So David Herdson believes that FFA would be very bad for Scotland (I believe it to be a much worse arrangement than independence, both politically and economically) but wishes it to be given to Scotland.
Who knew that far to many unionists do not have what they perceive as Scotland's best interests at heart :-)
No, I believe that Holyrood should be given the opportunity to implement it. I do believe it would be substantially less beneficial to Scotland (as does the IFS), which is why I don't think they'd take up the option. And that is what would finally put an end to the independence ratchet and deliver a stable basis on which the whole country could move forward.
Mr. Divvie, I did blame all four of them, both at the time and in my post on this thread.
Mr. Jonathan, the lopsided point is not debatable. Three parts of the UK: one has a full Parliament, one has an Assembly, one has nothing. That's the definition of a lopsided arrangement.
I know you want an English parliament but has there been any polling as to whether it's popular with the English electorate? If it isn't a big issue with voters and none of the bigger parties are pushing it how do you expect it to come to pass?
The SNP are forcing it to become an issue, the resentment in England at the perceived preferred treatment of Scotland is festering.
The relief I felt that Gordon was gone in 2010 didn't really hit me, until he popped up on TV a while later - I felt my whole skin bristle with dislike at the economic ruin, hubris and hypocrisy of the man.
Being on PB prior to GE2010 was a hotbed of Gordon dislike. And it'd been going on for years before then. It seemed to eclipse what Tony endured despite Iraq.
Brown is an old man who no one wants to listen to... people have had enough of the old loon whilst he was Prime Minister.
I seem to remember that nine short months ago Unionists were sticky with pleasure at the performance of the man that saved the UK. How soon we forget.
You remember incorrectly, he was and always will be regarded as an abject failure.
There was some grudging respect for one or two speeches in some quarters, I don't recall all that much approbation though.
Fortunately I had stopped thinking about the menace that was Gordon Brown, I absolutely loathe the man, from what he did to the manner he did it. How the Labour party allowed him anywhere near the levers of power is beyond comprehension.
Every time Brown opens his gob, it all comes flooding back... and I am sure I am not alone. The best thing Brown can do is keep schtum.
Son of the manse.... How that grated every time I heard it. Always attempted to giv him some religious authority. However he was actually just plain bonkers.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state. Our govt is too centralised. I think London has been a great success that needs to be repeated.
FWIW this applies across the UK. We should see more devolution in Scotland, England, Wales and NI.
Mr. Divvie, I did blame all four of them, both at the time and in my post on this thread.
Mr. Jonathan, the lopsided point is not debatable. Three parts of the UK: one has a full Parliament, one has an Assembly, one has nothing. That's the definition of a lopsided arrangement.
I know you want an English parliament but has there been any polling as to whether it's popular with the English electorate? If it isn't a big issue with voters and none of the bigger parties are pushing it how do you expect it to come to pass?
The SNP are forcing it to become an issue, the resentment in England at the perceived preferred treatment of Scotland is festering.
.
That is one of the reasons, besides my natural pessimism, which makes me feel Scottish independence is inevitable. Quite besides the current groundswell of support for it in Scotland (and if that is to abate, it would need to be pretty darn quickly given the likelihood of a second IndyRef, and that doesn't look probable right now), if the population of the largest constituent part of the Union becomes not merely mostly apathetic to the Union (as feels broadly the case right now, regrettably) but becomes outright opposed to it at least on current terms, then the danger of further, deeper and more acrimonious splits increases all over.
I'm not convinced an English Parliament is the answer, but like many others who do want to preserve the Union, I cannot come up with an answer which seems popular either.
Mr. Jonathan, Labour should remember England is not their property, to be carved up to political advantage. Was Scotland cut into Lowlands, Highlands and Islands?
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state.
An amusing thought given Labour are soemtimes accused of conflating the two.
I'm certainly not opposed to less centralization in many areas, but I do get angry at the idea of yet more bureaucratic machines and assemblies on arbitrary new lines (rather than arbitrary historic lines!). Like MD, I am deeply suspicious of carving up England into discrete bits formally (though perhaps a mite less so) as I see no benefit to going that far unless it is for perceived political advantage of the ones doing the carving. If the Tories try it I shall certainly feel the same.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): With respect—[Interruption.] Actually, I am going to make a point that might be quite positive. With respect to my right hon. Friend’s arguments, what worries me is that this might not be the end of the story, because it does not get to the kernel of the problem, which is that the Scottish Parliament will raise only about 50% of what it spends and, therefore, will be fundamentally a spending Parliament, not a tax-raising Parliament. There is a good Conservative case to be made for full fiscal autonomy, because it would breed responsibility.
David Mundell: I do not believe that there is a Conservative case, or indeed any case, to be made for an outcome that would leave Scotland with a gap of between £7 billion and £10 billion in its finances, which would affect every school, every hospital and every person in Scotland.
I broadly agree, except I think English devolution ought to occur at the same time as further Scottish devolution to avoid any further imbalance.
Thought you might approve of the historical analogy. One reason why I chose it (apart from your approbation), was that Hannibal was unable to convert his epic victory in battle into a victory in the war. Similarly, by conceding the field for now and inviting the SNP to occupy ground they may find harder to hold, the unionists can ultimately prevail.
I didn't give a timeframe for rebalancing the English side of the devolution equation. I certainly wouldn't object to it being done simultaneously and in legislation. However, if it's not, I'd settle for within the same parliament as there's probably a conversation within England that needs to happen on the nature of that rebalancing - EV4EL in Westminster vs English parliament vs regional parliaments etc.
The relief I felt that Gordon was gone in 2010 didn't really hit me, until he popped up on TV a while later - I felt my whole skin bristle with dislike at the economic ruin, hubris and hypocrisy of the man.
Being on PB prior to GE2010 was a hotbed of Gordon dislike. And it'd been going on for years before then. It seemed to eclipse what Tony endured despite Iraq.
Brown is an old man who no one wants to listen to... people have had enough of the old loon whilst he was Prime Minister.
I seem to remember that nine short months ago Unionists were sticky with pleasure at the performance of the man that saved the UK. How soon we forget.
