Scotland

[Milky]

If the tables were turned and the rest of the UK were asked if they wanted to remain in a union with Scotland, why would anyone vote yes?

[Bazj]

god knows

 

the scots have spent the last couple of hundred years constantly moaning about the English anyway

[observer]

Because Milky; some of us regard ourselves as British; not Scots, Welsh, Irish or English; our Country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The big mistake imo, in the past was to give a degree of autonomy to Scotland and Wales, and London for that matter; whilst not devolving similar powers (and funding) to the Regions of England, most of which have higher populations than Scotland. Maybe, if this had been done, we could have avoided the current division in society.   

[Bazj]

I personally think that if the result of the referendum was given as a single figure rather than announcing which region voted which way and by how much, it would have saved a lot of this nonsense we are hearing now from Scotland, Northern Ireland and London

[Sha]

Because Milky; some of us regard ourselves as British; not Scots, Welsh, Irish or English; our Country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The big mistake imo, in the past was to give a degree of autonomy to Scotland and Wales, and London for that matter; whilst not devolving similar powers (and funding) to the Regions of England, most of which have higher populations than Scotland. Maybe, if this had been done, we could have avoided the current division in society.   

Ob's, I am always really baffled why you should be such a staunch supporter of devolution of power to the regions. You don't seem very fond of the present local power holders, why would you want to give them even more power?

 

When we had the NWDA and they were making decisions I thought they made a right mess of things!

When the European Regional Development fund priorities were set, Chester and West Cheshire chose investment for the tourism industry whilst Warrington chose the nuclear and the chemical industries. So the other areas got the all goodies and we got all the s***! There was no democratic choice for us 'the people', it was done and dusted long before anyone even knew about it.

 

Then, when it came to the Warrington Town Centre Regeneration project, (as Bob Barr has on numerous occasions bragged) the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted on the contracts years before there was any hint of a public consultation (and this behaviour is in contravention to European Directives)

So when a 'so called' public consultation was eventually carried out it was nothing but a farce.

Moreover, Warrington's planning records were destroyed and Walton Hall was almost sold off behind closed doors, etc. etc. etc.

Would you seriously think that giving any of the people who have done the above any more power would be a good idea?

I cringe at the thought!

 

So why is it that you are so keen on Devolution?

If I thought that any additional powers would fall into good hands I might support devolution myself - but I really don't think it likely. These people whatever they do seem to be allowed to just carry on regardless.

[Sha]

Sorry to have taken your thread 'off topic' Milky, - just trying to understand something that's been confusing me for some time.

 

 

 

Back on topic. Re splitting Scotland from the UK.

 

I think of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales as all important parts of the United Kingdom - but if Scotland wants it to be otherwise then it should be their choice.

If they go for and get independence from the rest of the UK, I'd just think it a shame we couldn't redraw the borders and go with them. On second thoughts - I think I'd wait for Wales to opt out and then move there.

[Davy51]

Presumably if Scotland split it would have to fund its own free prescriptions & other free junkets given to its citizens. Has Scotland got a big enough economy to cover its generous schemes though ?

 

As for Mayors...it seems to me that the mayoral system, which i think has come from America to provide a mouthpiece for individual cities & regions, is just another expensive tier of government ,like the police commissioners that we now have, & a stepping stone for a would be empire builder.

[fugtifino]

our Country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain

 

http://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201606/large-139469-letter.jpg

 

_{Edited for clarity of relevance.}

[observer]

Not just to the Regions Sha; but down to Borough Councils too;  the principle being to facilitate democratic control at the lowest optimum point. We have an archaic constitutional system that concentrates power in London ( and of course Brussels) , the biggest anomaly being the un-elected House of Lords, so clearly scope for developing a federal system just like Germany or Australia, indeed most modern democracies. The fact is, that within the UK, relative poverty increases as you move away from the S/East, whilst the Barnet Formula to support Council funding from HMG has helped, the Tories have never really supported needs based grant support. The biggest complaint about "devolution", is that it would involve a whole new layer of politicians; and whilst that's always a risk; the potential for a reduction exists also EG: An elected House of Lords (Senate) of 100 seats, Party List system based on PR at a General Election; which would save over 600 claims for £300per day for having a snooze in that glorified old person's home. A 50% reduction in the number of MPs, by twinning constituencies into one. So we need to look for something that is modern, efficient and relevant, that can address geographical disparities (now becoming acutely evident) within our Nation.   As for the Scottish question, if Prescott had pursued Regional devolution for the whole Country, rather than just Scotland, Wales, Ulster and London; it may not have fed into the SNP narrative of an independent Scotland.      

