular. In my opinion if the Scots vote for independence then a Tory majority becomes a possibility but still an unlikely one.
In my view should Scotland vote for independence apart from the leaving parties the Scottish MPs are gone. It is the most powerful demonstration of Salmond's victory and new found power there could be.
I have to say that was exactly my view but in the great book of truth Mr Salmond explained that Scottish MPs would continue to be elected and to attend Westminster to protect Scotland's interests.
The Sun will be deployed again come May and it is no more likely to be too bothered about excuses or extenuating circumstances than it ever is.
Fury at UKIP ‘fruit loops’
Farage election oddballs rapped
UKIP leader Nigel Farage was last night accused of losing control of his party after it emerged they are fielding a string of controversial candidates in next week’s council elections.
The row broke a day after Mr Farage admitted UKIP doesn’t have the “apparatus” to check all those standing.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs.
You're getting ahead of yourself. A yes vote will not result in Scotland being independent by Spring 2015.
No I'm not. Do you really think that Salmond would risk allowing Scottish Labour to somehow influence the negotiations and other matters from Westminster outside of his control. If I was Salmond having won the referendum I would do everything in my power to recall all Scottish MPs from Westminster along the lines that Sinn Fein do not attend (allowing them to focus on constituency work) and ensure that all further business with Scotland went through his administration including all negotiations regarding independence.
Not only that do you seriously think England will accept Scottish MPs voting on English matters when Scotland is leaving the Union? I suspect if Miliband tried to keep his Scottish MP's in play in such circumstances it would just make him increasingly unpopular. In my opinion if the Scots vote for independence then a Tory majority becomes a possibility but still an unlikely one.
In my view should Scotland vote for independence apart from the leaving parties the Scottish MPs are gone. It is the most powerful demonstration of Salmond's victory and new found power there could be.
Even if one substitutes the SNP for Mr Salmond, as one should to be accurate, such a withdrawal hardly seems possible under the current position. Firstly, Scottish MPs have to vote on many supposedly English-only matters because of the Barnett formula whereby English decisions affect Scottish budget allocations - we still need to fund and run Scotland till independence day.
Secondly, the SNP do not control (and cannot be expected to control) LD, Tory and above all Labour MPs. And those (excepting sometimes Mr Mundell the Tory) are the ones who vote on truly English-only matters - logical enough if one is a unionist, I suppose, till one thinks about it (as Mr Dalyell did and still does).
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
Silly? Rather epic understatement there, Mr. Neil. Any potential for Scots sitting on both sides of the negotiating table is absolutely unacceptable.
But surely that is an unnecessary concern. Indeed, to suggest that that situation arises from the presence of Scottish MPs sent by their constituents to the UK parliament falls into the trap of equating EWNI, with the UK (1707 model as modified ca 1800 and 1923).
I think it far more likely that the Scots and Westminster-sans-the-Scots will each provide a set of commissioners to do the negotiations. How that is done has been suggested for the Scots in the White Paper; how that is done for EWNI we are (as with so much else) left in the dark by Mr Cameron, but I assume that either the Coalition Government, or the Westminster Parliaent sans the Scottosh MPs (acting as a Grand Committee, I believe) will select and authotise them.
Scottish MPs have to vote on many supposedly English-only matters because of the Barnett formula whereby English decisions affect Scottish budget allocations - we still need to fund and run Scotland till independence day.
Some PB tories also seem blissfully unaware that Cammie was supposedly going to tackle the WLQ this parliament and despite instigating the McKay commission he seems to have swept it under the rug and hoped most tory MPs didn't notice. As they have not.
Bit rich to whine about the WLQ when Cammie doesn't even seem to take it very seriously.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
How do you see them legally preventing UK MPs from taking their seats in the UK's parliament? Do you not think they are bound by the law rather than free to do whatever they think fit?
It really is a very sad state of affairs when decent people feel precluded from entering politics because of mild transgressions such as taking drugs.
For what is an ostensibly liberal country the political space is horribly illiberal - resulting in a political class that does not reflect the people is purports to represent
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
It's not a matter of what Mr Salmond or anyone else says - but whether one disenfranchises 8% of your population while still, presumably, taxing them and enacting laws that affect them. How that is possible, I can't honestly see.
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs.
You're getting ahead of yourself. A yes vote will not result in Scotland being independent by Spring 2015.
No I'm not. Do you really think that Salmond would risk allowing Scottish Labour to somehow influence the negotiations and other matters from Westminster outside of his control. If I was Salmond having won the referendum I would do everything in my power to recall all Scottish MPs from Westminster along the lines that Sinn Fein do not attend (allowing them to focus on constituency work) and ensure that all further business with Scotland went through his administration including all negotiations regarding independence.
Not only that do you seriously think England will accept Scottish MPs voting on English matters when Scotland is leaving the Union? I suspect if Miliband tried to keep his Scottish MP's in play in such circumstances it would just make him increasingly unpopular. In my opinion if the Scots vote for independence then a Tory majority becomes a possibility but still an unlikely one.
In my view should Scotland vote for independence apart from the leaving parties the Scottish MPs are gone. It is the most powerful demonstration of Salmond's victory and new found power there could be.
I have to say that was exactly my view but in the great book of truth Mr Salmond explained that Scottish MPs would continue to be elected and to attend Westminster to protect Scotland's interests.
