A Final Appeal For The Union

[Guy Incognito]

It somewhat pains me to say it but I think Cameron has been quite clever in how he has handled the referendum. Firstly, he gets Labour people, Brown and Darling, to do his donkey work for him - Darling to lead the campaign and Brown to feel all important by devising his wee timetable. He then agrees to use Brown's timetable but with the caveat of introducing constitutional reforms for England, namely banning Scots MPs from vote on English only issues.

 

Of course, Labour don't want this, as the rely on their Scottish MPs to get legislation passed. But by refusing to support Cameron's position Labour run the risk of appearing anti-English. This enables Dave to paint his party as the party of England (knowing they are a near irrelevance up here), thus appeasing his own right-wingers and spiking UKIP's guns to boot. Alternatively, Dave and co. could agree to shelve their plans for English constitutional reforms in exchange for scrapping Barnett. I don't think they'll suggest this but if they do and Labour sign up to it then they are handing the SNP some much needed ammunition.

 

How the SNP play it in the next few months will be interesting. Labour took a risk during the referendum by siding with the hated Tories. Many traditional Labour areas voted in favour of independence and no doubt contain a lot of disappointed and pissed off voters. The SNP could, then, try and position themselves to the left of Labour, which ought not be too difficult these days.

 

But the SNP have two problems. Firstly, the Labour areas that voted Yes have sitting MPs who often enjoy comfortable majorities; overcoming five figure majorities will be a mammoth task, even for a party in the ascendency. Secondly, by appearing too left-wing they may alienate their traditional vote in the north east, who have tended to support the SNP not because they favour independence but because they feel they best serve their interests in Westminster. That said, the SNP have been further left than Labour for some time (socially, at least) and have still managed to hold their traditional seats.

 

The Lib Dems, with one or two exceptions, are toast. On both sides of the border.

[Guy Incognito]

^ My point is that the Yes victory is more precarious than it might seem: it won't take a huge swing of No voters who feel they have been duped to create a resurgent Yes movement. A very possible increase in SNP Westminster gains next year places the status quo in no small level of jeopardy.

 

SNP membership has apparently doubled since Thursday. If they do make significant gains in May I think they should push for more powers, such as proper devo-max.

 

There may not be another referendum for a while but the independence genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

[Norgethistle]

 

 

SNP membership has apparently doubled since Thursday. If they do make significant gains in May I think they should push for more powers, such as proper devo-max.

 

There may not be another referendum for a while but the independence genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

 

50000 members will not win an election 2000000 voters will, a lot of people are joining SNP cause their friends are but will the full 4000000 turn up to vote at GE time?

[Guy Incognito]

50000 members will not win an election 2000000 voters will, a lot of people are joining SNP cause their friends are but will the full 4000000 turn up to vote at GE time?

 

Membership has now apparently passed 60,0000, meaning that they have overtaken the Lib Dems to be the third largest political party in the UK in terms of membership. Maybe SNP people will get invited onto Question Time every week, like UKIP.

 

I think people are joining the SNP in droves - as well as other pro-independence parties, like the Greens and the SSP - because the referendum has energised them. Anyone who thought that all those people who campaigned for independence would just quietly shuffle off into the shadows was kidding themselves on.

 

I wasn't suggesting that this means the SNP will 'win the election'. I still expect Labour to return the largest number of MPs to Westminster. However, I don't think it is beyond the SNP to significantly increase their tally of MPs in Westminster, provided they get their strategy right.

[Blackpool Jags]

 

 

Surely you mean NO victory.

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

[Norgethistle]

Membership has now apparently passed 60,0000, meaning that they have overtaken the Lib Dems to be the third largest political party in the UK in terms of membership. Maybe SNP people will get invited onto Question Time every week, like UKIP.

 

I think people are joining the SNP in droves - as well as other pro-independence parties, like the Greens and the SSP - because the referendum has energised them. Anyone who thought that all those people who campaigned for independence would just quietly shuffle off into the shadows was kidding themselves on.

 

I wasn't suggesting that this means the SNP will 'win the election'. I still expect Labour to return the largest number of MPs to Westminster. However, I don't think it is beyond the SNP to significantly increase their tally of MPs in Westminster, provided they get their strategy right.

 

Is it really that figure...... as in 60,000 have actually paid there monthly subs or have just registered?

[Blackpool Jags]

Labour Party membership is probably under 100,000 in the UK. That includes members of moribund branches who are no longer active in any way, but whose subs are paid by long-standing direct debits.