You remember incorrectly, he was and always will be regarded as an abject failure.
There was some grudging respect for one or two speeches in some quarters, I don't recall all that much approbation though.
Fortunately I had stopped thinking about the menace that was Gordon Brown, I absolutely loathe the man, from what he did to the manner he did it. How the Labour party allowed him anywhere near the levers of power is beyond comprehension.
Every time Brown opens his gob, it all comes flooding back... and I am sure I am not alone. The best thing Brown can do is keep schtum.
Son of the manse.... How that grated every time I heard it. Always attempted to giv him some religious authority. However he was actually just plain bonkers.
It was what Brown and his henchmen did to colleagues whilst in Govt that has led the Labour party to where it is now. Brown has a hell of a lot to answer for. Frankly the man is beneath contempt.
Mr. Herdson, let us leave aside the Satanic lunacy of regional parliaments and focus on the historical comparison.
The problem with having the unionists cast as Rome is that Rome at that time was both very unified and at the peak of its practically psychopathic patriotism. The land on which Hannibal's army was encamped after Cannae was sold for full market value.
Meanwhile, the unionists are composed of a largely destroyed Liberal Democrat Party, a Labour Party that lost 40/41 seats [or thereabouts] in Scotland, and a Conservative Party which, whilst it didn't go backwards, is not in a position to really take the fight to the SNP. And they're about as united as Rome in 69AD.
I broadly agree, except I think English devolution ought to occur at the same time as further Scottish devolution to avoid any further imbalance.
One reason why I chose it (apart from your approbation), was that Hannibal was unable to convert his epic victory in battle into a victory in the war. Similarly, by conceding the field for now and inviting the SNP to occupy ground they may find harder to hold, the unionists can ultimately prevail.
I guess the sacrifice of all but 3 non SNP MPs in Scotland did not prove equivalent to the 80,000 Romans at Cannae in terms of conceding (reluctantly) ground. Perhaps we could convince the SNP to march on Rome/London as Hannibal did not, to hasten an outcome one way or another.
The difference in tone/ideology between LabourList [IIRC the organ of the unions and Derek Draper passim] and Labour-Uncut [Progress in other clothes] is pretty stark.
And appearing with a lifebelt to support a totally unrelated charity event was even better than EdStone.
Mr. Herdson, let us leave aside the Satanic lunacy of regional parliaments and focus on the historical comparison.
The problem with having the unionists cast as Rome is that Rome at that time was both very unified and at the peak of its practically psychopathic patriotism. The land on which Hannibal's army was encamped after Cannae was sold for full market value.
Meanwhile, the unionists are composed of a largely destroyed Liberal Democrat Party, a Labour Party that lost 40/41 seats [or thereabouts] in Scotland, and a Conservative Party which, whilst it didn't go backwards, is not in a position to really take the fight to the SNP. And they're about as united as Rome in 69AD.
I thought we had regional parliaments or governance? In my day they were better known as county Councils.
If we don't then regional assemblies are just another layer of government where yet another layer of public servants can feather their nest for no good local or national benefit to the taxpayer.
Mr. kle4, I once worked out the equivalent loss of Cannae to Rome if it had been London today. I think it was 200 MPs, the PM and perhaps a million dead [unsure of the last figure, more confident of the first two].
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state.
An amusing thought given Labour are soemtimes accused of conflating the two.
I'm certainly not opposed to less centralization in many areas, but I do get angry at the idea of yet more bureaucratic machines and assemblies on arbitrary new lines (rather than arbitrary historic lines!). Like MD, I am deeply suspicious of carving up England into discrete bits formally (though perhaps a mite less so) as I see no benefit to going that far unless it is for perceived political advantage of the ones doing the carving. If the Tories try it I shall certainly feel the same.
The question is entirely posed the wrong way round by MD and co. Decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level in my opinion. No one is carving anything up. It's about coming together in the right groups at the right time.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state.
An amusing thought given Labour are soemtimes accused of conflating the two.
I'm certainly not opposed to less centralization in many areas, but I do get angry at the idea of yet more bureaucratic machines and assemblies on arbitrary new lines (rather than arbitrary historic lines!). Like MD, I am deeply suspicious of carving up England into discrete bits formally (though perhaps a mite less so) as I see no benefit to going that far unless it is for perceived political advantage of the ones doing the carving. If the Tories try it I shall certainly feel the same.
Decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level in my opinion. No one is carving anything up.
They are if they are proposing new bodies/regions to govern areas where lower levels of administration already exist which could be boosted. Making use of what is there, or simplifying it while at a similar level, might work.
Mr. Jonathan, I want equality for England, which demands an English Parliament. Labour never took your view when it came to keeping Wales and Scotland unified. It's only England they want to carve up.
Mr. kle4, I once worked out the equivalent loss of Cannae to Rome if it had been London today. I think it was 200 MPs, the PM and perhaps a million dead [unsure of the last figure, more confident of the first two].
About half of all Senators were killed during the course of the whole war.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state.
An amusing thought given Labour are soemtimes accused of conflating the two.
I'm certainly not opposed to less centralization in many areas, but I do get angry at the idea of yet more bureaucratic machines and assemblies on arbitrary new lines (rather than arbitrary historic lines!). Like MD, I am deeply suspicious of carving up England into discrete bits formally (though perhaps a mite less so) as I see no benefit to going that far unless it is for perceived political advantage of the ones doing the carving. If the Tories try it I shall certainly feel the same.
Decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level in my opinion. No one is carving anything up.
They are if they are proposing new bodies/regions to govern areas where lower levels of administration already exist which could be boosted.
The question is what can best be administered by England/Scotland/Wales/NI and not by the UK or by counties/regions. Transport feels like a regional thing, education feels county level, defence is a UK thing. Etc.
Mr. F, mildly surprised it's that low, given the massive death toll at Cannae. I know a fair number of consuls were lost (I forget if Cornelius/Gnaeus Scipio were consuls when Hasdrubal killed them, but there was Flaminius, Marcellus, and Paullus, at least).
There's a great piece in the Times from Mr Parris about the Flat Earther mentality of Marxism and how it's never worked. And some still want to test it to further destruction even in the face of decades of failure... and have polluted the waters with *profit* being a dirty word and bizarrely immoral.
