Political Crossfire Forums

angusrae · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 967 Location: Falkirk Scotland

There has been more English discontent over devolution over the last few months. Will this lead to the break up of the UK

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/64358.html

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/64379.html

And if not have Gordon Brown's hopes of becomeing Prime Minister began to falter. :)

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=902282006

The last option is a bit of a joke but it could happen. :lol:

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Interesting question, angusrae, well done for posing it

I think of myself, among other things, as being British first, then English, then a looooooong way behind that, European. I believe in the United Kingdom. We've been through an awful lot together and I see no reason why we shouldn't stay together. However, that isn't to say that the move of Europe might not affect the UK in the future.....

I'm voting that the UK will survive forever - rather, longer than 100 years but less than 5000.

The way you pose the supplementary to the poll question "There has been more English discontent over devolution over the last few months. Will this lead to the break up of the UK" - is telling. I don't see the English as being the spawn of this break up talk. It was devolution as initiated in Scotland and Wales in 1999 that started the ball rolling.

Don't get me wrong - I supported and continue to support devolution. There's lots wrong with devolution in the UK - perhaps a subject for another thread. But I think it is better than what we had. Scotland has distinguishable differences from England in areas such as education, religion, banking, the law; it has a rich history as an independent nation prior to the Act of Union. Scotland taking powers from London for itself seemed eminently sensible to me. Wales is a little different, I've never been as convinced by the argument for Welsh devolution - but it's in place and is working.

I think that without devolution the Union would have been under threat from simmering resentment; the memory of the community charge / poll tax is still relatively fresh in Scotland. The SNP was starting to make inroads in the mid 90s. But with devolution in place I accept that there are pressures on the Union that would not have been there otherwise, namely the so-called 'democratic deficit'.

There is some English grumbling about the 'deficit' - Scots and Welsh MP's voting on English issues and yet English MP's unable to vote on Scotland/Wales affairs. That can easily addressed by a 'grand council' approach in the Commons.

Devolution for the English? I think not. John Prescott's plan for regional devolution in England was doomed to failure before a ballot was cast; the north-east, the north-west, these are abstract and arbitrary regions to which people feel no loyalty.

Devolution for England? Again, I'd say no. Granted, some people are asking for it - but this is on the back of wanting St George's Day to have greater recognition and the escapades of England's sporting teams. But if a politician was to stand up and make a planned, costed proposal for a parliament for England, he'd get nowhere. What would it in effect mean? Devolution for Scotland and Wales is, arguably, more localised government. Scotland has a population of 5 million, Wales of 3. England's population is 51 million. So having two parliaments - Westminster for 60 million Britons and one somewhere else (Birmingham? Manchester?) for 51 million English men and women - would be just unnecessary duplication of effort, just another layer of bureaucracy.

And your point about Gordon Brown is very interesting! I think he is very conscious of the problem he's facing - hence why all the talk of 'Britishness', a Union flag in every garden, Veterans' Day etc.....

angusrae · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 967 Location: Falkirk Scotland

I understand the resentment by the voters of England on Scots MPs voting on Devolved matters. It was and still is in a roundabout way a major reason for my commitment to Scottish Independence I.e The English majority imposing solutions for UK wide problems which were best suited for England or the South East of England with no regard for the effect on other regions and nations within the UK(Just because it works in London do'es not mean it will work in Inverness, Newcastle or Cardiff). Now English voters are facing the prospect of Labour's Scottish Legions imposing Tony Blair's edicts on England while being shielded from any electoral fallout by the devolved settlement. Now in this area the Tories and the SNP have taken a prinicipaled stand neither parties MP's at Westminister vote on Devolved matters (unless a sewell motion is in effect). A stand I agree with it at least try's to address the West Lothian question posed by Tam Dalyell in the 70's. However the calls for further Area's to have a devolved Chamber/Assembly will not disappear Cornwall's Meybow Kernow is only the beginning. I have always wonder why some people feared devolution it has been party of British Politics For Centuries. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands both have forms of Self Government within the umbrella of the United Kingdom.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

I agree with you angusrea re the long standing status of devolution within the UK - the Isle of Man and the States governments in Jersey, Guernsey etc enjoy a great degree of independence but with external relations handled from London. Devolution for England, though, just doesn't fly. The identity of the English has always been wrapped with that of the United Kingdom, certainly post Union. I've always detested the synonymity of 'English' with 'British' - as demeaning to the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish. But that confusion that is wrapped around English identity means, to me, that devolution for England would do nothing whatsoever to make the English more 'empowered' within the UK - it would merely lead to the recruitment of several thousand more civil servants and a whole industry around them. A devolved English parliament would still need one or two levels of local government below it; as I said in my earlier post, I just don't see the improvement in having one UK parliament of 60 million then an English parliament for 50+ million.