 

If the SNP membership stands at anything like 60,000 - and there is no reason to suggest it doesn't - that signifies something quite remarkable as a current political force in Scotland.

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

Is it really that figure...... as in 60,000 have actually paid there monthly subs or have just registered?

 

According to their Twitter page their 60,000 member joined this morning. You have to pay subs in order to be a member (unless you're a student, I think).

 

Edit due to typo.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Guy Incognito

[P-R]

Looking at the joining up page £1 by DD min. per month or £12 by credit card, I assume for the year.

[Jaggernaut]

^ As I said before, Parliament was in recess on 19th September. There was no way that Parliament was going to recalled for one day just ahead of the Labour Party conference. Whoever approved that leaflet should have checked that first. However, a Commons motion is not part of the formal legislative process and it would not have swayed voters on its own.

 

SO, IT WAS A LIE, THAT MANY PEOPLE BOUGHT. HOW CAN YOU KNOW THAT IT DID NOT SWAY VOTERS ON ITS OWN?

 

The rest of the timetable is tight but achievable if there the political will to adhere to it. With the 2nd reading and committee stages after the general election, the new Government will guide the Bill through Parliament. There could be a lot of new MPs who may oppose it, especially if the Labour or the Conservatives win with a large overall majority. The leaders of one or two of the main parties could resign before or after the 2nd Reading and they can't bind their successors. Those are the key points, not a Commons motion on the 19th September.

 

SO, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANY MEANINGFUL NEW POWERS BEING GRANTED TO SCOTLAND. THE WESTMINSTER PARTIES MUST LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN INTERESTS, WHICH MEANS PLACATING THE ENGLISH ELECTORATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO POLITICAL WILL TO GIVE ANY ADDITIONAL POWERS TO SCOTLAND THAT WOULD ALLOW SCOTLAND TO PROGRESS EITHER ECONOMICALLY OR SOCIALLY BEYOND THE REST OF THE UK. AS LONG AS THE UK EXISTS, SCOTLAND IS BOUND TO BE AT BEST AVERAGE, AND MOST LIKELY POORER THAN MANY OTHER REGIONS.

[kni]

^ The whole "new powers" plan was devised by the Labour-dominated No campaign. You are correct in saying that there is no guarantee of anything at the moment.

 

I had forgotten that the new powers legislation will be lost when the general election is called and Parliament is dissolved. All Bills that have not have received Royal Assent after passing through both Houses are lost.

 

The new Government will have to re-introduce the Bill by giving it a first reading, i.e. before the second reading that was referred to in the Better Together leaflet.

 

Whether you believe there is the political will depends on whether you trust Milliband who, given the current polls, is likely to need MPs in Scottish constituencies to have an overall majority and legislate on education, health etc in England.

 

However, the wealth of the country is not dependent on Westminster alone. Holyrood's policies have a major impact too. Even after independence, and Sterling-isation, the monetary policies of the Bank of England would determine Scotland's interest rates and inflation.

 

I did not trust the No campaign's propaganda any more than the Yes campaign's. Both were riddled with factual errors, bogus claims and downright lies.

 

I don't trust any of the political parties and have not voted in the last eight years. If you vote for a party, you are endorsing their manifesto policies and partisan propaganda.

[Jaggernaut]

^ The whole "new powers" plan was devised by the Labour-dominated No campaign. You are correct in saying that there is no guarantee of anything at the moment.

 

I had forgotten that the new powers legislation will be lost when the general election is called and Parliament is dissolved. All Bills that have not have received Royal Assent after passing through both Houses are lost.

 

The new Government will have to re-introduce the Bill by giving it a first reading, i.e. before the second reading that was referred to in the Better Together leaflet.

 

Whether you believe there is the political will depends on whether you trust Milliband who, given the current polls, is likely to need MPs in Scottish constituencies to have an overall majority and legislate on education, health etc in England.

 

However, the wealth of the country is not dependent on Westminster alone. Holyrood's policies have a major impact too. Even after independence, and Sterling-isation, the monetary policies of the Bank of England would determine Scotland's interest rates and inflation.

 

I did not trust the No campaign's propaganda any more than the Yes campaign's. Both were riddled with factual errors, bogus claims and downright lies.

 

I don't trust any of the political parties and have not voted in the last eight years. If you vote for a party, you are endorsing their manifesto policies and partisan propaganda.

 

For once, we are in (just about) full agreement!