There is also an article in the Times about how the SNP's brand of "civic Nationalism" is driving people out of Scotland
As these individuals will in all likelihood be at or near retirement age the much more positive fiscal position of Scotland after Independence gets even better.
Perhaps we should have a fundraiser to provide their petrol money.
Mr. Divvie, the last polling I saw had a majority in England seeing it as the preferred form of devolution (unsure if there was the option for no devolution included [or none of the above] in that poll, though).
The BBC and political class don't seem to want to even mention it.
Perfidious BBC & dastardly Westminster political classes - sounds familiar!
Mr. F, mildly surprised it's that low, given the massive death toll at Cannae. I know a fair number of consuls were lost (I forget if Cornelius/Gnaeus Scipio were consuls when Hasdrubal killed them, but there was Flaminius, Marcellus, and Paullus, at least).
THE SNP has been challenged by Labour to back a Tory amendment to the Scotland Bill, which has "called their bluff" as it would fast-track full fiscal autonomy(FFA) for Holyrood.
The amendment by veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Edward Leigh would seek quickly to hand over all powers to the Scottish Parliament on, among other things, finance, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport and social security; leaving matters like defence, foreign affairs and the constitution reserved to Westminster.
Mr. kle4, Fabian? D'you mean Quintus Fabius Maximus? I'd have to check, but I believe he did.
Mr. Divvie, must be said that SNP types do seem rather more reasonable over the idea of an English Parliament than most English politicians, which is bloody odd.
THE SNP has been challenged by Labour to back a Tory amendment to the Scotland Bill, which has "called their bluff" as it would fast-track full fiscal autonomy(FFA) for Holyrood.
The amendment by veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Edward Leigh would seek quickly to hand over all powers to the Scottish Parliament on, among other things, finance, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport and social security; leaving matters like defence, foreign affairs and the constitution reserved to Westminster.
Mr. kle4, Fabian? D'you mean Quintus Fabius Maximus? I'd have to check, but I believe he did.
.
Yes. Sorry, Fabius, not Fabian (I'm sure in some situations you're probably supposed to use the latter for all I know). Stupid Roman names (and that not even getting into naming everyone so similarly and nicknames becoming family names)
Mr. Jonathan, it amuses and irritates me in equal measure that Scotland is always considered a single entity but some want to carve England into foolish fiefdoms, entrenching and deepening resentment by institutionalising political division via an idiotic form of devolution.
Just one more reason we need an English Parliament.
I cannot think of a period of more than a few decades where it actually fulfilled that definition. It would explain why there is no English culture.
The difference in tone/ideology between LabourList [IIRC the organ of the unions and Derek Draper passim] and Labour-Uncut [Progress in other clothes] is pretty stark.
And appearing with a lifebelt to support a totally unrelated charity event was even better than EdStone.
"Only one party has the support across the Union to make the changes necessary to build a stronger Britain, One Nation Labour."
Absolutely!! ..... Oh! ... Well, maybe's not?
Likewise Blairites and Brownites. Until Labour overcome this difference then they will be challenged to achieve government again if at all. This is not the true blue / tory wet split of the Tory party in days gone by or the normal differing views across any party. This difference is fundamental, ideological and goes to the root of what this party is for or even in what it believes.
The failure of Milliband and the loss of Scotland has cost them any chance of majority government in this and the next Parliament in my view. While they held Scotland these differences could be held at bay but no longer. This has now allowed the two factions to split dramatically in following their individual beliefs and while in opposition have time to do it. At the moment the split is being handled reasonably for the most part but just wait until the leadership election commences. I also think the new leader will have their work cut out despite the platitudes that you will here at the crowning ceremonies of total support etc. Then how to get back Scotland?
Mr. Jonathan, it amuses and irritates me in equal measure that Scotland is always considered a single entity but some want to carve England into foolish fiefdoms, entrenching and deepening resentment by institutionalising political division via an idiotic form of devolution.
Just one more reason we need an English Parliament.
The problem is that in its history, England has spent very little time as a single, unified country with a monoculture that included the ruling classes and no colonial territories.
I cannot think of a period of more than a few decades where it actually fulfilled that definition. It would explain why there is no English culture.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state. Our govt is too centralised. I think London has been a great success that needs to be repeated.
FWIW this applies across the UK. We should see more devolution in Scotland, England, Wales and NI.
"Democracy" in Britain ..... and that includes Scotland ....... has been achieved (if it has been) by the ruling class, from the 1830's onwards, surrending part of their power rather than risk an uprising.
David's analysis is a very good political assessment and most of the comments are similar - how would it affect the position of the parties? But the parties need to be careful what they bring about for short-term advantage. Effectively Scotland would then be independent in all but name.
That might well be what most ordinary people feel is the best answer - meeting the sense of distinct identity without entirely splitting up. But it does effectively end the Union, and we should collectively do that because we want to (if we do), rather than because it puts Sturgeon on the spot.
Mr. kle4, np, after I wrote that I remember the Cuncator's [Delayer's] strategy is also sometimes called the Fabian strategy/approach.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
The UK built up the debt and all of the UK needs to continue to service it in fair proportion (just as an independent Scotland would have had to take its fair share had the vote gone for Yes last year). Considering that it was a Scottish chancellor that set the country on the course that has resulted in most of the debt, and that Scotland has, over the same period, voted for parties that have wanted to continue to add to the debt (i.e. abandon the 'austerity' programme), there's a good case for Scotland paying a good deal more than its pro rata share.
As for the military budget, it's a UK-wide responsibility and needs to be funded as such. Any alternative means independence.
There are quite complicated arguments as to why this is not the case based on need, use and the process of decision making being dominated by one part of the Union. It's a little beyond the scope of this thread but put simple, it is one of the negotiables which is not a given under FFA but is a given when Westminster hold the pursestrings.
The same is true of spending money for a Power Projection military which is not wanted or needed by Scotland.
Put simply there is a good argument that Scotland's cost under FFA could be reduced by at least £7bn per annum.