So it must be true. Even if no one asked the UKr.
That sounds like a stock holding statement. Salmond certainly wouldn't announce what he really has in mind until he has won his referendum. We'll have to see. However, If independence is won I just do not see Scottish MP's voting on English matters being sustainable beyond the end of this government. The only possible compromise is if they are limited to voting on issues affecting Scotland as the SNP currently practice.
Of course that just passes the chaos onto to UKr. Under what terms should the Government of the country be offered if the majority obtained by the winning party disappears with Scottish Independence? Does having Scottish MPs linked to the UKr governing party taint the UKr's negotiating position? Why should UKr allow Scottish MPs who are leaving vote on what are in effect almost all UKr matters? The whole of the transition period creates all sorts of potential issues for Westminster.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
How do you see them legally preventing UK MPs from taking their seats in the UK's parliament? Do you not think they are bound by the law rather than free to do whatever they think fit?
It is for them to decide but the obvious way would be to pass an Act excluding the Scottish MPs from voting on any matter that is devolved.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
That sounds like a stock holding statement. Salmond certainly wouldn't announce what he really has in mind until he has won his referendum. We'll have to see. However, If independence is won I just do not see Scottish MP's voting on English matters being sustainable beyond the end of this government. The only possible compromise is if they are limited to voting on issues affecting Scotland as the SNP currently practice.
Of course that just passes the chaos onto to UKr. Under what terms should the Government of the country be offered if the majority obtained by the winning party disappears with Scottish Independence? Does having Scottish MPs linked to the UKr governing party taint the UKr's negotiating position? Why should UKr allow Scottish MPs who are leaving vote on what are in effect almost all UKr matters? The whole of the transition period creates all sorts of potential issues for Westminster.
I'm afraid it is the West Lothian Question all over again ... but inevitable once the loose equation of the English with the UK Parliaments was accepted, and reinforced in 1997 with the Scottish, Welsh and NI Pmts/Assys. As you say, the current SNP policy is the only tenable one, as a starting point.
However it would seem to me that the issue of linkage to a London ruling party only really applies to Labour - and that assumes Mr Miliband and his party win in the 2015 GE. A Labour win in the GE in any case raises problems because of him coming along halfway in the middle of negotiations (unless it has previously been agreed that the commissioners/delegates will remain unchanged, for instance).
It's not so much of an issue for the LDs as they are a small party, and maybe getting smaller, and minimal for the Tories.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
It's not a matter of what Mr Salmond or anyone else says - but whether one disenfranchises 8% of your population while still, presumably, taxing them and enacting laws that affect them. How that is possible, I can't honestly see.
It is for them to decide but the obvious way would be to pass an Act excluding the Scottish MPs from voting on any matter that is devolved.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
So they couldnt exclude them. The idea that any of those things would happen in the months between the GE and independence is for the birds. Salmond is right that Scottish MPs wouldnt be prevented from attending the UK parliament.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
That Parliament will be negotiating or at least considering the terms of separation with the Scottish Parliament. I honestly find the idea that rUK would let Scottish MPs vote on these matters quite bizarre. Why on earth should they? How many votes will rUK have in the Scottish Parliament?
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
The SNP have no problem in recusing themselves from the relevant votes where they are not needed/wanted - they do that already. And in any case much of the detailed business will be done by a separate commitree or commission. It's the Labour and LD MPs you need to sort out.
It is not a matter for me it is a matter for rUK. And they will do what they think fit whatever Salmond says.
It's not a matter of what Mr Salmond or anyone else says - but whether one disenfranchises 8% of your population while still, presumably, taxing them and enacting laws that affect them. How that is possible, I can't honestly see.
The division of the budget will need to be agreed between the Treasury and Swinney. It may be that something like the barnett formula will continue to be used but Swinney will want complete control of the Scottish budget (especially the oil revenues) as quickly as possible including all taxation powers. This is not a game and those that think that a yes vote is going to result in little change are deluding themselves.
What is controversial about all parts of the UK sending MPs to the UK parliament until the UK splits up? It might be silly for Labour to try to form a government on the basis of MPs who will leave less than a year later but that's a separate issue.
In reality Scotland will not be part of the UK. It will be an independent country. Once the decision is made there is no point in Scottish MPs attending Parliament. Anything the UK does that Scotland doesn't want will be ignored and anything that passes using them for a majority will immediately be overturned on their departure. All it does is create unnecessary complexity and potential conflict for no good reason when the simple answer is for them to stay away and let UKr get on with it!
It is for them to decide but the obvious way would be to pass an Act excluding the Scottish MPs from voting on any matter that is devolved.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
Merely a thought
How keen will people be to stand for election when the post will only last a year. I would have thought that most scottish mps would be looking in the event of a yes vote to either move to seats south of the border or gain seats in the scottish parliament
In reality Scotland will not be part of the UK. It will be an independent country.
No, it wont, it becomes independent on the date provided for in the relevant legislation. It does not become independent immediately on a 'yes' vote and it certainly doesnt become independent on the date of a UK GE which has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
I think that the only bars to a career in politics now are criminal behaviour, racism and flagrant hypocracy, and even these are relative. Drugs, wild youth and any sort of sex with adults are merely interesting backstory nowadays.
