By a Newsnet reporter

Following Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to Edinburgh on Thursday to meet with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond,  Mr Salmond has called on Mr Cameron to "spell out" the details of his apparent offer to consider more powers for the Scottish Parliament. 

Mr Cameron had said on Thursday that any such proposal could only be considered after Scotland had voted against independence, but yesterday Mr Salmond demanded specifics from the Prime Minister, and said that Mr Cameron had a "democratic obligation" to allow the voters of Scotland to examine his offer.

On Thursday when meeting with business leaders in Edinburgh, the UK PM said that a No vote in the referendum did not have to be "the end of the road" for devolution, adding, "I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further.  And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved."

The First Minister has insisted that Scots would "not be fooled" by Mr Cameron's apparent offer, which was eerily reminiscent of promises made by Conservative leaders prior to the 1979 referendum on Home Rule.  

During the 1979 campaign, former Conservative Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas Home promised that if Scots voted no, the Conservative government would offer "something better".  The day before the referendum, Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher pledged that a no vote would not kill devolution, adding:  "[A no vote] will open the way for all parties to explore together a lasting alternative arrangement which can enjoy the support of the whole British people."

Even though a majority voted in favour, the referendum narrowly failed to pass the artificial hurdle set by Westminster that 40% of those on the electoral roll must vote in favour, and not - as in all elections and referendums before and since - a simple majority of those who voted.  Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister later that year, and Scottish Home Rule was off the table for almost 20 years.

In an interview with today's Scotland on Sunday, former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling conceded that the Scottish Parliament should have extra powers and went further than the Prime Minister by raising the possibility of transferring control of income tax to Holyrood.  However Mr Darling backed the Prime Minister's stance that a discussion of the details of extra powers could only be had after Scots had voted against independence.

However Mr Cameron's offer was criticised for its lack of clarity and detail.  A spokesperson for Mr Salmond said that if the anti-independence parties have an offer to make on extra powers for Holyrood, they must clearly spell out what is on the table in order that Scottish voters may make an informed choice.

SNP veteran Winnie Ewing, who took an active role in the 1979 referendum campaign, said the the experience of that campaign proved that Conservatives cannot be trusted on Scottish home rule.  She said:

"When I heard David Cameron say last week that if people voted No to independence in the referendum, then he would deliver more powers for Scotland, my mind went back immediately to the scandal of 1979 when Scotland was cheated out of a parliament.

"In February 1979, just days before the devolution referendum, former Conservative Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home told Scots that if they voted against the assembly then on offer, a future Tory Government would deliver a better scheme.  And we know fine what happened. 

“Scotland actually did vote Yes - though not in sufficient numbers because of the infamous 40 per cent rule - but we didn't get a parliament.  Instead, we got Margaret Thatcher - and 18 long years of a Tory government Scotland didn't vote for.

"I was a very good friend of Alec Douglas-Home. I would meet him when we were both MPs, on the Terrace of the House of Commons in the morning, where we would both draft our speeches to be made later in the day. We would often exchange jokes that we would include in Burns Supper speeches.

"It was on one of these informal occasions that he once said to me: 'Winnie, I am a nationalist in my heart but not my head'. I remember that I replied to him quoting Burns: 'The herts aye the pert that aye maks us richt or wrang'.

So we got on very well. And, therefore, I am sure that he himself was sincere at the time when he made this promise to Scotland, to deliver a better Bill. But of course the promise was never fulfilled by the Tories, and unfortunately Alec's name will forever be associated with this breach of faith by his party.

"So let's not have a repeat of history, and not be gulled by empty promises from David Cameron.

"When Alex Salmond comes forward with the referendum in autumn 2014, grab with both hands the opportunity for Scotland to become an equal and independent nation.  Alec Douglas-Home offered Scotland "jam tomorrow" in 1979 - and we got 18 wasted years.

"Scotland has another opportunity to take a step forward - and I'd advise the people of Scotland to trust themselves, not Mr Cameron."

Mr Salmond's office said in a statement:

"David Cameron himself has now said that more powers for Scotland, beyond the current Scotland Bill, is 'on the table'.

"If he has this card up his sleeve, he has a democratic obligation to put it on the table - and to place it face up, so that the people of Scotland can see what it amounts to.

"Not only does this apparent offer need to be in the public domain well before the referendum, David Cameron should spell it out within the timescale of the Scottish Government's consultation on the referendum, which ends on May 11.  That is plenty of time, if the Prime Minister and his colleagues are serious about it.

"People across civic Scotland are considering the powers that Scotland needs to have a successful economy and fair society - instead of punitive cuts and a stagnant economy from the UK coalition - and are weighing up the arguments for a possible 'devo-max' option in the referendum.