David's analysis is a very good political assessment and most of the comments are similar - how would it affect the position of the parties? But the parties need to be careful what they bring about for short-term advantage. Effectively Scotland would then be independent in all but name.
That might well be what most ordinary people feel is the best answer - meeting the sense of distinct identity without entirely splitting up. But it does effectively end the Union, and we should collectively do that because we want to (if we do), rather than because it puts Sturgeon on the spot.
It's a shame that we haven't had more opinion polling on what the English think. I would happily see the Union continue. But Labour created the conditions for Scottish nationalism to prosper and if they want to go it alone then so be it.
I know Mr Dancer, among others is viscerally opposed to the idea of an "England of the Regions" but I really don't see an alternative.
Surely - in an open-society - those whom wish to live in a left-wing nation would migrate accordingly, no? That is - of course - inless they have too much wealth in England to be bothered to let actions-and-words be used in the same context....
So I guesstimate that FFA for the three other nations would save England £20-25 billion per year. That's about half the UK's defence budget.
I'm more and more convinced that these endless sticking-plaster solutions to the problems of the Union (which was an 18th-century construct in response to a threat of a French invasion, and has clearly had its day) are inadequate. What we really need is a fully-thought through federal UK, if we are going to have any kind of Union at all.
Cuckoo, it will certainly save Scotland money. It will not happen though as it will mean opening the books and exposing the lies on who are the subsidy junkies.
Hmmmm ........ the English Parliament being based away from the bases of the main newspapers and other media (although theBeeb's doing OK with it's News & Current Affairs based in Salford). I'm rather surpsed how well Germany copes with the Berlin/Frankfurt split. Or is that a source of strength: politicians and finance people aren't always running across each other?
Don't see it as an issue either way - think Ottawa vs Toronto, Canberra vs Sydney/Melborune, New York City vs Albany or Sacramento vs LA/San Francisco, or the old West Germany (Bonn vs Frankfurt/Hamburg/Munich/West Berlin). But it could be important in swinging the North behind an initiative proposed by a Tory government.
I think a more serious objection is the shallowness of the human skills pool outside London - such specialists as economists, statisticians, and other experts tend to concentrate disproportionately in the capital. That's why departments with lots of low-grade clerical work, such as the DVLA or HMRC back office can move outside London easily while elite policy-making is much more difficult to shift. But I don't think that's insuperable in the long run, especially given massively lower house prices outside the metropolis.
I assume you think you are one of the members of the great skills pool in the cesspit then. Deluded halfwit like the supposed clever elite who make a bollox of running the country, with their supposed skills, from the cesspit.
So I guesstimate that FFA for the three other nations would save England £20-25 billion per year. That's about half the UK's defence budget.
I'm more and more convinced that these endless sticking-plaster solutions to the problems of the Union (which was an 18th-century construct in response to a threat of a French invasion, and has clearly had its day) are inadequate. What we really need is a fully-thought through federal UK, if we are going to have any kind of Union at all.
Cuckoo, it will certainly save Scotland money. It will not happen though as it will mean opening the books and exposing the lies on who are the subsidy junkies.
Then why won't the Scottish Government publish estimates of the impact of FFA?
The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
Mr. kle4, np, after I wrote that I remember the Cuncator's [Delayer's] strategy is also sometimes called the Fabian strategy/approach.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
Mr Dancer, "England" was a cultural unity for about 50 years up to the Normal Conquest, after which the ruling class was "foreign" for the best part of 300, and the rulers regarded "England" as part of their domains, much of those domains being the other side of the Channel. I think you've got to come to around the time of Chaucer and Tyndale before you can have an England where the rulers regarded themselves as English.
'T working class might have regarded themselves as English but I submit that until about 1400 they were in a similar position to the Indian locals under the Raj! It was the decimation of the "rulers" by first the Black Death and then the Ward of the Roses which unified "England"!
However, I'm not a professional historian so others may disabuse me of my views.
Mr. kle4, np, after I wrote that I remember the Cuncator's [Delayer's] strategy is also sometimes called the Fabian strategy/approach.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
I mean it is difficult to identify a period when a unified culture could develop based on the history of England. There was a period from 1042 to 1066 but from 1066 it a ruling elite of French-speaking Normans ran things for, well quite a few hundred years, they even still use Norman French in Parliament.
Perhaps there was a window in the mid 14th centurty to mid 15th when Wales became a possession, at which point the Kingdom of England was in effect a union of two kingdoms in Personal Union. Again perhaps at some point it could be argued that this ended before 1603? I don't know. But again in 1603 it was part of a union of two kingdoms in Personal Union and effectively ended (as a unified source for a distinct English Culture) in 1703.
I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that can be had about the interchangeability of British and English culture or that the periods of personal union and periods of foreign aristocracy could have allowed a unified culture to develop. But on the other hand, I'm not convinced that it ever did.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
For several decades in Scotland that's been Not the Tories - unless something remarkable happens, I'd say that was pretty much the SNP's position now (along with a lot of other things, unlike Labour).
So this brings us back to what they are for
As Eleanor Roosevelt observed 'Great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events small minds discuss people
Mr. kle4, np, after I wrote that I remember the Cuncator's [Delayer's] strategy is also sometimes called the Fabian strategy/approach.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
Mr Dancer, "England" was a cultural unity for about 50 years up to the Normal Conquest, after which the ruling class was "foreign" for the best part of 300, and the rulers regarded "England" as part of their domains, much of those domains being the other side of the Channel. I think you've got to come to around the time of Chaucer and Tyndale before you can have an England where the rulers regarded themselves as English.
'T working class might have regarded themselves as English but I submit that until about 1400 they were in a similar position to the Indian locals under the Raj! It was the decimation of the "rulers" by first the Black Death and then the Ward of the Roses which unified "England"!
However, I'm not a professional historian so others may disabuse me of my views.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
So I guesstimate that FFA for the three other nations would save England £20-25 billion per year. That's about half the UK's defence budget.
I'm more and more convinced that these endless sticking-plaster solutions to the problems of the Union (which was an 18th-century construct in response to a threat of a French invasion, and has clearly had its day) are inadequate. What we really need is a fully-thought through federal UK, if we are going to have any kind of Union at all.