Even NPXMPs youthful devotion to wargames is considered acceptable!
It really is a very sad state of affairs when decent people feel precluded from entering politics because of mild transgressions such as taking drugs.
For what is an ostensibly liberal country the political space is horribly illiberal - resulting in a political class that does not reflect the people is purports to represent
@ZenPagan The precedent with Eire was that no one stood as MPs, it having been made clear that sitting in a "foreign" legislature would be regarded as treason by the republic. Hopefully things will not get as hostile as that but yes, what would be the point of being elected to a body that will not want you and will not let you vote on almost anything?
How keen will people be to stand for election when the post will only last a year. I would have thought that most scottish mps would be looking in the event of a yes vote to either move to seats south of the border or gain seats in the scottish parliament
Like Malcolm Rifkind you mean? I'm sure the thought has never occurred to fearful scottish labour and lib dem MPs. Much.
In reality Scotland will not be part of the UK. It will be an independent country.
No, it wont, it becomes independent on the date provided for in the relevant legislation. It does not become independent immediately on a 'yes' vote and it certainly doesnt become independent on the date of a UK GE which has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
Neil you are not being remotely practical about this. Look at it from John Swinney's perspective. He has 2 years to have a budget that pays for all the essential services in Scotland. At the moment he has some very, very rough guesses what his income and expenditure might be. He need to have at the very least shadow budgets for the 2 years before independence showing total income and total outgoings.
It is going to be a hell of a job. We may get a pleasant surprise. We may not. But one way or another Scotland will be building a country, not mucking about in Westminster.
That sounds like a stock holding statement. Salmond certainly wouldn't announce what he really has in mind until he has won his referendum. We'll have to see. However, If independence is won I just do not see Scottish MP's voting on English matters being sustainable beyond the end of this government. The only possible compromise is if they are limited to voting on issues affecting Scotland as the SNP currently practice.
Of course that just passes the chaos onto to UKr. Under what terms should the Government of the country be offered if the majority obtained by the winning party disappears with Scottish Independence? Does having Scottish MPs linked to the UKr governing party taint the UKr's negotiating position? Why should UKr allow Scottish MPs who are leaving vote on what are in effect almost all UKr matters? The whole of the transition period creates all sorts of potential issues for Westminster.
I'm afraid it is the West Lothian Question all over again ... but inevitable once the loose equation of the English with the UK Parliaments was accepted, and reinforced in 1997 with the Scottish, Welsh and NI Pmts/Assys. As you say, the current SNP policy is the only tenable one, as a starting point.
However it would seem to me that the issue of linkage to a London ruling party only really applies to Labour - and that assumes Mr Miliband and his party win in the 2015 GE. A Labour win in the GE in any case raises problems because of him coming along halfway in the middle of negotiations (unless it has previously been agreed that the commissioners/delegates will remain unchanged, for instance).
It's not so much of an issue for the LDs as they are a small party, and maybe getting smaller, and minimal for the Tories.
Oh I quite agree this is all about Labour and their relationships with their main rivals north and south of the border. The difficulty being that as it stands Labour are on course for a majority in Westminster which may rely solely on their Scottish wing to sustain. It throws up all sort of potential problems that are most expediently resolved if no Scottish MPs attend Westminster.
I am interested in the assumption that in the event of Scotland leaving, Westminster will thereafter consist of the remaining UK MPs and will do so more or less indefinitely.
It seems much likelier to me that, in the event of such a result, the Labour government we will have after 2015 will gerrymander the boundaries to get the missing seats back in time for GE 2019/2020.
Simply dividing a few safe Labour seats in half would take care of this.
The idea that Labour will just shrug and say "Oh dear, there goes our prospect of a Westminster majority, in perpetuity" strikes me as pretty far-fetched and downright naive.
There will also be little, if any, reduction in the number of Scottish Labour MPs in the House. Theoretically any EU citizen can be an MP so, [i]pace[/i] those above who've claimed that getting lined up for a seat is hard, a few well-born types - of the Jack Dromey / Emily Benn / Euan Blair ilk - will get parachuted into the new safe seats.
For anyone politically ambitious, the action is going to be in Westminster as always, rather than in North Britain Parish Council. Apart from anything else, politicians need other people's money to spend, in respect of which they would be starting from a much better position in rUK than in the SPRNB.
I am interested in the assumption that in the event of Scotland leaving, Westminster will thereafter consist of the remaining UK MPs and will do so more or less indefinitely.
It seems much likelier to me that, in the event of such a result, the Labour government we will have after 2015 will gerrymander the boundaries to get the missing seats back in time for GE 2019/2020.
Simply dividing a few safe Labour seats in half would take care of this.
The idea that Labour will just shrug and say "Oh dear, there goes our prospect of a Westminster majority, in perpetuity" strikes me as pretty far-fetched and downright naive.
There will also be little, if any, reduction in the number of Scottish Labour MPs in the House. Theoretically any EU citizen can be an MP so, [i]pace[/i] those above who've claimed that getting lined up for a seat is hard, a few well-born types - of the Jack Dromey / Emily Benn / Euan Blair ilk - will get parachuted into the new safe seats.
For anyone politically ambitious, the action is going to be in Westminster as always, rather than in North Britain Parish Council. Apart from anything else, politicians need other people's money to spend, in respect of which they would be starting from a much better position in rUK than in the SPRNB.