"They - along with everyone else in Scotland - are entitled to know what is in the Prime Minister's mind, how developed this supposed offer is, and whether it includes real economic powers and responsibility for the welfare system, for example."

Comments  

 
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 08:39
Cameron has the power to alter the Scotland Bill to give the scottish people the increased devolution they desire.

He could quite easily have it all set up in advance so that the day after the referendum, should it return a no vote, the new devolution settlement begins.

He could even have it in place BEFORE the referendum and say to the Scots "look what we have given you within the union", but he wont.

There is nothing in this world that can get me to believe that a promise from a Tory to "Think about, reviewing further devolution" is anything more than lip service to the hard of thinking.
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-20 08:44
Something the politicos need to keep in mind is that this referendum is a buyers market. Like anyone interested in buying into something new and expensive I'm going to want to know everything I can about it and test and compare the alternatives. Now, independence as a product, has been on the assembly and testing line for a while now, we know the bare bones of the animal and await the test result details to clinch the deal.

We also know as do the unionists that status quo is an old model lemon in need of a face lift if it is to compete with independence. Sadly new parts and technologies are swiftly overtaking this model's ability to compete in the modern market and we don't like the company brand or ethics. Lastly there is the new kid on the playground, devo max, a flash and good looking piece of kit with an unknown pedigree. Nobody knows much about it, how it will be applied to all partners involved, who's actually behind the proposition that can deliver the goods, but on paper its a good idea. It just needs the main partner to relinquish all said powers and responsibilitie s back to the juniors in order to retain a union on said paper. It will also require a root and branch federal reworking of Britain's politics eventually in order to work properly.

But the important thing here is we do have choices. Forget what Westminster says on the subject. Do you want the product on sale? What is the product's pedigree and reliability? How does it work? How much will it cost? This time we really need to think about offers made by slick Westminster salesmen. They have the habit of selling you lemons which require a lot of repeat visits to highly expensive mechanics. If that Westminster salesman is avoiding eye contact and isn't too clear on his own model's future specs or performance? Well, we don't throw good money after bad do we?
 
 
# Holebender 2012-02-20 10:31
I do not accept that Scotland or its parliament is a junior partner in anything!
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-20 11:55
Poor choice of words HB. Would you settle for smaller partners?
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 10:27
O/T but at a tangent
Looks like the good lords have already decided what Scotland can have by way of a referendum. Has anyone told Mr. Salmond ?

"Lords Constitution Committee back UK Government stance on powers of Scottish Parliament to call independence referendum "

parliament.uk/.../...

extract....
Commenting Baroness Jay, Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said:

“Having looked in detail at the consultation papers by both the UK and Scottish Governments, and a significant amount of case law, it is clear that currently the Scottish Parliament cannot unilaterally call an independence referendum.

We are firmly of the view that any referendum that is held must be a straight choice between full independence or the status-quo. A third ‘devolution-max’ option is clearly something every part of the UK must have a say in as it has the potential to create different and competing tax regimes within the UK.

Any question asked in a referendum must be fair and neutral. For that reason it is important that the Electoral Commission is involved to make sure that any proposed question is clear and unambiguous before it goes to the public vote.”

WEll that's it decided then ..may as well have the referendum next week if not sooner.


PS they must be clairvoyant as well...

“Having looked in detail at the consultation papers by both the UK and Scottish Governments.
 
 
# Davy 2012-02-20 11:42
Quoting jafurn:
O/T but at a tangent
Looks like the good lords have already decided what Scotland can have by way of a referendum. Has anyone told Mr. Salmond ?

"Lords Constitution Committee back UK Government stance on powers of Scottish Parliament to call independence referendum "

parliament.uk/.../...

extract....
Commenting Baroness Jay, Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said:

“Having looked in detail at the consultation papers by both the UK and Scottish Governments, and a significant amount of case law, it is clear that currently the Scottish Parliament cannot unilaterally call an independence referendum.

We are firmly of the view that any referendum that is held must be a straight choice between full independence or the status-quo. A third ‘devolution-max’ option is clearly something every part of the UK must have a say in as it has the potential to create different and competing tax regimes within the UK.

Any question asked in a referendum must be fair and neutral. For that reason it is important that the Electoral Commission is involved to make sure that any proposed question is clear and unambiguous before it goes to the public vote.”

WEll that's it decided then ..may as well have the referendum next week if not sooner.


PS they must be clairvoyant as well...

“Having looked in detail at the consultation papers by both the UK and Scottish Governments.


