It strikes me as odd that it is pro Union supporters attacking people in George Square, and now the Herald. No won? So the only ones who would gain from disturbances and riots would be the SNP. These could be the most dense "No" supporters in history.
It's not about politics. In the same way that hooliganism wasnt about football.
"Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament."
My view is that EV4EL is, in a sense, imperfect and messy, but that is what our constitution is like and I think it is generally stronger for that feature. EV4EL gives us an opportunity to address an unfairness and then, in time after, we can determine if it suffices for England or if they want an actual separate Parliament building, executive and so forth. But this would be led by the English.
Ultimately I can accept the UK government serving as the English executive at the moment because I accept that the UK government ultimately relies on the support of English MPs to survive with them making up 85% of the legislature on which it rises or falls. EV4EL also accepts England is a huge part of the UK without leading to a top-down Westminster sub-division of England in to small parts that have not more organically emerged.
Finally, I am not 100% comfortable about how we got to the timetable we have preferring slower change generally. But the promises have been made to Scotland and must be adhered to and England cannot be ignored any more. As others have pointed out this issue has been known about for at least 15 years, if not since Tam Dalyell raised it. A constitutional convention may have a role in due course, but waiting a year, filling it with academics talking about ideal models (I critique this as an academic!) which may drag on and then clouding a solution of the WLQ with other challenges such as Lords reform; is unacceptable in the context we find ourselves in.
'Imperfect and messy' is why our political class is treated with utter contempt.
Imperfect and messy is why our Parliament is treated with disdain
Imperfect and messy is why our Government has been failing for 50 years.
Imperfect and messy is why you are lucky to get 50% turnout at elections.
Imperfect and messy is not good enough anymore.
Imperfect and messy will get David Cameron thrown out of government!
Worthless lousy self-serving apologism. Equal democracy is not imperfect and messy!
Poor Chuka. Sacrificial English MP sent on Newsnight to explain why English MPs are second class to MPs from other parts of the UK
Under EV4EL it is Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs who will become second class MPs. Imagine, a Welsh Prime Minister. Can't vote on matters he himself sat in Cabinet about.
EV4EL is perfectly justified. But it needs a separate assembly or regional assemblies to implement English laws.
The US President can't vote on matters he sat in Cabinet about. There is no obvious correlation between acting as a legislator and acting as a member of the executive (in fact the Americans think it is a conflict of interest).
But I don't think EV4EL works in the UK parliament long-term. At its extreme you could see a Tory English First Minister, Education Minister, Health Minister etc sitting in Parliament along with a Labour Prime Minister and UK government.
Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament.
Under EV4EL, it would be pretty strange to have a Labour Education Minister trying to run English education if there was a Tory majority in England. In fact he couldn't do it. Every time he tried to use his executive authority, he could be trumped by Tory MPs passing an Act of Parliament telling him he couldn't do it.
The government decides what legislation gets introduced, so that would not happen.
Only because parliament is supine and lets the Government tell it what to do. It is open to the House of Commons to fix its own rules. Maybe the Tories need to get the rules changed before the next election...
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
"Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament."
My view is that EV4EL is, in a sense, imperfect and messy, but that is what our constitution is like and I think it is generally stronger for that feature. EV4EL gives us an opportunity to address an unfairness and then, in time after, we can determine if it suffices for England or if they want an actual separate Parliament building, executive and so forth. But this would be led by the English.
Ultimately I can accept the UK government serving as the English executive at the moment because I accept that the UK government ultimately relies on the support of English MPs to survive with them making up 85% of the legislature on which it rises or falls. EV4EL also accepts England is a huge part of the UK without leading to a top-down Westminster sub-division of England in to small parts that have not more organically emerged.
Finally, I am not 100% comfortable about how we got to the timetable we have preferring slower change generally. But the promises have been made to Scotland and must be adhered to and England cannot be ignored any more. As others have pointed out this issue has been known about for at least 15 years, if not since Tam Dalyell raised it. A constitutional convention may have a role in due course, but waiting a year, filling it with academics talking about ideal models (I critique this as an academic!) which may drag on and then clouding a solution of the WLQ with other challenges such as Lords reform; is unacceptable in the context we find ourselves in.