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
I think your suggestions of how the rUK might somehow contrive to forcibly exclude UK MPs from the UK parliament are what is impractical!
It won't be UKr but the elected leader of the independent Scottish nation who would decide what happens to his now defunct representatives in Westminster. After all Salmond has no reason to keep Labour MP's in Westminster where they could continue to cause mischief.
Think about it. You say that it would be silly for Labour to form the government. Do you expect them to sit in opposition with a majority capable of voting down any legislation they want for two years? That's even dafter!
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
If you do (mistakenly or otherwise) get elected as a local councillor - how much time commitment does it actually take? (The being a councillor part, not the telling the electorate how good or otherwise you are...)
As a rough guide, an average two evenings a week should do it - one or two meetings and a bit of time for discussing issues with officers or members of the public. Add a day every week or two on the PR aspect and you've got the basic deal. If you're keen, there are loads of committees etc. you can get onto. At borough council level, your reward for all this will be modest. The basic councillor salary in my patch is around £4000/year, as I recall, which won't stop antifrank saying you're only doing it to enrich yourself. (Or you could stand for the town council, and get paid nothing whatever.)
It's that type of misrepresentation that gives politicians a justified very bad reputation.
Politicians are paid a mediocre wage for doing a poor job. I have not accused them of being motivated by money (though it is notable that they are rather keen on pushing for better pay when the opportunity presents itself). Politics is an ego trip and a power trip.
If UKIP think the floods happened because of gay people, is the snow we’re getting now because of all the non-virgins?
*chortle*
Curious that the "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" (as Cammie called them) don't seem to be getting any boost from the floods and the Cameroonian/Pickles shambles around them.
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
You just gerrymander the Lords first. It's happened before.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
@DavidL - The division of the budget will need to be agreed between the Treasury and Swinney. It may be that something like the barnett formula will continue to be used but Swinney will want complete control of the Scottish budget (especially the oil revenues) as quickly as possible including all taxation powers. This is not a game and those that think that a yes vote is going to result in little change are deluding themselves.
Getting hold of all the oil money is going to be tricky. Direct extraction taxes etc will be fine, but the Corporation Tax that oil companies pay will depend on where they are based. At the moment many are in England. To make them move to Scotland in order for the Scottish government to tax them there will need to be legislation and, presumably, incentives including a lower CT rate, which may or may not be acceptable to an rUK government in currency union with Scotland, but which will certainly have an impact on how much money North Sea oil actually generates.
For background on oil and gas tax take in the UK this is well worth reading:
Oh dear. PB never let's us down with a range of amusingly 'confused' opinions of what the WLQ actually is as well as who it affects. (clue - not just scotland)
Well in the off-chance they had a digital version of the documents, I fired off a brief email. Unfortunately the office is closed until the 17th of Feb.
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
You just gerrymander the Lords first. It's happened before.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
You could make it all sound reasonable.
No you couldn't. Labour couldn't make the Devolution Act sound reasonable or regionalisation of England and both of those were under Blair. Miliband is not fit to clean Blair's political boots. He'd never get away with it.
If they'd tried I suspect a constitutional crisis would ensue
I think that the only bars to a career in politics now are criminal behaviour, racism and flagrant hypocracy, and even these are relative. Drugs, wild youth and any sort of sex with adults are merely interesting backstory nowadays.
Even NPXMPs youthful devotion to wargames is considered acceptable!
It really is a very sad state of affairs when decent people feel precluded from entering politics because of mild transgressions such as taking drugs.
For what is an ostensibly liberal country the political space is horribly illiberal - resulting in a political class that does not reflect the people is purports to represent
Perhaps you are right - let's face it Gyles Brandreth made the cut despite polluting the nation's TV screens with a range of gaudy jumpers for years on end. Mental cruelty!
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
You just gerrymander the Lords first. It's happened before.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
You could make it all sound reasonable.
No you couldn't. Labour couldn't make the Devolution Act sound reasonable or regionalisation of England and both of those were under Blair. Miliband is not fit to clean Blair's political boots. He'd never get away with it.
If they'd tried I suspect a constitutional crisis would ensue
If there wasn't national outrage at such a manoeuvre I would be quite disappointed.
How do you see them legally preventing UK MPs from taking their seats in the UK's parliament? Do you not think they are bound by the law rather than free to do whatever they think fit?
It is for them to decide but the obvious way would be to pass an Act excluding the Scottish MPs from voting on any matter that is devolved.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
'Any matter that is devolved' - very few indeed, because of Barnett. But as someone else said, it's possible that some sort of sensible fiscal agreement could be reached to prevent this being an issue.
On negotiations - because the SNP want a wider consensus (and because there'd be an even greater howl of criticism/derision if the delegation was SNP-only, although whatever the SNP do is always criticised anyway).
On MPs and the next Scottish PMT - too late for Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies. The Labour MSP candidates are already being selected for 2016!
I think your suggestions of how the rUK might somehow contrive to forcibly exclude UK MPs from the UK parliament are what is impractical!
It won't be UKr but the elected leader of the independent Scottish nation who would decide what happens to his now defunct representatives in Westminster. After all Salmond has no reason to keep Labour MP's in Westminster where they could continue to cause mischief.