Cuckoo, it will certainly save Scotland money. It will not happen though as it will mean opening the books and exposing the lies on who are the subsidy junkies.
All the SNP have to do is persuade enough Tory and Labour backbenchers that the SNP do not want FFA and it might just happen. That's the key and it appears to be working. What matters now is whether enough Tory and Labour backbenchers fall for it.
The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
The SNP are a sleazy fringe party running high in the polls due to a misplaced sense of entitlement and the promotion of bogus historical resentments ; they are no better than Sinn Fein and the BNP
They are using the spectre or threat of so called ''Independence '' to try and lever concessions out of Westminster ; in reality they want the taxpayer (primarily English ) to fund their socialist utopia in Scotland ;unfortunately , folks down here in England are having none of it and that's why they gave the Tories their long awaited majority !
The electorate want the government to call their bluff , to dare them to do their worst , to stand up to them in a similar way that Thatcher stood up to the militant and undemocratic miner's union back in 1984 , and they expect the same result !
The odious SNP are merely the cadaverous corpse of the failed 1970's Labour Party brought back to life by the lightening bolt of nationalism ; a Frankenstein -like monster representing the worst of both Left and Right ...the failed socialism of the Left and the toxic tribalism ,exclusiveness of the Right ...anyone familiar with the troubles in N Ireland or the breakup of the former Yugoslavia will instantly recognise the M O of the SNP
It speaks volumes about the political maturity of folks in Scotland that so many political munchkins could be seduced by the siren song of these obvious chancers and opportunists !
''Springtime for Scotland '' or is it ''Follow the yellow brick road '' ?
Another raving loony pops up. Take your medication you halfwit.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.
"The SNP have never viewed devolution for Scotland as something that’s worthwhile, as something that is a response to the desire of the electorate of Scotland."
As evidenced by, well, absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Their single and stated goal is the abolition of the current devolution settlement.
Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation?
You really are thick, what are they "separating" from, using juvenile rhetoric just about sums up Tories.
For several decades in Scotland that's been Not the Tories - unless something remarkable happens, I'd say that was pretty much the SNP's position now (along with a lot of other things, unlike Labour).
So this brings us back to what they are for
As Eleanor Roosevelt observed 'Great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events small minds discuss people
What are Labour discussing currently?
They're not really discussing anything.
Just throwing playground insults.
"You're a Blairite". "You're a Brownite". "You're a Lefty". "You're a Tory".
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
For several decades in Scotland that's been Not the Tories - unless something remarkable happens, I'd say that was pretty much the SNP's position now (along with a lot of other things, unlike Labour).
So this brings us back to what they are for
As Eleanor Roosevelt observed 'Great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events small minds discuss people
What are Labour discussing currently?
Indeed, SLAB appears not only to have lost confidence in itself, but in Scotland as a nation. Sadly the SLAB leadership and their "attack dogs" Blair McD and John McT have allowed themselves to become the instruments of the right wing MSM, they have given up even trying to take on the Tories and just relentlessly attack the SNP and Scots in general, Keir Hardie must be turning in his grave.
Mr. Herdson, let us leave aside the Satanic lunacy of regional parliaments and focus on the historical comparison.
The problem with having the unionists cast as Rome is that Rome at that time was both very unified and at the peak of its practically psychopathic patriotism. The land on which Hannibal's army was encamped after Cannae was sold for full market value.
Meanwhile, the unionists are composed of a largely destroyed Liberal Democrat Party, a Labour Party that lost 40/41 seats [or thereabouts] in Scotland, and a Conservative Party which, whilst it didn't go backwards, is not in a position to really take the fight to the SNP. And they're about as united as Rome in 69AD.
Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing.
Ref the 'losses' argument, there's always a disparity when making military comparisons to political events, but I would argue that the Scottish unionists *have* just suffered 'losses' equivalent to Cannae. Now, it is of course true that unlike deaths, these losses are not absolute in that defeated candidates can rise again, but in terms of those now absent from Westminster, those the Scottish unionists no longer return include:
- 1 former PM (did not contest his seat but would probably have lost and in any case, no longer there either way) - 2 former LD leaders (1 defeated, 1 retired) - 1 former Scottish Labour leader - 5 current or former cabinet ministers (including the above, in some cases) - 50 out of 53 MPs
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
''A great deal of the history of Scottish nationalism is built on resentment '' 'Bogus resentment' As is this supposed hatred of all things tory. The SNP has become a sink for loony rabid lefties. The SNP have hold of a tiger by the tail.
Ha Ha Ha, your opinion of yourself as a tiger is a hoot.
So David Herdson believes that FFA would be very bad for Scotland (I believe it to be a much worse arrangement than independence, both politically and economically) but wishes it to be given to Scotland.
Who knew that far to many unionists do not have what they perceive as Scotland's best interests at heart :-)
No, I believe that Holyrood should be given the opportunity to implement it. I do believe it would be substantially less beneficial to Scotland (as does the IFS), which is why I don't think they'd take up the option. And that is what would finally put an end to the independence ratchet and deliver a stable basis on which the whole country could move forward.
We shall see David, they will not want to show the books, it will show up some interesting details of who the subsidy junkies are. Westminster will crap themselves and do everything in their power to prevent it.
PS - MD. Yes, I thought you'd be less keen on the regionalism idea. However, it's far easier to kill a proposal if it's discussed than if it's not. I'm open to the idea, so perhaps have a vested interest in seeing it on the table, but I'd argue that those opposed to it also have an interest in seeing it there too so it's much harder to cast it as a king-over-the-water solution.
Mr. kle4, np, after I wrote that I remember the Cuncator's [Delayer's] strategy is also sometimes called the Fabian strategy/approach.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
Mr Dancer, "England" was a cultural unity for about 50 years up to the Normal Conquest, after which the ruling class was "foreign" for the best part of 300, and the rulers regarded "England" as part of their domains, much of those domains being the other side of the Channel. I think you've got to come to around the time of Chaucer and Tyndale before you can have an England where the rulers regarded themselves as English.