Just think with Independence we will be rid of that self-centred, un-elected bunch of lords, and that alone is enough to make me vote for Independence.
 
 
# josepy wallace 2012-02-20 12:01
i would not trust this cameron as far as i could throw him he has stated there will be no new powers he has now there can but only after is that not a fom of bribery fixing the referendum he then said we cant go it alone then sid we can and so can england so what is he going to offer that we cant have for ourselfs if we vote yes why does he want to keep hanging onto scotland? well this is all about if he lets us go then he will be in the history books for all the wrong reasons he said we should embrace the history of 33 hundred yrs well me i want to embrace the future of an Independant Scotland is this so hrd for him to grasp
 
 
# josepy wallace 2012-02-20 12:07
sorry about not making myself clear going to clean this keyboard 300 yrs of history i had 10 with my wife but when the marriage was over then it was over mr cameron needs to embrace that the people of Scotland want more than high taxes, high gas and eletric fuel at the pump illegal wars bias by the BBC towards Scots we want more for the people of Scotland not more of the same from the tories have a good day
 
 
# pinkrose 2012-02-20 12:21
If I remember rightly just after the election last year and with a huge mandate, the SNP asked Westminster to consider handing over at least 6 new powers including control of Crown estate, broadcasting, corporation tax etc. As expected nothing has been handed over. Now if the SNP cannot negotiate these things with the mandate they have, who will be able to negotiate any meaningful powers to be handed over in the event of a no vote? It just won't happen and if Cameron was sincere about it he would concede to some of these requests now and put his cards on the table.

We cannot trust him, vote Yes!
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 12:31
Here is NIck Clegg spouting the 'jam tomorrow' mantra (from 1st February 2012) even before Mr Cameron's speech last week. Seems like this is a concerted effort by all the unionists to try to pull the wool over Scottish eyes again...

watch here from about 25 minutes in.....

parliamentlive.tv/.../...
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 14:00
I posted this on another site but its relevant here too...

I watched Camerons speech and cannot for the life of me say it hit the right tones.

There was an admission that Scotland could be independent (and flourish) if independent, thereby admitting that the economic arguments are total tosh, followed by rosy platitudes. So despite the warm rhetoric, admission that Scotland could go it alone and absence of baseless scaremongering, there was still no substance and NO POSITIVE CASE FOR THE UNION!

He claimed we are be stronger, safer, richer and fairer within the union.

Let’s look at each of those.

STRONGER - The thrust of the argument seemed to be that it was preferable to be a country that spends disproportionat ely more money on the military than any other for its size. We have the 7th highest GDP in the world and spend the 4th most on the Military. This apparently gives us the ability to grandstand as a nuclear power and launch illegal wars in the Middle East for resources. Scotland contributes £3.16 Billion to defence of the UK currently and receives an in country spending of about £1.6 Billion. It has been estimated that a Scottish Defence Force would cost £2.2 Billion a year to run, thereby saving Scotland money and increasing the spend in country by over £500 million. This would also help to revitalise the defence industry in Scotland as both build and maintenance contracts would have to be undertaken.

SAFER - Our Nukes are all stored next to the largest population centre in Scotland (Glasgow), so if there is an accident or a terrorist attack then god help the Weegies... not to mention the fact that as the UK's entire deterrent is located there that Glasgow would be incinerated in the event of the type of war that these weapons were designed to protect us from. The international grandstanding of Westminster has earned us many enemies overseas and they can inflict damage on us economically and physically. An independent Scotland would not stir up resentment globally in this manner and could work as a good trading partner in the world, reducing our risk of attack and disruption.
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 14:01
CONT...

RICHER - Scotland contributes 9.4% of all UK Taxes to the Treasury from 8.4% of the population. We spend 9.3% of UK revenues so there is a 0.1% subsidy at present to the UK. This would not be significant to the UK but could markedly change the funding of an independent Scotland. In defence, as has already been stated, the Scottish Defence Force (SDF) would cost £960 million less to run than we currently contribute to the UK Defence. The jobs that are currently undertaken on behalf of Scotland by civil servants in London will need to be undertaken by new Civil Servants in Scotland and as such would provide thousands of jobs, reducing unemployment, increasing tax take and providing stimulus to the Scottish Economy. On top of this the Scottish posts would be cheaper as average wages are lower than in London and there would be no need for the £3k London Living allowance paid to those civil servants in London. This would again reduce the cost of governance in an independent Scotland. The true measure of the wealth of a Nation is not GDP on its own but GDP per head of population. Under this measure the UK currently sits at 15th according to the OECD, who also calculated that should Scotland become independent that it would occupy the number 6 slot and as such knock Australia into seventh position. This is not a Scottish Government report but a report by a trusted international body.