Think about it. You say that it would be silly for Labour to form the government. Do you expect them to sit in opposition with a majority capable of voting down any legislation they want for two years? That's even dafter!
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. When do you see those MPs as being 'defunct'? the day after the vote, or Indy Day? If the former, then the current devolution settlement still applies and if you think that Mr Salmond has authority over Labour and LD MPs then he is an even more impressive politico than some already think! And if the latter then the problem has vanished as they are ex-MPs.
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
You just gerrymander the Lords first. It's happened before.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
You could make it all sound reasonable.
No you couldn't. Labour couldn't make the Devolution Act sound reasonable or regionalisation of England and both of those were under Blair. Miliband is not fit to clean Blair's political boots. He'd never get away with it.
If they'd tried I suspect a constitutional crisis would ensue
If there wasn't national outrage at such a manoeuvre I would be quite disappointed.
I don't think for one minute you would be disappointed. If Labour tried such a stunt given their past record they would be tainted for a generation or more.
In any case about the only thing that might save Cameron's hide in having lost the Union would be his ability to mobilise his party and the Coalition to ensure Labour lose their Scottish wing earlier rather than later giving him the chance of a majority in 2015.
The Lords would (should) never allow such blatant gerrymandering to occur.
You just gerrymander the Lords first. It's happened before.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
You could make it all sound reasonable.
As the issue only arises for about 18 months, it would probably take longer to gerrymander than the actual transition period!
Voodoo poll alert. On the football365 forum, a thread has been started with the title: "The Floods: who's to blame?" At present, the results read as follows:
The Government 14% DEFRA 2% Climate change 17% God 18% The Gays 49%
(I presume that DEFRA is intended to refer to the Environment Agency). Anyway, it appears that the football fan demographic isn't taking this desperately seriously yet.
On MPs and the next Scottish PMT - too late for Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies. The Labour MSP candidates are already being selected for 2016!
Indeed. Burning the lifeboats. I suspect some MSPs in SLAB remember the vast buckets of shit poured on to them for 2011 despite them following little Ed's instructions to the letter.
Voodoo poll alert. On the football365 forum, a thread has been started with the title: "The Floods: who's to blame?" At present, the results read as follows:
The Government 14% DEFRA 2% Climate change 17% God 18% The Gays 49%
Of course that is just Bilderberg, the EU and the Banksters trying desperately to distract the public from the real cause:
How do you see them legally preventing UK MPs from taking their seats in the UK's parliament? Do you not think they are bound by the law rather than free to do whatever they think fit?
It is for them to decide but the obvious way would be to pass an Act excluding the Scottish MPs from voting on any matter that is devolved.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
'Any matter that is devolved' - very few indeed, because of Barnett. But as someone else said, it's possible that some sort of sensible fiscal agreement could be reached to prevent this being an issue.
On negotiations - because the SNP want a wider consensus (and because there'd be an even greater howl of criticism/derision if the delegation was SNP-only, although whatever the SNP do is always criticised anyway).
On MPs and the next Scottish PMT - too late for Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies. The Labour MSP candidates are already being selected for 2016!
Will the SNP Westminster MPs also be facing unemployment? I wonder if any of them will be tempted to vote No in the referendum.
I see that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband have cancelled foreign trips next week because of the floods. I hope that they're going to be manning buckets rather than harassing beleaguered householders and emergency workers, who already have quite enough to deal with without having to fend off rubbernecking politicians.
Silly? Rather epic understatement there, Mr. Neil. Any potential for Scots sitting on both sides of the negotiating table is absolutely unacceptable.
Quite. If Scotland is negotiating an exit, than their MPs should be utterly excluded from any UK government. Otherwise they'd be a fifth column, giving away the UK's assets for their future country.
Han Solo: "2.5 billion, all in advance." Luke Skywalker: "2.5 billion? We could almost buy our own ship for that!" Han: "But who's gonna fly it kid? You?" Luke: "You bet I could! I'm not such a bad pilot myself!"
Is the referendum lock really just until the end of parliament? If true, that's amazing - and very revealing the Cameron didn't provoke a shit storm over it.
@Life_in_a_market_town has been known to make the odd rude comment about the barbarisms of Scots law. It does not help when our highest court gives him such ample ammunition.
I do follow Lord Maugham on Scots law. That decision doesn't appear too mad. The High Court is not saying, as I read it, that the attempt to take the fingerprint was lawful, merely that it was not appropriate for the Sheriff to make an isolated declarator that the prison authorities had acted unlawfully. The question was simply whether the plea in bar ought to be sustained or repelled. Whether a collateral civil action would be competent is dubious given the absolute prohibition under Scots law of bringing criminal matters before the Court of Session, which I believe is still viewed as an assault on the prerogatives of the High Court and Lord Justice General?
Is the referendum lock really just until the end of parliament? If true, that's amazing - and very revealing the Cameron didn't provoke a shit storm over it.
Are you referring to the 2011 act? I didn't think it expired.
I see that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband have cancelled foreign trips next week because of the floods. I hope that they're going to be manning buckets rather than harassing beleaguered householders and emergency workers, who already have quite enough to deal with without having to fend off rubbernecking politicians.