'Imperfect and messy' is why our political class is treated with utter contempt.
Imperfect and messy is why our Parliament is treated with disdain
Imperfect and messy is why our Government has been failing for 50 years.
Imperfect and messy is why you are lucky to get 50% turnout at elections.
Imperfect and messy is not good enough anymore.
Imperfect and messy will get David Cameron thrown out of government!
Worthless lousy self-serving apologism. Equal democracy is not imperfect and messy!
All forms of democracy are imperfect and messy. That is because humans and their society are imperfect and messy.
It strikes me as odd that it is pro Union supporters attacking people in George Square, and now the Herald. No won? So the only ones who would gain from disturbances and riots would be the SNP. These could be the most dense "No" supporters in history.
Yes.
They are simply thick, violent, supremacist thugs.
Which is why Better Together correctly distanced itself from such groups during the campaign.
"Under EV4EL the UK government would be elected as it is now, but English MPs would have to approve England-only legislation it proposed. There would only be one set of ministers in Westminster. If we want an English FM and cabinet then we need an English parliament."
My view is that EV4EL is, in a sense, imperfect and messy, but that is what our constitution is like and I think it is generally stronger for that feature. EV4EL gives us an opportunity to address an unfairness and then, in time after, we can determine if it suffices for England or if they want an actual separate Parliament building, executive and so forth. But this would be led by the English.
Ultimately I can accept the UK government serving as the English executive at the moment because I accept that the UK government ultimately relies on the support of English MPs to survive with them making up 85% of the legislature on which it rises or falls. EV4EL also accepts England is a huge part of the UK without leading to a top-down Westminster sub-division of England in to small parts that have not more organically emerged.
Finally, I am not 100% comfortable about how we got to the timetable we have preferring slower change generally. But the promises have been made to Scotland and must be adhered to and England cannot be ignored any more. As others have pointed out this issue has been known about for at least 15 years, if not since Tam Dalyell raised it. A constitutional convention may have a role in due course, but waiting a year, filling it with academics talking about ideal models (I critique this as an academic!) which may drag on and then clouding a solution of the WLQ with other challenges such as Lords reform; is unacceptable in the context we find ourselves in.
'Imperfect and messy' is why our political class is treated with utter contempt.
Imperfect and messy is why our Parliament is treated with disdain
Imperfect and messy is why our Government has been failing for 50 years.
Imperfect and messy is why you are lucky to get 50% turnout at elections.
Imperfect and messy is not good enough anymore.
Imperfect and messy will get David Cameron thrown out of government!
Worthless lousy self-serving apologism. Equal democracy is not imperfect and messy!
All forms of democracy are imperfect and messy. That is because human and their society is imperfect and messy.
Long may that continue.
Richard you are beginning to sound like a PPE student. Enough with the home philosophy please. This is something I feel strongly about and such glib platitudes demean you!
I do find your desire to cling to what are clearly broken structures puzzling
It strikes me as odd that it is pro Union supporters attacking people in George Square, and now the Herald. No won? So the only ones who would gain from disturbances and riots would be the SNP. These could be the most dense "No" supporters in history.
They are simply thick, violent, supremacist thugs.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
Everyone knew that the Vow was impossible to be enacted without england and wales hitting the roof, so now they are stuck with a promise they can't keep. The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
'Imperfect and messy' is why our political class is treated with utter contempt.
Imperfect and messy is why our Parliament is treated with disdain
Imperfect and messy is why our Government has been failing for 50 years.
Imperfect and messy is why you are lucky to get 50% turnout at elections.
Imperfect and messy is not good enough anymore.
Imperfect and messy will get David Cameron thrown out of government!
Worthless lousy self-serving apologism. Equal democracy is not imperfect and messy!
Whilst I support your anger and sentiment, I don't agree with your condemnation of imperfection and mess in constitutional arrangements. I think inherent conflict, competition, overlap etc. can be its own protection against power being seized by a small group or an individual. Rampant injustice is of course another matter.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
I have difficulty distinguishing the course of action you outline and electoral suicide
Well, that is of course a good practical point. But it still begs the question of how, in an alleged democracy, any politician can purport to promise anything that requires legislation to be passed through Parliament. It ought to go to a referendum of the whole country as well, as it will affect the constitutional position of the English (and the Welsh and N Irish).