[kni]

For once, we are in (just about) full agreement!

 

Good. You should now understand my general cynicism. It is bizarre that a former Prime Minister and Chancellor should get the Parliamentary process, e.g. the motion, so wrong. Two months for a consultation is very short may not be not enough and the timetable will slip unless agreement can be reached quickly. It will be a remarkable achievement to get the draft Bill published on Burns Night.

 

Presumably, Holyrood will have to pass legislation on the extra powers too and there could be a legislative deadlock between the two Parliaments. It will tough to get both Westminster and Holyrood to complete their respective legislative processes (starting in May 2015 at the earliest) before the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2016.

 

My guess is that timetable will slip and (if in power at Holyrood after 2016), the SNP will use that as the key reason to call another referendum in 2018 or 2019. Whether the Scottish people will want another referendum and vote Yes is uncertain.

Edited September 25, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Good. You should now understand my general cynicism. It is bizarre that a former Prime Minister and Chancellor should get the Parliamentary process, e.g. the motion, so wrong. Two months for a consultation is very short may not be not enough and the timetable will slip unless agreement can be reached quickly. It will be a remarkable achievement to get the draft Bill published on Burns Night.

 

Presumably, Holyrood will have to pass legislation on the extra powers too and there could be a legislative deadlock between the two Parliaments. It will tough to get both Westminster and Holyrood to complete their respective legislative processes (starting in May 2015 at the earliest) before the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2016.

 

My guess is that timetable will slip and (if in power at Holyrood after 2016), the SNP will use that as the key reason to call another referendum in 2018 or 2019. Whether the Scottish people will want another referendum and vote Yes is uncertain.

 

Yep to all of that.

[stillresigned]

For once in my life I'm going to agree with the analysis of my Unionist fellow Jags fans in that I sincerely doubt that the offer of more powers played a decisive part in the outcome of the referendum..

However, I would say that managing to convince some 45% of the Scottish electorate to vote Yes in the face of a hostile and biased assault from the organs of established Britishness was in itself no small feat. Counter intuitively, the Yes side has survived the vote, in somewhat better shape than the winning side. The level of engagement on the Yes side can be readily seen by the remarkable increases in the Yes parties and before anyone criticises me by saying that membership, voters do not make, I'd have to say that over time parties with the largest memberships and thus resources tend to do better.

Of the Unionist parties only the Conservatives have emerged relatively unscathed, that being so, perhaps because they had little (apart from oil revenues!) to lose anyway. I think the Labour Party will suffer irrevocable damage, particularly in their hitherto impregnable strongholds in parts of Scotland. Although they may be able to attract strongly Unionist/Loyalist voters who distrusted them as the "Catholic" party together with the Middle Class vote, they seem to cherish so much, to prevent a complete rout in Mat 2015: in the words of Private Fraser they are"doomed, doomed", certainly as far as their days as Scotland's main party go. The Lib Dems, already in meltdown due to their coming to the rescue of the Tories are likely to lose votes, but may well retain the majority of their seats owing to the unusual personal following enjoyed by figures such as Charlie Kennedy and Ming Campbell enjoy. However, I fear their days of influence in Scottish politics is a slowly ending, with Labour being the heir apparent.

Edited September 26, 2014 by stillresigned

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

^ The whole "new powers" plan was devised by the Labour-dominated No campaign. You are correct in saying that there is no guarantee of anything at the moment.

 

I had forgotten that the new powers legislation will be lost when the general election is called and Parliament is dissolved. All Bills that have not have received Royal Assent after passing through both Houses are lost.

 

The new Government will have to re-introduce the Bill by giving it a first reading, i.e. before the second reading that was referred to in the Better Together leaflet.

 

Whether you believe there is the political will depends on whether you trust Milliband who, given the current polls, is likely to need MPs in Scottish constituencies to have an overall majority and legislate on education, health etc in England.

 

However, the wealth of the country is not dependent on Westminster alone. Holyrood's policies have a major impact too. Even after independence, and Sterling-isation, the monetary policies of the Bank of England would determine Scotland's interest rates and inflation.

 

I did not trust the No campaign's propaganda any more than the Yes campaign's. Both were riddled with factual errors, bogus claims and downright lies.

 

I don't trust any of the political parties and have not voted in the last eight years. If you vote for a party, you are endorsing their manifesto policies and partisan propaganda.

 

I would encourage and support such scepticism but not your absence from participation. Unless, that it is, you "spoil" your paper. I hope to see the addition of a "none of the above" option on UK ballot papers in short course.