"Biodiversity in ditches and the surrounding terrestrial habitat can be detrimentally affected by low winter levels and generally would benefit by higher ditch levels throughout the year. New Water Level Management Plans need to address these issues at the same time having flexibility to allow retention of water dry periods and periods."
As a matter of interest how much of the North Sea production is by UK companies? Presumably some is produced by EU or american companies and taxed in their jurisdiction.
@DavidL - The division of the budget will need to be agreed between the Treasury and Swinney. It may be that something like the barnett formula will continue to be used but Swinney will want complete control of the Scottish budget (especially the oil revenues) as quickly as possible including all taxation powers. This is not a game and those that think that a yes vote is going to result in little change are deluding themselves.
Getting hold of all the oil money is going to be tricky. Direct extraction taxes etc will be fine, but the Corporation Tax that oil companies pay will depend on where they are based. At the moment many are in England. To make them move to Scotland in order for the Scottish government to tax them there will need to be legislation and, presumably, incentives including a lower CT rate, which may or may not be acceptable to an rUK government in currency union with Scotland, but which will certainly have an impact on how much money North Sea oil actually generates.
For background on oil and gas tax take in the UK this is well worth reading:
Silly? Rather epic understatement there, Mr. Neil. Any potential for Scots sitting on both sides of the negotiating table is absolutely unacceptable.
Quite. If Scotland is negotiating an exit, than their MPs should be utterly excluded from any UK government. Otherwise they'd be a fifth column, giving away the UK's assets for their future country.
Do you perhaps want to reconsider that a wee bit, perhaps? I don't suppose Godwin's Law applies to Spanish Civil War references. But the implication is that you are also arguing that all Labour, LD and Tory MSPs should be instantly sacked from the Scottish Parliament after a Yes vote, just in case they might be a nasty fifth column owing allegiance to their London HQs. (Which is not, I stress, in prospect, whatever the DT may pretend to think.)
As I hinted to Mr Dancer below (q.v.), you are possibly confounding the future country of EWNI with the UK. Until such time as independence happens and the UK (1707 model as modified ca 1800 and 1923) vanishes/is again modified with the abrogation of the Treaty of Union, the UK parliament is just that - a UK parliament - and any attempt to exclude Scots MPs is anti-democratic, disenfranchising, and absolutely open to (presumably) challenge in the courts. A sensible approach is needed - but we all know perfectly well that the SNP MPs already follow such an approach. It's the Labour and to a much smaller extent the LD MPs that are the problem.
EDIT: I suspect some reasonably sensible agreement will be reached. Be silly not to.
I think that the only bars to a career in politics now are criminal behaviour, racism and flagrant hypocracy, and even these are relative. Drugs, wild youth and any sort of sex with adults are merely interesting backstory nowadays.
Even NPXMPs youthful devotion to wargames is considered acceptable!
I saw an interview on Sky News where Milliband was being quizzed by a reporter, and a woman was looking on. The look on the blonde's face when Milliband started waffling on was pure class. It was like she'd just been a little sick in her mouth!
I think that the only bars to a career in politics now are criminal behaviour, racism and flagrant hypocracy, and even these are relative. Drugs, wild youth and any sort of sex with adults are merely interesting backstory nowadays.
Even NPXMPs youthful devotion to wargames is considered acceptable!
Comments
Thatcher would have won in 1983 and 1987 without the SDP splitting, if the Conservative vote had remained the same - though her majorities would have been much reduced.
Obviously, the whole timeline would have been different and perhaps Labour would have returned to the centre much faster had the SDP not split - or perhaps not, given that they'd probably have mostly been deselected anyway.
But the main point is that Thatcher's (and Major's) constant 42% was enough to win outright majorities, irrespective of the Labour/third-party split.
The left-wing myth also conveniently lumps the Alliance in with Labour as 'left-wing', which quite simply wasn't true. Clearly, the SDP were centre-left but the classical Liberals weren't and in any case, IIRC, the Alliance's voters were more inclined to the Conservatives than Labour in both 1980s general elections.
I bought him a copy of the Mythical Man Month. But it still took him three years to learn his lesson.
Milibrand will undoubtedly be a disaster for the country
Cameron has undoubtedly failed the country
The roof is falling in and cameron is doing the political equivalent of putting up new curtains and desperately hopes no one is noticing.
When being shat on we don't care which arsehole (unless you are a particular ex mp) it is coming out of we merely wish it to stop.
A vote for cameron, clegg or milibrand therefore is like putting a big sign over our heads claiming our support for all things coprophilliac.
Will farage or any of the other small parties be any better? Who knows but we do know that a vote for the big 3 is a vote for more borrowing, more state , more loss of civil liberties.
Impractical? Unrealistic? Not something that has bothered them before.
If only the last government had specced the carriers with good, old-fashioned steam catas and arresters, instead of lying about them being able to be retrofitted.
In nearly twenty years of professional, semi-professional and amateur software development, I have never once heard a manager use the "lines of code" metric outside of McCabe or similar analysis tools. As an aside, a version of McCabe I used to use calculated "Programmer intelligence", which was always a laugh ...
I doubt anyone would bother to dig into a Cllr's private life but anything of public record could be rehashed (a spate of UKIP Cllrs had to resign after last year's locals as a result of this). And, yes, think of it as pbc style baiting but in real life!
@Lennon
The problem with being a minor party representative is that you'd have to do almost everything yourself. That said the chances of accidental election are really low.