Richard you are beginning to sound like a PPE student. Enough with the home philosophy please. This is something I feel strongly about and such glib platitudes demean you!
I do find your desire to cling to what are clearly broken structures puzzling
I also feel strongly about it and object to the third rate, ill considered, undemocratic solutions that you keep dragging up. So I will continue to argue against your ideaas because I consider them to be dangerous and unworkable.
I have no desire to cling to broken structures. I want to fix them. They are still far better than anything you have suggested.
The case is simple it is Government who decide the agenda and allocate resources to it. Scotland is allowed to define its own domestic agenda without the interference of other home nation representatives. So do Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet for England that is not allowed because of self-serving political expedience. It is not acceptable.
On topic, the wrong leader resigned. Salmond ran a very good campaign and while it's honourable of him to stand down, Yes polling nearly 45% isn't just cause by itself given where Yes started. Lamont, on the other hand, was poor and Alastair Darling seemed far too disengaged for far too long too. Scottish Labour could do worse than to try and secure Jim Murphy talents as their leader for 2016.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
You made this point yesterday and it was equally invalid then. Firstly, if someone without the authority to do so, promises you something, you should discount it. Parliament is sovereign, no-one can bind it. It speaks as a body, not as individual voices. Finally, I would expect any MP to scrutinise carefully any legislation put before him and accept or reject it based on whether he feels it is in the interests of the country.
Unfortunately the "vow" was fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic, at least as far as the 90% of the population who are not Scottish residents are concerned.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
Everyone knew that the Vow was impossible to be enacted without england and wales hitting the roof, so now they are stuck with a promise they can't keep. The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
Richard you are beginning to sound like a PPE student. Enough with the home philosophy please. This is something I feel strongly about and such glib platitudes demean you!
I do find your desire to cling to what are clearly broken structures puzzling
I also feel strongly about it and object to the third rate, ill considered, undemocratic solutions that you keep dragging up. So I will continue to argue against your ideaas because I consider them to be dangerous and unworkable.
I have no desire to cling to broken structures. I want to fix them. They are still far better than anything you have suggested.
Well my ideas are no different to what have been implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and clearly they are workable. You just seem to want to cling to the past and accept any cheap con trick rather than improve things.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
Everyone knew that the Vow was impossible to be enacted without england and wales hitting the roof, so now they are stuck with a promise they can't keep. The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
You made this point yesterday and it was equally invalid then. Firstly, if someone without the authority to do so, promises you something, you should discount it. Parliament is sovereign, no-one can bind it. It speaks as a body, not as individual voices. Finally, I would expect any MP to scrutinise carefully any legislation put before him and accept or reject it based on whether he feels it is in the interests of the country.
Unfortunately the "vow" was fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic, at least as far as the 90% of the population who are not Scottish residents are concerned.
On that basis, no election manifesto is worth the paper it's written on.
Of course as a body parliament should scrutinise legislation with the intention of improving it. In fact, I believe parliament does far too little of this at the behest of an over-mighty executive. However, knowing silence indicates assent, and the inference from that absence of opposition was that MPs did assent to the general principle.
Richard you are beginning to sound like a PPE student. Enough with the home philosophy please. This is something I feel strongly about and such glib platitudes demean you!
I do find your desire to cling to what are clearly broken structures puzzling
I also feel strongly about it and object to the third rate, ill considered, undemocratic solutions that you keep dragging up. So I will continue to argue against your ideaas because I consider them to be dangerous and unworkable.
I have no desire to cling to broken structures. I want to fix them. They are still far better than anything you have suggested.
Well my ideas are no different to what have been implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and clearly they are workable. You just seem to want to cling to the past and accept any cheap con trick rather than improve things.
I would contend that what has been put in place in the other countries is severely lacking democratically and would certainly not want to see similar in England.
Anything that gives more power to the parties is reducing democratic accountability not increasing it.