FAIRER - Scotland does not vote for Conservative Governments and has not done so for 60 years yet we have had to endure them with regularity as there is a massive democratic deficit in the voting power of Scotland versus England. The size differential swallows up Scotland and makes it that it matters little which way Scottish voters vote as only the swing seats of middle England can provide power to a UK party. This has resulted in policies being tailored to suit those swing voters in this region rather than for the whole of the UK. Scotland cherishes Free Education, Healthcare, Social provision and Care of the Elderly and vulnerable. Westminster wants to impose £9k student fees, end free prescriptions, end free elderly care, introduce free market economics and privatisation into the NHS and destroy the benefits of the needy (In some cases forcing those dying of cancer back to work or face losing what reduced benefits they do receive), and is trying to do so through the Scotland Bill, without public consultation or openness and most certainly against the wishes of the Scottish Electorate.

So when I hear a Tory telling me that if we vote NO that we will be Stronger, Safer, Richer and Fairer, I know that they are lying through their teeth!!! Why else would they have buried the McCrone Report for 30 years? Why we are still told Oil and Gas will run out in 10 years by the government yet BP is investing in infrastructure for another 50 years?

Promises of "Jam Tomorrow" from Cameron will not wash especially since we remember the 79 referendum and the Conservative Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas Home promised that if Scots voted no, the Conservative government would offer "something better". The day before the referendum, Margaret Thatcher said that “A no vote will open the way for all parties to explore together a lasting alternative arrangement which can enjoy the support of the whole British people".

So when I hear Cameron saying that we should vote NO because we can then review later a further Devolution settlement that suits the UK better as a whole, I am reminded of Thatcher and the lost promise, 18 years of campaigning, international pressure and eventually another referendum that the Labour party didn’t want to pass (But it did), and I think to myself "Do I really want another 2 decades of Tory Asset Stripping of Scotland or do I want to be in charge of my own destiny?". I'll leave you to think of your own answer!
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 14:47
Well put sleekit and I have nothing to add except.. I'll take it where do I sign.
 
 
# exel 2012-02-20 12:58
From the article
"Not only does this apparent offer need to be in the public domain well before the referendum, David Cameron should spell it out within the timescale of the Scottish Government's consultation on the referendum, which ends on May 11. That is plenty of time, if the Prime Minister and his colleagues are serious about it.”

I agree entirely with this diagnosis, but the medicine you prescribe is equally unpalatable to all Political Parties. The illness is a lack of self determination being experienced by all of the UK electorate.

Macart 2012-02-20 08:44
“Something the politicos need to keep in mind is that this referendum is a buyers market. Like anyone interested in buying into something new and expensive I'm going to want to know everything I can about it and test and compare the alternatives. Now, independence as a product, has been on the assembly and testing line for a while now, we know the bare bones of the animal and await the test result details to clinch the deal.”

Macart you I think are more in tune with the patient’s problem. Your second paragraph however only prescribes one medicine, Independence. As you say this medicine is still testing, and the side effect still not fully understood.

There is however a second medicine Federalism, all the politicos, unionist and nationalist know of this cure for “lack of self determination” it has been tried and test throughout the world with amazing results. It also has side effects as all medicines do.

But we have a clever and articulate patient, who will tell us which side effects they are willing to endure for the cure.

All that is required of the politicos is to lay out their arguments and let the patient decide Independence or Federalism?
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 14:09
exel,

Rather than your continual nay saying and subtle Salmond bashing, this was a quite good posting...

BUT...

The "Medincine" of Independence has precidents in the world for us to draw conclusions from. It has the backing of the international community and we know that if we choose it, we will at least receive it.

The "Medicine" of Federalism is more akin to being American and needing a new drug to cure your disease, knowing what that drug is, but having the possibility that the insurance money men (Westminster) deny you it because thay want more profit. Federalism comes with no guarantees of implementation! We might not even get treated.

No, I'll stick to the guaranteed to be delivered if chosen option.

We can all worry about the side effects later.
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-20 14:11
As I posted above exel, devo max and a complete federal overhaul of the union does look good. Problem is no political party involved in the referendum is advocating it or outlining it fully as an option. If all that is on offer at the end of the day is status quo or independence then I'm afraid I won't be opting for status quo.

The best the public can do is use the consultation paper to en masse let the government know they want this as a viable option. How that then gets delivered is for a far better mind than mine to work out because I don't see how it can be. As far as I can see it would take a concerted effort by all parties and in particular those running the show at Westminster to give up their control and vested interests in order to completely overhaul politics as it is done in Britain. I would be delighted if we could see a multi option referendum where all three options were presented, that would be the ideal and proper scenario, but the third position has to be championed by someone in order to carry any weight surely?