Not only that do you seriously think England will accept Scottish MPs voting on English matters when Scotland is leaving the Union? I suspect if Miliband tried to keep his Scottish MP's in play in such circumstances it would just make him increasingly unpopular. In my opinion if the Scots vote for independence then a Tory majority becomes a possibility but still an unlikely one.
In my view should Scotland vote for independence apart from the leaving parties the Scottish MPs are gone. It is the most powerful demonstration of Salmond's victory and new found power there could be.
In the run-up to the 2013 local elections, UKIP continued to do well in opinion polls and put up a record number of candidates for the party,[60] despite a number of controversies over individual candidates in the weeks before the elections[61][62][63] with the BBC reporting that UKIP was investigating "six candidates over links to the BNP and other far right groups or alleged racist and homophobic comments, following stories in national and local newspapers."[60] Several candidates were suspended from the party for racist views.[64] UKIP accused the Conservative Party's Central Office of trawling through candidates' online presences to "smear" the party, but acknowledged that it did not have the time or money to vet all of its candidates.[60]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party
It all depends on how aggressively you contest. If one candidates makes it personal then everyone will feel free to join in. But a few relatively mild leaflets and honest, straightforward canvassing and you'll likely have no problems...and might even enjoy the experience.
Many of us could ((and did) work with Labour before the SDP came along and to some extent poisoned the atmosphere.
Mind it was then and still is a strong Tory area. So there could have been an element of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"!
Despite what some idiots think, I have never been the type to say anything racist or homophobic on social media. The only person I ever blocked on facebook was a BNP propaganda posting wally that I went to school with. I was more worried about stupid things Ive done when drunk, such as one night stands, smashing my head open, smashing my teeth out, drugs etc
So it must be true. Even if no one asked the rUK.
Have you ever woken up in Bournemouth after a night out in London?
Secondly, the SNP do not control (and cannot be expected to control) LD, Tory and above all Labour MPs. And those (excepting sometimes Mr Mundell the Tory) are the ones who vote on truly English-only matters - logical enough if one is a unionist, I suppose, till one thinks about it (as Mr Dalyell did and still does).
They may well have a role to play in common interests such as foreign policy until the Scots get that up and running but any such Parliament would be completely dominated by the largest upheaval in the UK state since the Civil war or at least when that Dutch chap popped over with his wife Mary.
I think it far more likely that the Scots and Westminster-sans-the-Scots will each provide a set of commissioners to do the negotiations. How that is done has been suggested for the Scots in the White Paper; how that is done for EWNI we are (as with so much else) left in the dark by Mr Cameron, but I assume that either the Coalition Government, or the Westminster Parliaent sans the Scottosh MPs (acting as a Grand Committee, I believe) will select and authotise them.
Bit rich to whine about the WLQ when Cammie doesn't even seem to take it very seriously.
It really is a very sad state of affairs when decent people feel precluded from entering politics because of mild transgressions such as taking drugs.
For what is an ostensibly liberal country the political space is horribly illiberal - resulting in a political class that does not reflect the people is purports to represent
Of course that just passes the chaos onto to UKr. Under what terms should the Government of the country be offered if the majority obtained by the winning party disappears with Scottish Independence? Does having Scottish MPs linked to the UKr governing party taint the UKr's negotiating position? Why should UKr allow Scottish MPs who are leaving vote on what are in effect almost all UKr matters? The whole of the transition period creates all sorts of potential issues for Westminster.
As a necessary first step will be the amendment of the Scotland Act removing the category of retained matters that would cover everything. Scotland would need to be getting on with building its own institutions. Essentially and practically the Scottish Parliament would become sovereign in all matters but would of course still have to co-operate with the rUK Parliament in respect of the break up.
The idea that these negotiations would not take place on a minsterial level (excluding Scottish MPs) is frankly daft. Why would Salmond want to do that when he has a majority in the Scottish Parliament?
Scottish MPs would be out of a job and the Edinburgh Parliament would have a lot of learning to do. The MPs would need to be focussed on being selected for the next Scottish elections if they want to remain in politics.
However it would seem to me that the issue of linkage to a London ruling party only really applies to Labour - and that assumes Mr Miliband and his party win in the 2015 GE. A Labour win in the GE in any case raises problems because of him coming along halfway in the middle of negotiations (unless it has previously been agreed that the commissioners/delegates will remain unchanged, for instance).
It's not so much of an issue for the LDs as they are a small party, and maybe getting smaller, and minimal for the Tories.
*tears of laughter etc.*
How keen will people be to stand for election when the post will only last a year. I would have thought that most scottish mps would be looking in the event of a yes vote to either move to seats south of the border or gain seats in the scottish parliament
If you are ever down in Devon, you can pick up the map of the railway described in the "Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Act 1936"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=027-QS_9&cid=1-839#1-839
Even NPXMPs youthful devotion to wargames is considered acceptable!
The precedent with Eire was that no one stood as MPs, it having been made clear that sitting in a "foreign" legislature would be regarded as treason by the republic. Hopefully things will not get as hostile as that but yes, what would be the point of being elected to a body that will not want you and will not let you vote on almost anything?
It is going to be a hell of a job. We may get a pleasant surprise. We may not. But one way or another Scotland will be building a country, not mucking about in Westminster.