My wishes are for something far more radical than just an English Parliament - another useless tier of government which will be designed to serve the interests of the politicians not the electorate.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
Everyone knew that the Vow was impossible to be enacted without england and wales hitting the roof, so now they are stuck with a promise they can't keep. The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
Indeed. More of which tomorrow.
Might have been better if yes had won
I had a thread ready for that too, based on Currency Union, debt agreements and the divorce settlement.
Sorry manofkent but I disagree. Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement which is rooted in our history as a country, something which is crucial to our sense of identity and the process of learning key in all political and constitutional reform.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement which has an inherent ability to evolve to the needs to the time and when things become unsustainable.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement through which we have had massive stability as a country and whereby stunning exercises in democracy such as the Scotland referendum are possible and take place.
This is not to say things must not change, they must. But I am wary of the idea of complete solutions, of top-down projects, of constitutional arrangements which seek neat edges and which look good in theory, believing they are too often divorced from society and people.
Ultimately it is one reason why I am a conservative, although these views are shared more widely I think too.
Why? The promise was made by people without the authority to promise it. If the Scots chose to believe it, then caveat emptor.
The changes should be delivered because a) we promised them
We didn't. Three people without the authority to do so did.
Parliament has the authority to do so and I don't recall many (any?) MPs speaking up against the idea. They had time to. The Scots voted on the basis that the Vow was going to be enacted and they had and have reasonable expectation that it will. No MP should vote against it on principle who didn't voice opposition before Thursday.
Everyone knew that the Vow was impossible to be enacted without england and wales hitting the roof, so now they are stuck with a promise they can't keep. The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
Indeed. More of which tomorrow.
Might have been better if yes had won
Not really,I imagine the riots would have be even worse than tonight (possibly a civil war like Ireland), the referendum campaign has caused alot of hatred.
"The men also sang 'If you hate Alex Salmond clap your hands' and 'God Save the Queen'. Many of the protester, who are mostly aged between 20 and 40, appear to be quite intoxicated. One drunken protester boasted that 'Glasgow would burn for voting Yes,' claiming it was now 'payback time'."
Sorry manofkent but I disagree. Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement which is rooted in our history as a country, something which is crucial to our sense of identity and the process of learning key in all political and constitutional reform.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement which has an inherent ability to evolve to the needs to the time and when things become unsustainable.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement through which we have had massive stability as a country and whereby stunning exercises in democracy such as the Scotland referendum are possible and take place.
This is not to say things must not change, they must. But I am wary of the idea of complete solutions, of top-down projects, of constitutional arrangements which seek neat edges and which look good in theory, believing they are too often divorced from society and people.
Ultimately it is one reason why I am a conservative, although these views are shared more widely I think too.
Imperfect and messy is one reason we survived a century that saw revolution and war across much of the rest of Europe and managed to achieve considerable progress with developing Parliamentary democracy off the back of a very large picnic in Hyde Park.
Now that the Democrat has withdrawn from the race independent Greg Orman could well win the seat, he has a lead over a jaded Pat Roberts, who even voted against a disability bill backed by Dole. It looks a serious possibility the Senate could be controlled by neither the GOP nor the Democrats in November, but by independents Angus King and Greg Orman who will hold the balance of power
On Scotland, considering the viciousness of some elements of the Yes campaign this extreme No backlash tonight was probably inevitable. Sadly, I think we will see sectarian clashes in Glasgow and possibly Edinburgh over the weekend
On twitter the YES guys are spreading that there are 3 dead people from the riots.
@RayPeacock full on riots in Glasgow tonight as unionists attack yes voters in mobs. Three dead, one only 15. Please spread the word
Kevin Arthur @Kevinarthur95 46m Supposedly 2 reported dead from tonight's antics up Glasgow. The events I've witnessed has sadly shocked me that people behave like this.
Idiotic Daily Mail desperately trying to continue its unending stream of lies about who the real abuse and trouble was emanating from in Scotland, manages in the face of its own pictures of union jag waving thugs manages to write
"Police in Glasgow were forced to separate rival independence supporters following a pro-Union rally in George Square."