[Milky]

Because Milky; some of us regard ourselves as British; not Scots, Welsh, Irish or English; our Country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The big mistake imo, in the past was to give a degree of autonomy to Scotland and Wales, and London for that matter; whilst not devolving similar powers (and funding) to the Regions of England, most of which have higher populations than Scotland. Maybe, if this had been done, we could have avoided the current division in society.   

 

Yes I understand, but we seem to have a small number of people constantly whining, demanding more powers, more money and independence when it suits them, what do the Scots bring to the party?

 

Dear Observer for some reason I could not quote your post, but were the English not asked if we wanted devolution?

 

Personally I agree with Sha, we do not need more politicians and in any case you need to have some national planning.

 

Now I am taking this topic further off topic so I forgive you Sha, but house of lords, not perfect, but what would you replace it with, more elected career politicians full off self interest and loyalty to their political views. Would you like a USA style two chamber system were each house tries to block each other because they are from different sides, or the Scottish system were there is no second chamber and laws such as every child now has to have a government appointed guardian get passed?

 

In my view the House of Lords does a fairly good job a lot of the time.

 

The HoL is supposed to be a safe guard for the laws that get passed, not perfect but it is better then any alternative i can think off

[observer]

The Nation has just voted against one set of unelected politicians in Brussels;  so I doubt there would be much support for nearly 800 appointed geriatrics in the Lords.    

[Milky]

The Nation has just voted against one set of unelected politicians in Brussels;  so I doubt there would be much support for nearly 800 appointed geriatrics in the Lords.    

 

There is little support for the House of Lords but it does a fairly good job, what are the alternatives?

[observer]

Thought I'd covered that Milky:  reduce it to 100 seats (from over 700), elected on the basis of the proportion of votes cast for each party at a General Election, making it an exact representation of the Nation's political preference.     

[Milky]

Thought I'd covered that Milky:  reduce it to 100 seats (from over 700), elected on the basis of the proportion of votes cast for each party at a General Election, making it an exact representation of the Nation's political preference.     

 

And the self interest  and in fighting 

 

What is the point of duplicating   the same system?

[observer]

The upper chamber is a revising chamber, intended to make the Commons or Gov, think again. Most democracies have this system, in the USA Constitution, these checks and balances can lead to virtual non-Government, so there are no easy solutions. In an age of computers, I-phones etc, we could always move to a system of continual referendums, on each and every issue, and scrap the politicians altogether; but I guess folk have learned that referenda can be unpredictable and fickle; so we're left with politicians. The self interest and in fighting is perhaps the more civilized method of resolving political differences in society than having a civil war on the streets.    

[asperity]

I heard a Scots bloke on a radio phone in the other day saying how he "hates the English because they're all xenophobic". The irony was obviously lost on him, or perhaps it was the Irn Bru :lol:

[Davy51]

I think the House of Lords loses its integrity when we hear tales of peers being create to be sympathetic to a certain issue or when we see the Lords arriving in hordes for a particular sitting the affects their interests.

[Paul Kennedy]

I personally think that if the result of the referendum was given as a single figure rather than announcing which region voted which way and by how much, it would have saved a lot of this nonsense we are hearing now from Scotland, Northern Ireland and London

Totally agree, it was a UK Referendum, problem was that in order to get a speedy result, the ballot papers had to be counted locally...and the local figures would always get in to the public domain, even if they were not meant to.

[Paul Kennedy]

Presumably if Scotland split it would have to fund its own free prescriptions & other free junkets given to its citizens. Has Scotland got a big enough economy to cover its generous schemes though ?

 

 

No.....it is reliant on a generous Barnett Formula...provided by English taxpayers. That being said...and looking at my Clan Tartan........I want Scotland to remain a Member of the UK.

[observer]

Sorry Milky, I neglected part of one of your posts, where you asked "were the English not asked if they wanted devolution?"; and the answer is (partly) yes - Prescott held a referendum in the N/East, who voted against it - as we now know, referenda can be a serious mistake for politicians. All that was required was for Gov to adopt a Regional devolution policy throughout the UK at the same time as Scotland, Wales and London got it; there are times when we actually expect politicians to lead, rather than just follow. At that time, some UK Regions were being allocated EU funding, which was allocated on a Regional basis; however Thatcher soon put a stop to that by having it all gathered via the Treasury. The disparity between the leafy lanes of the S/East and those redundant dark satanic mills of the North, can only be addressed through support for some kind of Barnet Formula, managed by democratic Regional entities imo.      

[Bazj]

Just got back from a few days in Scotland.... there were more Union Jacks flying around Glasgow than you will see anywhere around here

[observer]

Liz has just been up there.   

[Bazj]

Liz has just been up there.   

 

she was in Edinburgh

[P J]

She still is

[Davy51]

Is this obsession with certain towns & cities campaigning for elected mayors a kind of devolution apart from hoping that it will enable these town or cities or regions  bigger bite at the economic cake ?