I think your suggestions of how the rUK might somehow contrive to forcibly exclude UK MPs from the UK parliament are what is impractical!
It seems much likelier to me that, in the event of such a result, the Labour government we will have after 2015 will gerrymander the boundaries to get the missing seats back in time for GE 2019/2020.
Simply dividing a few safe Labour seats in half would take care of this.
The idea that Labour will just shrug and say "Oh dear, there goes our prospect of a Westminster majority, in perpetuity" strikes me as pretty far-fetched and downright naive.
There will also be little, if any, reduction in the number of Scottish Labour MPs in the House. Theoretically any EU citizen can be an MP so, [i]pace[/i] those above who've claimed that getting lined up for a seat is hard, a few well-born types - of the Jack Dromey / Emily Benn / Euan Blair ilk - will get parachuted into the new safe seats.
For anyone politically ambitious, the action is going to be in Westminster as always, rather than in North Britain Parish Council. Apart from anything else, politicians need other people's money to spend, in respect of which they would be starting from a much better position in rUK than in the SPRNB.
Think about it. You say that it would be silly for Labour to form the government. Do you expect them to sit in opposition with a majority capable of voting down any legislation they want for two years? That's even dafter!
Politicians are paid a mediocre wage for doing a poor job. I have not accused them of being motivated by money (though it is notable that they are rather keen on pushing for better pay when the opportunity presents itself). Politics is an ego trip and a power trip.
Curious that the "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" (as Cammie called them) don't seem to be getting any boost from the floods and the Cameroonian/Pickles shambles around them.
Besides, the argument would be that it's not gerrymandering - it is an essential measure to resolve the West Lothian question pending the completion of Scotland's separation.
You could make it all sound reasonable.
I've been able to find one of the plans (at http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=bi89qg&s=5 ), but would love more information on what was planned, especially the tunnels.
Getting hold of all the oil money is going to be tricky. Direct extraction taxes etc will be fine, but the Corporation Tax that oil companies pay will depend on where they are based. At the moment many are in England. To make them move to Scotland in order for the Scottish government to tax them there will need to be legislation and, presumably, incentives including a lower CT rate, which may or may not be acceptable to an rUK government in currency union with Scotland, but which will certainly have an impact on how much money North Sea oil actually generates.
For background on oil and gas tax take in the UK this is well worth reading:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/total-tax-contribution-feb2012.pdf
It seems as if corporation tax is the major earner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-21921977
If they'd tried I suspect a constitutional crisis would ensue
Suicide Bomb Trainer in Iraq Accidentally Blows Up His Class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?smid=re-share&_r=2
Must have been reading Hamlet. Tis such sport, to see the engineer hoist by his own petard.
On negotiations - because the SNP want a wider consensus (and because there'd be an even greater howl of criticism/derision if the delegation was SNP-only, although whatever the SNP do is always criticised anyway).
On MPs and the next Scottish PMT - too late for Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies. The Labour MSP candidates are already being selected for 2016!
In any case about the only thing that might save Cameron's hide in having lost the Union would be his ability to mobilise his party and the Coalition to ensure Labour lose their Scottish wing earlier rather than later giving him the chance of a majority in 2015.
The Government 14%
DEFRA 2%
Climate change 17%
God 18%
The Gays 49%
(I presume that DEFRA is intended to refer to the Environment Agency). Anyway, it appears that the football fan demographic isn't taking this desperately seriously yet.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/geo-engineering-whistleblowers-from.html
Han Solo: "2.5 billion, all in advance."
Luke Skywalker: "2.5 billion? We could almost buy our own ship for that!"
Han: "But who's gonna fly it kid? You?"
Luke: "You bet I could! I'm not such a bad pilot myself!"
I enjoyed this comment from a Mirror reader; "It's wet enough already without Miliband adding to it".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-labelled-flood-tourist-3134358
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/go/km/docs/CouncilDocuments/SCC/Documents/Environment/Countryside and Coast/Somerset Ditches & Ponds HAP.pdf
"Biodiversity in ditches and the surrounding terrestrial habitat can be
detrimentally affected by low winter levels and generally would benefit by higher
ditch levels throughout the year. New Water Level Management Plans need to
address these issues at the same time having flexibility to allow retention of
water dry periods and periods."
Mr. Nabavi, Mr. Tapestry had some minority views but he was always a civil chap. Shame he doesn't post here anymore.
@tnewtondunn: Now @Ed_Miliband bins his trip to India next week. "He felt he needed to be here," says aide.
@GuidoFawkes: Flood Hit Resident Asks Miliband: Why are You Actually Here? http://t.co/hLRLx0pYph
As I hinted to Mr Dancer below (q.v.), you are possibly confounding the future country of EWNI with the UK. Until such time as independence happens and the UK (1707 model as modified ca 1800 and 1923) vanishes/is again modified with the abrogation of the Treaty of Union, the UK parliament is just that - a UK parliament - and any attempt to exclude Scots MPs is anti-democratic, disenfranchising, and absolutely open to (presumably) challenge in the courts. A sensible approach is needed - but we all know perfectly well that the SNP MPs already follow such an approach. It's the Labour and to a much smaller extent the LD MPs that are the problem.
EDIT: I suspect some reasonably sensible agreement will be reached. Be silly not to.