"rival independence supporters"-what on earth are they?. So determined to maintain their lies, the Daily Mail tries to blame the Yes campaign. Look at the pictures Mail, the thugs are all your own.
On Scotland, considering the viciousness of some elements of the Yes campaign this extreme No backlash tonight was probably inevitable. Sadly, I think we will see sectarian clashes in Glasgow and possibly Edinburgh over the weekend
I don't think that Edinburgh has the same culture of violence that Glasgow has.
No-one is saying that EVFEL is a perfect solution, they are saying that until such time as that perfect solution may be put in place, the current utterly indefensible arrangements must be stopped. Not after the next election, not after a 'Constitutional convention' (EU federalisation in drag -does Ed think we're stupid?), not next year, not next week, NOW.
It should have been done when devolution was first implemented and by now it would be past its sell-by date and we'd have been thinking about a long-term solution. Doing it now would risk being too little too late.
@Speedy You might have to wait a while, there is an acute shortage of reporters and cameras in Scotland. Mind you? if a riot WAS kicking off, there would be someone with a smartphone at least you would think?
Speedy No, Edinburgh sees itself as the intellectual capital. I see Glasgow Celtic are playing at home on Sunday, if that union crowd is still there on Sunday and encounters the Celtic crowd (almost all of whom will be Yes backers) all hell could break lose, particularly if the Rangers supporters, who will have generally voted No, join in
Think it would backfire on Tories to say the Vow requires movement on the English question as a precondition. Malcolm Rifkind says that has not happened- the Vow does not require movement on English question.
It is not a surprise that there is violence, given the heated nature of debate. However I am sorry to hear that so many people have died in them, according to the reports below. That is not good, and something that the Scots have avoided so far.
Howard Edinburgh has more professionals, more genteel, generally more middle class, of course Glasgow has its university, but also more poverty, Rangers + Celtic tensions, more crime and is the bigger metropolis of the 2
Howard Edinburgh has more professionals, more genteel, generally more middle class, of course Glasgow has its university, but also more poverty, Rangers + Celtic tensions, more crime and is the bigger metropolis of the 2
Yes Edinburgh more middle class, but that does not make it more "intellectual". When I lived in Glasgow I was impressed at how cultural and intellectual it was, and it is so much larger than Edinburgh that I thought there were probably more intellectuals in Glasgow.
Howard Edinburgh has a population of 495,000, Glasgow almost 600,000 so Glasgow may well have more in real, if not percentage, terms. But Glasgow is the bigger metropolis with a more mixed social demographic, and the tensions of Rangers v Celtic, both of whom are playing in the city this weekend and so riots are more likely there than Edinburgh and so it seems to have begun tonight
According to Andrew Neil, some "numpties" are circulating false photos about Glasgow for propagandistic purposes. So perhaps these rumours are invented by supporters of one side or the other in the Scottish debate to make the other side look bad?
The referendum was a choice between independence and the status quo. But the fact that independence has been rejected seems to have been interpreted by the panicking half-wit politicians at Westminster as some sort of mandate for extended devolution, "Devo-Max", or "EV4EL" (or whatever other moronic acronym one prefers) and an unspecified scheme for devolved assemblies in the English regions - none of which I want or voted for.
Instead of allowing the people of Scotland to have the privilege and impertinence of electing MPs to the House of Commons to make laws which affect England but not their own constituents (with whatever level of devolved powers to Holyrood as may be), they should be subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK.
There should be a referendum to make the people of Scotland choose between (A) Abolition of the Scottish Parliament, abolition of the Barnett formula, and a unitary state, and (B) Full independence, with its own currency.
It's the sort of thing Francis Urquhart would have proposed. Also, if it is really true that only the over-65s were heavily voting "No", then it will only be a matter of time before there is another referendum anyway. People have been talking about it as if the question is settled "for a generation" or "for a lifetime", but it only took Quebec 15 years after a 60% vote.
Comments
Imperfect and messy is why our Parliament is treated with disdain
Imperfect and messy is why our Government has been failing for 50 years.
Imperfect and messy is why you are lucky to get 50% turnout at elections.
Imperfect and messy is not good enough anymore.