 

I'm very much of the opinion one should never "vote for a party" per se, but rather choose the candidate that one thinks will best represent one's self and one's constituency. Of course candidates' party allegiances will sway and influence that decision. However, one's primary avenue for parliamentry hearing is through one's elected representative directly, whether endorsed by one's vote or not and not via the filter of party discussion. dilution, and consensus.

 

The "proportional representation" systems of election are, in my view, an excuse for parliamentarians to blurr their connection and thier duty to the people that these institutions ought to serve and reflect and debate the opinions of.

Edited September 27, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[kni]

I would encourage and support such scepticism but not your absence from participation. Unless, that it is, you "spoil" your paper. I hope to see the addition of a "none of the above" option on UK ballot papers in short course.

 

I'm very much of the opinion one should never "vote for a party" per se, but rather choose the candidate that one thinks will best represent one's self and one's constituency. Of course candidates' party allegiances will sway and influence that decision. However, one's primary avenue for parliamentry hearing is through one's elected representative directly, whether endorsed by one's vote or not and not via the filter of party discussion. dilution, and consensus.

 

The "proportional representation" systems of election are, in my view, an excuse for parliamentarians to blurr their connection and thier duty to the people that these institutions ought to serve and reflect and debate the opinions of.

 

Very noble sentiments! However, the party leaders' patronage and the whipping system is generally effective in suppressing dissent. There are very few MPs who put the views of their constituents before party allegiance and loyalty. Then, on a topical note, there are the defectors who switch to another party and stick two fingers up to the hard-working staff and volunteers who got them elected.

 

StillResigned thinks that personal votes will enable the Lib Dems' "big beasts" to hold their seats. I am not so sure as the polls suggest that the personal vote would have to be huge, several thousand at least. I agree that Labour will be the main beneficiary in Scotland - and the north of England . The Conservatives are in pole position to gain a significant number of seats from them in southern England, including some in London.

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

@Kni

 

Thanks, but these are not idle sentiments, but rather the convictions on which I act.

 

A decent party leader should use the whip in order to hold the party to manifesto promises, not enforce personal opinions or reactive initiatives. The very few MPs who recognise the proper nature and honour of their post are the ones that should be in receipt of public support.

 

The decline of Westminster ( and Hollyrood, though i'd argue it was never thus) as the hub of debate over the nation's will can be laid firmly at the door of a succession of Presidential style Prime Ministers who have exploited the fear of sycophantic proffessional MPs of losing their jobs and who shamefully still refer to one another as "honourable members". The pressure of modern media and journalists, spuriously purporting to be the face of public scrutiny, have also contributed to our debating chamber being reduced to, at times, little more than a TV drama studio. We need to take it back.

 

I do not think anyone who resigns their membership of a party with whom's consensual opinion they no longer agree, steps down from their Membership to the House and offers themselves up for re-election can be viewed as being anything other than fair, honest and loyal to the people and the state. What more can one ask from a candidate with whom one may or may not agree or endorse their political views?

 

"The only poll that matters is election day", it's a cliche perhaps, but as with many cliches it exists due to an element of truth in its' sentiment. We are fortunate to live in a country which has achieved common adult suffrage. It is not "the system" that is broken, but by it's very nature it befalls on us all to maintain and utilise it . Otherwise, it remains open to exploitation, coruption and agenda driven distortion.

Edited September 30, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[kni]

^ I agree with most that.

 

However, MP defectors of all parties are being disloyal to the party members, activists and donors who worked hard for them and funded their election campaigns. Carswell and Reckless knew that Cameron was very pro-EU when they stood as candidates in 2010. Since then, Cameron has become more EU-sceptical and clearly promised a referendum if re-elected. Yet, they have been ready to use thin excuses rather than clear policy differences to join UKIP.

[Blackpool Jags]

^ I agree with this principle: the only time to defect (in morally acceptable circumstances) is once an election has been called, and a sitting MP has no intention of seeking re-election with his/her current party. It is grossly egotistical for any MP to take the view that their constituents voted for them and not their party. It would of course be the proper thing to do (which I think Chewinggum was saying) to stand down and contest a by-election under the banner of their new party (or as an independent candidate), in my opinion.

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Both Carswell and Reckless have resigned their seats and are standing for re-election. Neither of their constituencies had UKIP candidates at the 2010 election.