'T working class might have regarded themselves as English but I submit that until about 1400 they were in a similar position to the Indian locals under the Raj! It was the decimation of the "rulers" by first the Black Death and then the Ward of the Roses which unified "England"!
However, I'm not a professional historian so others may disabuse me of my views.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
The UK built up the debt and all of the UK needs to continue to service it in fair proportion (just as an independent Scotland would have had to take its fair share had the vote gone for Yes last year). Considering that it was a Scottish chancellor that set the country on the course that has resulted in most of the debt, and that Scotland has, over the same period, voted for parties that have wanted to continue to add to the debt (i.e. abandon the 'austerity' programme), there's a good case for Scotland paying a good deal more than its pro rata share.
As for the military budget, it's a UK-wide responsibility and needs to be funded as such. Any alternative means independence.
There are quite complicated arguments as to why this is not the case based on need, use and the process of decision making being dominated by one part of the Union. It's a little beyond the scope of this thread but put simple, it is one of the negotiables which is not a given under FFA but is a given when Westminster hold the pursestrings.
The same is true of spending money for a Power Projection military which is not wanted or needed by Scotland.
Put simply there is a good argument that Scotland's cost under FFA could be reduced by at least £7bn per annum.
No there isn't. If you want to opt out of defence spending then you need to opt out of the country, and we had that debate last year. Westminster responsibilities are decided by representatives of communities across the whole UK and funded by taxes decided on that same basis. There is no 'Scotland' or 'England' (or anywhere else other than the UK) in that sense. Each single constituency and each MP matters equally.
Hmmmm ........ the English Parliament being based away from the bases of the main newspapers and other media (although theBeeb's doing OK with it's News & Current Affairs based in Salford). I'm rather surpsed how well Germany copes with the Berlin/Frankfurt split. Or is that a source of strength: politicians and finance people aren't always running across each other?
"The SNP have never viewed devolution for Scotland as something that’s worthwhile, as something that is a response to the desire of the electorate of Scotland."
As evidenced by, well, absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Their single and stated goal is the abolition of the current devolution settlement.
Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation?
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
But that's still not a winning position for Loyalism.
The SNP do not have to "leave Scotland" in effect demand subvention like the Quebecois had to rely on. They just have to demand no payments to the National Infrastructure Plan (which alone puts the Scottish Deficit below the UK Deficit with Trough Oil), demand a better than population share on Debt Interest and demand a Scotland Appropriate deal on Defense.
The sell for Westminster is hard They have to persuade the people of Scotland that they should be paying £3bn into English Infratructure, £3.5bn a year for Defense (when Denmark pays £2.4bn, Ireland pays £1.5bn and Iceland pays £0) and get Scotland to accept a full population share of UK Debt Interest on, effectively, a voluntary basis.
That's tough to sell and worse, it exposes their own figures which makes the fall back position - a Second Indyref - far more likely to succeed. FFA can only be discussed with black and white numbers in the picture.
And all the SNP have to do to get there, with FFA on the table and the numbers exposed is to pretend they don't want it.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.
The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.
No there isn't. If you want to opt out of defence spending then you need to opt out of the country, and we had that debate last year. Westminster responsibilities are decided by representatives of communities across the whole UK and funded by taxes decided on that same basis. There is no 'Scotland' or 'England' (or anywhere else other than the UK) in that sense. Each single constituency and each MP matters equally.
And that's the FFA trap.
Currently there is no choice. Scotland remits £3.5bn for Defense regardless of the opinion of Scotland.
Under FFA either the Scottish Government chooses (and passes a budget) to remit £3.5bn or the UK Government puts in place a transparent mechanism whereby £3.5bn per annum is visibly remitted by the Scottish Revenue and Customs outside the control of Holyrood. (And of course the rest of the money for debt and the NIP and common services, visibly, transparently, without debate over the relative number).
So I guesstimate that FFA for the three other nations would save England £20-25 billion per year. That's about half the UK's defence budget.
I'm more and more convinced that these endless sticking-plaster solutions to the problems of the Union (which was an 18th-century construct in response to a threat of a French invasion, and has clearly had its day) are inadequate. What we really need is a fully-thought through federal UK, if we are going to have any kind of Union at all.
Cuckoo, it will certainly save Scotland money. It will not happen though as it will mean opening the books and exposing the lies on who are the subsidy junkies.
Then why won't the Scottish Government publish estimates of the impact of FFA?
Why do Westminster not publish Scottish revenues , their estimates based on fiddled numbers are really helpful
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
Hmmmm ........ the English Parliament being based away from the bases of the main newspapers and other media (although theBeeb's doing OK with it's News & Current Affairs based in Salford). I'm rather surpsed how well Germany copes with the Berlin/Frankfurt split. Or is that a source of strength: politicians and finance people aren't always running across each other?
"The SNP have never viewed devolution for Scotland as something that’s worthwhile, as something that is a response to the desire of the electorate of Scotland."
As evidenced by, well, absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Their single and stated goal is the abolition of the current devolution settlement.
Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation?
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Hmmmm ........ the English Parliament being based away from the bases of the main newspapers and other media (although theBeeb's doing OK with it's News & Current Affairs based in Salford). I'm rather surpsed how well Germany copes with the Berlin/Frankfurt split. Or is that a source of strength: politicians and finance people aren't always running across each other?
"The SNP have never viewed devolution for Scotland as something that’s worthwhile, as something that is a response to the desire of the electorate of Scotland."
As evidenced by, well, absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Their single and stated goal is the abolition of the current devolution settlement.
Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation?
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
Ha Ha Ha , going down, worse than the Record , some deluded halfwit thinks that the SNP asking for FFA is being out-manoeuvred, what planet are these clowns on.
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
But Iceland isn't applying for membership.......
Under FFA Scotland would still be part of the United Kingdom and still a member of NATO regardless of the internal negotiation between Holyrood and Westminster over the Scottish contribution.
As for after Independence...
Shrug.
If NATO say no, I would not care one jot. It would make no difference to the security of Scotland.
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
Come on Plato catch up , next you will be saying you thought labour party were top party in Scotland.