I've always understood the resentment felt in the nations of the UK at London imposed solutions. I think devolution for Scotland and Wales addresses that resentment to varying degrees. However, having spent a little time in Edinburgh when the Parliament was officially opened, taking a look at the devolution record in Scotland, one argument put to me was that a number of Scots feel the same antagonism towards the devolution 'industry' in Edinburgh. They feel the same sort of dislocation they felt towards London. Similarly in Wales, those in North Wales feel little affinity towards the 'Taffia' in South Wales and Cardiff. However I think this has as much to do with people's attitudes towards politicians rather than to the state of the nation.

The West Lothian Question is at the very heart of that 'democratic deficit'. I applaud the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives for not voting on English matters at Westminster. However I understand that such principle would come at extortionate costs for the Labour government - perhaps whole rafts of legislation would be derailed. Oddly enough, though, it might provide a great opportunity for British politics. The government would be forced to seek greater support from other parties for its legislative programme which in turn might lead to a more 'grown-up', less adversarial style of politics. But what happens when we have a Conservative government depending for its majority SOLELY on English MP's, I don't know!

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: The government would be forced to seek greater support from other parties for its legislative programme which in turn might lead to a more 'grown-up', less adversarial style of politics.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but I don't equate 'grown-up' with mindless agreement or sacrificing ones reasoned beliefs in order to appear in a certain light.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: The government would be forced to seek greater support from other parties for its legislative programme which in turn might lead to a more 'grown-up', less adversarial style of politics.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but I don't equate 'grown-up' with mindless agreement or sacrificing ones reasoned beliefs in order to appear in a certain light.

Hijacking is no problem but how about going into detail as to what you actually mean? We're discussing Westminster politics and if you're familiar with it you will know to what I refer when I talk about adversarial politics. You may well be fully versant with Westminster politics but as you're from Somalia I'm not sure - apologies if I'm stating the obvious. BTW, I don't equate 'grown-up' with mindless agreement nor with sacrificing reasoned beliefs.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Yes, MPs jeer and make jokes at one another but they are vying for immense power. Whilst I don't believe such power should exist, if they do it in any other way than adversarially we get a consensus of corruption or extreme dishonesty.

Either all the politicians get in bed together, or they pretend to be friends just for show. Politics is not a game, and the political system prfoundly effects (destroys, in my belief) many peoples lives.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Robin Hood wrote: Yes, MPs jeer and make jokes at one another but they are vying for immense power. Whilst I don't believe such power should exist, if they do it in any other way than adversarially we get a consensus of corruption or extreme dishonesty.

Either all the politicians get in bed together, or they pretend to be friends just for show. Politics is not a game, and the political system prfoundly effects (destroys, in my belief) many peoples lives.

Ok, now I see where you're coming from - thanks for the clarification. You're right, you never want a situation where polticians become too cosy - it isn't healthy. But I think that constructive dialogue is a very healthy thing for parliamentary democracy. A good recent example is the Labour government's reform plans for education. The Conservative opposition had an opportunity to score a palpable hit on Tony Blair by voting him down, even though they agreed with the PM on the fundamentals of the policy. The Conservatives voted on the policy and not on the politics. That's the sort of grown up politics I want to see.

antonio62 · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject:

I can see it being less than 10 years. The SNP will win the next election and we will probably have an independence referndum. Whether the referendum suceeds or not is another story. Support for the breaking of the union if growing in both Scotland and England so it might succeed. I would see it being a tight vote and it could go either way.

RedSpectre · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 31 Location: Derby, UK

I predict we will be invaded by America in the next 5-10 years.