 

Their primary reasons for parting company with the conservatives are that party's lack of consensual clarity over where it stands or how it would campaign if it does win the next election and is able to deliver a pledge to hold an "in/out" referendum on EU membership, and it's failure to deliver on previous promises so to do.

 

In this instance, their disloyalty to the party is due in large part to the thin excuses and lack of firm direction delivered from it's leadership on an issue of huge national importance. Some of the supporters, activists and donors may very well be minded, and have the opportunity, to follow them. In either case, in agreement with the decision to defect or not, they would be well advised to consider their party's position on the issue and whether or not it best represents their opinions or merely gives them the best chance for electoral success.

 

By joining UKIP they are clearly supporting the policy of withdrawl from the EU. The conservatives are not at all clear or united on that.

Edited October 3, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[The Devil's Point]

 

I am perhaps too tired to address the point about when we would be ready for independence. Let me get back to you on that.

 

Have to stay awake for another ten hours at least......

 

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was asleep for two weeks.

 

They don't call me rumpledforeskin for nothing.

 

Anyway, when will Scotland be ready for independence?

 

Well pretty much any time Scottish men put the bottle down and stop beating their wives. Pretty much anytime that 100,000 Glaswegians can go to Manchester without getting completely guttered and fighting with the police. When dependency and entitlement culture is properly challenged, and freedom of speech is re-introduced. When we get our flag back.

 

I walked through the Paris streets with the Tartan Army on the way to McFadden's goal. Pure brilliant, what a feeling with all the dirty french girls staring out their windows at our kilts. After that one went in, well what a night.

 

But the truth is that like all great arguments, the effect is to bring us together, and we are better together, for now at least.

 

I can't really see why it would ever make sense for the countries of our island to split apart, but independence would certainly be possible. The referendum campaign established that I think. But a small country alone is at risk, a risk like back in 1703 when we thought we could make a fortune out or Darien (now a bit of Panama), and tried to rip the piss out of it. Lost all our money, and the 'parcel of rougues' had to sell the country for the Union. The rest is history.......

 

Hey look, we have the stunning scenery, the mountains and the rivers, the beautiful Scottish Women, the Partick Thistle and council flexi-time working hours. What the **** are we complaining about............

[The Devil's Point]

But there will be a great future for our land.

 

Scotland has welcomed and integrated people on a scale not seen outside London or the other big English cities. In my lifetime Scotland has become a much more tolerant country. No more do we talk of going to the 'pakis' or the 'chinky's'. Now we talk about going for a pint of milk, or a chinese meal, and long live the sort of Scotland that is.

 

Scotland has protected her mountains, trees, rivers and lands. There is a lot left to sell, never mind your oil.

 

But the truth is that our real plan B, our real thing, is our capacity for poetry. We thought we could romance our way out of poverty, cuts and austerity, but the women holding the household budget strings new better.

 

All males over 40 will know what it is to have a woman hold you back. Irritatingly, they usually prove right.

 

Scottish Women xxxxxxxxxxx

[The Devil's Point]

And who can we look forward to taking their place? Serious question. I've no idea. Who do you think would be cream of the crop?

 

I'd like to see Jo Swinson and Yvette Cooper.

[Jaggernaut]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was asleep for two weeks.

 

They don't call me rumpledforeskin for nothing.

 

Anyway, when will Scotland be ready for independence?

 

Well pretty much any time Scottish men put the bottle down and stop beating their wives. Pretty much anytime that 100,000 Glaswegians can go to Manchester without getting completely guttered and fighting with the police. When dependency and entitlement culture is properly challenged, and freedom of speech is re-introduced. When we get our flag back.

 

I walked through the Paris streets with the Tartan Army on the way to McFadden's goal. Pure brilliant, what a feeling with all the dirty french girls staring out their windows at our kilts. After that one went in, well what a night.

 

But the truth is that like all great arguments, the effect is to bring us together, and we are better together, for now at least.

 

I can't really see why it would ever make sense for the countries of our island to split apart, but independence would certainly be possible. The referendum campaign established that I think. But a small country alone is at risk, a risk like back in 1703 when we thought we could make a fortune out or Darien (now a bit of Panama), and tried to rip the piss out of it. Lost all our money, and the 'parcel of rougues' had to sell the country for the Union. The rest is history.......

 

Hey look, we have the stunning scenery, the mountains and the rivers, the beautiful Scottish Women, the Partick Thistle and council flexi-time working hours. What the **** are we complaining about............

 

The irony of your position about small countries is that Panama is one such small country that is doing very nicely, being independent.