The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
Ha Ha Ha , going down, worse than the Record , some deluded halfwit thinks that the SNP asking for FFA is being out-manoeuvred, what planet are these clowns on.
But the SNP aren't asking for FFA - they are asking to be given the power to 'think about it'.
Its a Tory backbencher who is asking Scotland be given it......
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
David's piece (for which many thanks) is once again one with which I am broadly in disagreement. It highlights the Conservative "dilemma" that has emerged since May 7th. I sense a growing ideal to be rid of Scotland - after all, the Conservatives won their majority in England and Wales alone and the chances of Labour being able to overturn that without Scotland look to be nil (though the chances of a non or anti-Conservative grouping of parties having enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in England isn't so small).
For a Party which once had the word Unionist in its name, it's a remarkable shift in position but no more than it once being the most pro-European of the major parties now seriously considering withdrawal.
My view has always been to wonder if and how the SNP would hold its own voting coalition were independence to be achieved. I don't assume all SNP voters are ideologically akin to Salmond or Sturgeon and I would argue the politics of an independent Scotland would revert to type with a centre-left party or parties and a centre-right party or parties.
For Labour, the question is three-fold - is there a way back for the Party in Scotland within the Union, is there a way back for the Party in an independent Scotland and is there a way of breaking Conservative domination of England outside the Union ? All look tough questions to this observer and the same questions apply to the LDs and all other parties.
Granting FFA is, as others have said, a significant step down the road to full independence and it may be that were it to be granted to Scotland, some in London might start asking for something similar and, as I've always opined, an independent London is much more financially viable than an independent Scotland.
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
Yes - a bit like republicown currencyEuro - its difficult to keep track.....
I think the crunch issue would be the right for Scotland to borrow in the market. FFA implies that but I don't see the Treasury accepting that.
It is common for cities to borrow in the US. Why not here?
The treasury would not have to stand behind the debt. It would be creditors beware.
It's just another of the hangovers of Project Fear, another lie about Independence which is casually exposed as nonsense. The critics usually link it in to some incomprehensible babble about Lenders of Last Resort.
Comments
An English parliament will happen one day.
How that grated every time I heard it. Always attempted to giv him some religious authority. However he was actually just plain bonkers.
FWIW this applies across the UK. We should see more devolution in Scotland, England, Wales and NI.
I'm not convinced an English Parliament is the answer, but like many others who do want to preserve the Union, I cannot come up with an answer which seems popular either.
I'm certainly not opposed to less centralization in many areas, but I do get angry at the idea of yet more bureaucratic machines and assemblies on arbitrary new lines (rather than arbitrary historic lines!). Like MD, I am deeply suspicious of carving up England into discrete bits formally (though perhaps a mite less so) as I see no benefit to going that far unless it is for perceived political advantage of the ones doing the carving. If the Tories try it I shall certainly feel the same.
David Mundell: I do not believe that there is a Conservative case, or indeed any case, to be made for an outcome that would leave Scotland with a gap of between £7 billion and £10 billion in its finances, which would affect every school, every hospital and every person in Scotland.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150608/debtext/150608-0001.htm#1506082000510
I didn't give a timeframe for rebalancing the English side of the devolution equation. I certainly wouldn't object to it being done simultaneously and in legislation. However, if it's not, I'd settle for within the same parliament as there's probably a conversation within England that needs to happen on the nature of that rebalancing - EV4EL in Westminster vs English parliament vs regional parliaments etc.
http://labourlist.org/2014/09/we-must-create-a-more-perfect-union/
Couldn't help notice this part.
"Only one party has the support across the Union to make the changes necessary to build a stronger Britain, One Nation Labour."
Absolutely!! ..... Oh! ... Well, maybe's not?
The problem with having the unionists cast as Rome is that Rome at that time was both very unified and at the peak of its practically psychopathic patriotism. The land on which Hannibal's army was encamped after Cannae was sold for full market value.
Meanwhile, the unionists are composed of a largely destroyed Liberal Democrat Party, a Labour Party that lost 40/41 seats [or thereabouts] in Scotland, and a Conservative Party which, whilst it didn't go backwards, is not in a position to really take the fight to the SNP. And they're about as united as Rome in 69AD.
And appearing with a lifebelt to support a totally unrelated charity event was even better than EdStone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=napj0NyAWuk
If we don't then regional assemblies are just another layer of government where yet another layer of public servants can feather their nest for no good local or national benefit to the taxpayer.
The question is entirely posed the wrong way round by MD and co. Decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level in my opinion. No one is carving anything up. It's about coming together in the right groups at the right time.
As these individuals will in all likelihood be at or near retirement age the much more positive fiscal position of Scotland after Independence gets even better.
Perhaps we should have a fundraiser to provide their petrol money.
Wonderful news for Scotland. The SNP have them now.
Mr. Divvie, must be said that SNP types do seem rather more reasonable over the idea of an English Parliament than most English politicians, which is bloody odd.
To borrow a favourite phrase of the nationalists 'we've heard it all before'.......
A pleasant day to all
P.S Ugh, not this again.
The failure of Milliband and the loss of Scotland has cost them any chance of majority government in this and the next Parliament in my view. While they held Scotland these differences could be held at bay but no longer. This has now allowed the two factions to split dramatically in following their individual beliefs and while in opposition have time to do it.
At the moment the split is being handled reasonably for the most part but just wait until the leadership election commences. I also think the new leader will have their work cut out despite the platitudes that you will here at the crowning ceremonies of total support etc. Then how to get back Scotland?
I cannot think of a period of more than a few decades where it actually fulfilled that definition. It would explain why there is no English culture.
'I (speaking for myself alone) seem (to give the effect of being; to be judged to be) to remember (an act of recollection by my mind)'
That might well be what most ordinary people feel is the best answer - meeting the sense of distinct identity without entirely splitting up. But it does effectively end the Union, and we should collectively do that because we want to (if we do), rather than because it puts Sturgeon on the spot.
Roman names mingled with Shakespeare and common nicknames can be tricky. Caligula, of course, wasn't called Caligula. He was Gaius, but nobody ever calls him that.
Mr. Dair, are you taking the piss or do you actually mean that? England's existed in a cultural sense for over a thousand years.