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1833 Location: European Union

RedSpectre wrote: I predict we will be invaded by America in the next 5-10 years.
Why would they need to invade?..I thought you were the 52nd state.
:wink:

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5667

antonio62 wrote: I can see it being less than 10 years. The SNP will win the next election and we will probably have an independence referndum. Whether the referendum suceeds or not is another story. Support for the breaking of the union if growing in both Scotland and England so it might succeed. I would see it being a tight vote and it could go either way.

If there was a referendum, I'd say that Scotland would vote not to devolve. The economics of it I wouldn't way up for Scotland I'd say...

antonio62 · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:50 am Post subject:

Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I can see it being less than 10 years. The SNP will win the next election and we will probably have an independence referndum. Whether the referendum suceeds or not is another story. Support for the breaking of the union if growing in both Scotland and England so it might succeed. I would see it being a tight vote and it could go either way.

If there was a referendum, I'd say that Scotland would vote not to devolve. The economics of it I wouldn't way up for Scotland I'd say...

They would. Britain hampers the ecconomy of each part.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

antonio62 wrote: Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I can see it being less than 10 years. The SNP will win the next election and we will probably have an independence referndum. Whether the referendum suceeds or not is another story. Support for the breaking of the union if growing in both Scotland and England so it might succeed. I would see it being a tight vote and it could go either way.

If there was a referendum, I'd say that Scotland would vote not to devolve. The economics of it I wouldn't way up for Scotland I'd say...

They would. Britain hampers the ecconomy of each part.

Just how does Britain hamper the economy of the nations of the UK?

antonio62 · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:21 am Post subject:

DSwain wrote: antonio62 wrote: Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I can see it being less than 10 years. The SNP will win the next election and we will probably have an independence referndum. Whether the referendum suceeds or not is another story. Support for the breaking of the union if growing in both Scotland and England so it might succeed. I would see it being a tight vote and it could go either way.

If there was a referendum, I'd say that Scotland would vote not to devolve. The economics of it I wouldn't way up for Scotland I'd say...

They would. Britain hampers the ecconomy of each part.

Just how does Britain hamper the economy of the nations of the UK?

They try to operate a one size fits all policy that fits no one.

mendosan · Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 2322

Well if it means my taxes arne't spent on Scottish people on incapacity benefit im all for a split

angusrae · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 967 Location: Falkirk Scotland

mendosan wrote: Well if it means my taxes arne't spent on Scottish people on incapacity benefit im all for a split

In reply as long as Scotland Oil revenues are not spent on England's new nuclear deterants and The North of Englands unemployed

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

If we're going to devolve then let's at least do it properly. Rather than devolving to new random lines on the map, let's shift power back to the individual over his/her own life.

Scotland receives more in tax revenues than England does in oil money, but England's tax revenues - and the socialism that follows with it - has done more to wreck the economy of Scotland than anything else.

antonio62 · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:41 am Post subject:

Robin Hood wrote: If we're going to devolve then let's at least do it properly. Rather than devolving to new random lines on the map, let's shift power back to the individual over his/her own life.

Scotland receives more in tax revenues than England does in oil money, but England's tax revenues - and the socialism that follows with it - has done more to wreck the economy of Scotland than anything else.

The Scottish economy is to be doing better than anywhere outside the south east. Before anyone starts saying about the English tax revenues going to Scotland I'd like to point out we don't need them. And the other areas also receive disproportionate amounts of money.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

antonio62 wrote: Robin Hood wrote: If we're going to devolve then let's at least do it properly. Rather than devolving to new random lines on the map, let's shift power back to the individual over his/her own life.

Scotland receives more in tax revenues than England does in oil money, but England's tax revenues - and the socialism that follows with it - has done more to wreck the economy of Scotland than anything else.

The Scottish economy is to be doing better than anywhere outside the south east. Before anyone starts saying about the English tax revenues going to Scotland I'd like to point out we don't need them. And the other areas also receive disproportionate amounts of money.

Two words - Barnett Formula. Talk to an English parent in Northumbria and hear how much less money their local school has compared to the Scots' school over the border.

And you think the UK suffers from a 'one size fits all' economic policy? Well, from your own words Scotland hasn't done that badly. I'll remind you that Scotland now has tax varying powers in Edinburgh. Also, economic development is now a devolved responsibility. And take a look at economic policy in the Euro zone today, even better try it in a loose confederation of small European states with one currency for 300 million people and one interest rate. THAT'S one size fits all.