Imperfect and messy will get David Cameron thrown out of government!
Worthless lousy self-serving apologism. Equal democracy is not imperfect and messy!
Quite probably, but I just hope that it doesn't become contagious in the same way.
Long may that continue.
They are simply thick, violent, supremacist thugs.
Which is why Better Together correctly distanced itself from such groups during the campaign.
Anyway I said they should lay bets or shut up I didn't seriously try to have the bet
I do find your desire to cling to what are clearly broken structures puzzling
The Vow has turned it into an english devolution question, therefore the government is more afraid of losing england&wales than losing scotland.
I have no desire to cling to broken structures. I want to fix them. They are still far better than anything you have suggested.
Unfortunately the "vow" was fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic, at least as far as the 90% of the population who are not Scottish residents are concerned.
Of course as a body parliament should scrutinise legislation with the intention of improving it. In fact, I believe parliament does far too little of this at the behest of an over-mighty executive. However, knowing silence indicates assent, and the inference from that absence of opposition was that MPs did assent to the general principle.
Anything that gives more power to the parties is reducing democratic accountability not increasing it.
My wishes are for something far more radical than just an English Parliament - another useless tier of government which will be designed to serve the interests of the politicians not the electorate.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement which has an inherent ability to evolve to the needs to the time and when things become unsustainable.
Imperfect and messy gives us a constitutional settlement through which we have had massive stability as a country and whereby stunning exercises in democracy such as the Scotland referendum are possible and take place.
This is not to say things must not change, they must. But I am wary of the idea of complete solutions, of top-down projects, of constitutional arrangements which seek neat edges and which look good in theory, believing they are too often divorced from society and people.
Ultimately it is one reason why I am a conservative, although these views are shared more widely I think too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762876/Union-flag-waving-demonstrators-make-Nazi-salute-Glasgow-victory-celebrations-Police-separate-rival-groups-tension-increases.html
"The men also sang 'If you hate Alex Salmond clap your hands' and 'God Save the Queen'.
Many of the protester, who are mostly aged between 20 and 40, appear to be quite intoxicated. One drunken protester boasted that 'Glasgow would burn for voting Yes,' claiming it was now 'payback time'."
@RayPeacock full on riots in Glasgow tonight as unionists attack yes voters in mobs. Three dead, one only 15. Please spread the word
Kevin Arthur @Kevinarthur95 46m
Supposedly 2 reported dead from tonight's antics up Glasgow. The events I've witnessed has sadly shocked me that people behave like this.
Is this true?
"Police in Glasgow were forced to separate rival independence supporters following a pro-Union rally in George Square."
"rival independence supporters"-what on earth are they?. So determined to maintain their lies, the Daily Mail tries to blame the Yes campaign. Look at the pictures Mail, the thugs are all your own.
We will be getting official news reports soon......or perhaps not.
Lewy @Buster179 5m
Just heard that 4 folk have been killed in the riots in Glasgow, if this is true, we made a good choice for voting no... #not
You might have to wait a while, there is an acute shortage of reporters and cameras in Scotland.
Mind you? if a riot WAS kicking off, there would be someone with a smartphone at least you would think?
Malcolm Rifkind says that has not happened- the Vow does not require movement on English question.
"There have been reports on social media of a "Yes" supporter being stabbed in George Square, but police said they had no record of any incident."
However I am sorry to hear that so many people have died in them, according to the reports below. That is not good, and something that the Scots have avoided so far.
Instead of allowing the people of Scotland to have the privilege and impertinence of electing MPs to the House of Commons to make laws which affect England but not their own constituents (with whatever level of devolved powers to Holyrood as may be), they should be subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK.
There should be a referendum to make the people of Scotland choose between
(A) Abolition of the Scottish Parliament, abolition of the Barnett formula, and a unitary state,
and
(B) Full independence, with its own currency.
It's the sort of thing Francis Urquhart would have proposed.
Also, if it is really true that only the over-65s were heavily voting "No", then it will only be a matter of time before there is another referendum anyway. People have been talking about it as if the question is settled "for a generation" or "for a lifetime", but it only took Quebec 15 years after a 60% vote.