The same is true of spending money for a Power Projection military which is not wanted or needed by Scotland.
Put simply there is a good argument that Scotland's cost under FFA could be reduced by at least £7bn per annum.
OUR political editor, David Clegg, attempts to answer eight big questions that the SNP can't answer about their Full Fiscal Autonomy dream.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/8-big-questions-nicola-sturgeons-5874910
https://twitter.com/Marnerbanana/status/609039737257627650
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-game-s-afoot-and-snp-is-facing-a-red-card-1-3801109
'T working class might have regarded themselves as English but I submit that until about 1400 they were in a similar position to the Indian locals under the Raj! It was the decimation of the "rulers" by first the Black Death and then the Ward of the Roses which unified "England"!
However, I'm not a professional historian so others may disabuse me of my views.
Perhaps there was a window in the mid 14th centurty to mid 15th when Wales became a possession, at which point the Kingdom of England was in effect a union of two kingdoms in Personal Union. Again perhaps at some point it could be argued that this ended before 1603? I don't know. But again in 1603 it was part of a union of two kingdoms in Personal Union and effectively ended (as a unified source for a distinct English Culture) in 1703.
I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that can be had about the interchangeability of British and English culture or that the periods of personal union and periods of foreign aristocracy could have allowed a unified culture to develop. But on the other hand, I'm not convinced that it ever did.
For several decades in Scotland that's been Not the Tories - unless something remarkable happens, I'd say that was pretty much the SNP's position now (along with a lot of other things, unlike Labour).
So this brings us back to what they are for
As Eleanor Roosevelt observed 'Great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events small minds discuss people
What are Labour discussing currently?
It never occurred to me that it was more than a faerie tale character.
Oh woe is SNP.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
Well worth tuning in for all sorts of first person tales, superb vintage footage and contemporary photography.
Just throwing playground insults.
"You're a Blairite".
"You're a Brownite".
"You're a Lefty".
"You're a Tory".
ScotRail: 17.5
Arriva Wales: 13.1
First Capital Connect: -5.3
Indeed, SLAB appears not only to have lost confidence in itself, but in Scotland as a nation. Sadly the SLAB leadership and their "attack dogs" Blair McD and John McT have allowed themselves to become the instruments of the right wing MSM, they have given up even trying to take on the Tories and just relentlessly attack the SNP and Scots in general, Keir Hardie must be turning in his grave.
Ref the 'losses' argument, there's always a disparity when making military comparisons to political events, but I would argue that the Scottish unionists *have* just suffered 'losses' equivalent to Cannae. Now, it is of course true that unlike deaths, these losses are not absolute in that defeated candidates can rise again, but in terms of those now absent from Westminster, those the Scottish unionists no longer return include:
- 1 former PM (did not contest his seat but would probably have lost and in any case, no longer there either way)
- 2 former LD leaders (1 defeated, 1 retired)
- 1 former Scottish Labour leader
- 5 current or former cabinet ministers (including the above, in some cases)
- 50 out of 53 MPs
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
The SNP do not have to "leave Scotland" in effect demand subvention like the Quebecois had to rely on. They just have to demand no payments to the National Infrastructure Plan (which alone puts the Scottish Deficit below the UK Deficit with Trough Oil), demand a better than population share on Debt Interest and demand a Scotland Appropriate deal on Defense.
The sell for Westminster is hard They have to persuade the people of Scotland that they should be paying £3bn into English Infratructure, £3.5bn a year for Defense (when Denmark pays £2.4bn, Ireland pays £1.5bn and Iceland pays £0) and get Scotland to accept a full population share of UK Debt Interest on, effectively, a voluntary basis.
That's tough to sell and worse, it exposes their own figures which makes the fall back position - a Second Indyref - far more likely to succeed. FFA can only be discussed with black and white numbers in the picture.
And all the SNP have to do to get there, with FFA on the table and the numbers exposed is to pretend they don't want it.
Currently there is no choice. Scotland remits £3.5bn for Defense regardless of the opinion of Scotland.
Under FFA either the Scottish Government chooses (and passes a budget) to remit £3.5bn or the UK Government puts in place a transparent mechanism whereby £3.5bn per annum is visibly remitted by the Scottish Revenue and Customs outside the control of Holyrood. (And of course the rest of the money for debt and the NIP and common services, visibly, transparently, without debate over the relative number).
That effectively ends the Union.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
As for after Independence...
Shrug.
If NATO say no, I would not care one jot. It would make no difference to the security of Scotland.
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
FFA implies that but I don't see the Treasury accepting that.
It is common for cities to borrow in the US. Why not here?
The treasury would not have to stand behind the debt. It would be creditors beware.
Its a Tory backbencher who is asking Scotland be given it......
David's piece (for which many thanks) is once again one with which I am broadly in disagreement. It highlights the Conservative "dilemma" that has emerged since May 7th. I sense a growing ideal to be rid of Scotland - after all, the Conservatives won their majority in England and Wales alone and the chances of Labour being able to overturn that without Scotland look to be nil (though the chances of a non or anti-Conservative grouping of parties having enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in England isn't so small).
For a Party which once had the word Unionist in its name, it's a remarkable shift in position but no more than it once being the most pro-European of the major parties now seriously considering withdrawal.
My view has always been to wonder if and how the SNP would hold its own voting coalition were independence to be achieved. I don't assume all SNP voters are ideologically akin to Salmond or Sturgeon and I would argue the politics of an independent Scotland would revert to type with a centre-left party or parties and a centre-right party or parties.
For Labour, the question is three-fold - is there a way back for the Party in Scotland within the Union, is there a way back for the Party in an independent Scotland and is there a way of breaking Conservative domination of England outside the Union ? All look tough questions to this observer and the same questions apply to the LDs and all other parties.
Granting FFA is, as others have said, a significant step down the road to full independence and it may be that were it to be granted to Scotland, some in London might start asking for something similar and, as I've always opined, an independent London is much more financially viable than an independent Scotland.
"Because pride comes before a fall"
True about unionism after the Referendum. In the case of the SNP after the self-same Referendum-pride comes after the fall.