The SG can't argue both cases and the Libdems who have proposed a federal case in the past won't touch it at all now that they've been given the opportunity. Conservative and Labour interests are fully entrenched in status quo. So unless a champion of the federal cause appears out of nowhere it will be a one question ballot regardless. And yes I think that is a sad thing because we are mature enough to make informed choices placed before us regardless of how many questions there are. It would also leave no doubt that whatever choice we finally make we would have considered all options.
 
 
# exel 2012-02-20 15:08
# Macart 2012-02-20 14:11
“As I posted above exel, devo max and a complete federal overhaul of the union does look good. Problem is no political party involved in the referendum is advocating it or outlining it fully as an option. If all that is on offer at the end of the day is status quo or independence then I'm afraid I won't be opting for status quo.”

I have agreed with that Macart.

At the moment the status quo is not an option in people’s minds anyway.

I have said repeatedly that it is not only up to political parties to suggest the options. The Scottish Parliament is consulting on what the question should be as you say.

Hopefully a “Statesman” of sufficient stature will emerge during this consultation and articulate a solution.
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-02-20 14:13
There is however a second medicine Federalism, all the politicos, unionist and nationalist know of this cure for “lack of self determination” it has been tried and test throughout the world with amazing results. It also has side effects as all medicines do.


likewise exel, independence has been tried and tested throughout the world with amazing results.
 
 
# handclapping 2012-02-20 14:31
The times they are a changing with great rapidity and what worries me is the lack of any, repeat any, discussion of what the effect of the referendum would have on the UK or rUK.

The nats are being asked what would their proposal do and the unionists are "demanding" answers but noone is being asked what happens if freedom fails and we should be demanding the answers to that as well. Not just what extra devolution but how safe is the pound and our pensions, not just carriers with no planes but will there be any defence at all, not just EU in or out but will we still be wanted as America's poodle?

Then we could have a debate.
 
 
# exel 2012-02-20 14:48
@Sleekit: “The "Medincine" of Independence has precidents in the world for us to draw conclusions from. It has the backing of the international community and we know that if we choose it, we will at least receive it.”

You are correct, if we vote for independence we mandate the Scottish Parliament to open negotiations with Westminster Parliament to secede from the union.

BUT!!

It is also true that if we vote for federalism, we also mandate the Scottish Parliament to negotiate with the Westminster Parliament to set up a new devolution settlement or even more importantly a much needed “Far Reaching” constitutional change to the UK and perhaps cure the illness of “lack of self determination” in all four states in the union.

No “medicine” comes with cast iron guarantees. Self determination certainly does not. So it must be the decision of a majority of the Scottish people armed with the pro and cons.

NOT THE PREFERENCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES!!
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 14:56
# exel
BUT!!
It is also true that if we vote for federalism, we also mandate the Scottish Parliament to negotiate with the Westminster Parliament to set up a new devolution settlement or even more importantly a much needed “Far Reaching” constitutional change to the UK and perhaps cure the illness of “lack of self determination” in all four states in the union.

That would be something to consider if it was something ON OFFER. all that would be on offer if there is only one question would be Independence or the Status Quo.
Given that even Mr Darling said yesterday that Status Quo is no longer an option that only leaves Independence.
Now unless you are willing to trust the unionists to revisit devolution wit the aim of granting more power then there is no option.
Are you seriously proposing that having come this far / close to Independence we should throw it away for a promise......get real exel
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 15:04
exel

We both know that a vote for independence will see this achieved.

If the people of Scotland vote for Independence then it will be accepted by the international community.

The NEGOTIATIONS with westminster would not be about getting independence, they would be about dividing the assets and liabilities and setting a timeframe for actions.

Westminster gets no say on if we become independent or not in this scenario.

On the other hand for Federalism there are no international laws that allow outside interference in the internal workings of a state.

Westminster can decide IF, WHEN and HOW any additional powers are transferred. The Scottish Government would have NO power to dictate terms as the threat of Independence would have been removed from the equation.

Indeed, with no threat of independence the "new" devolution settlement offered by Cameron may well be backwards, not forwards!

There are no Guarantees with either Federalism or Independence by themselves, BUT there is a Guarantee that if Independence is voted for it will be implemented!
 
 
# exel 2012-02-20 21:32
# Sleekit 2012-02-20 15:04

“The NEGOTIATIONS with westminster would not be about getting independence, they would be about dividing the assets and liabilities and setting a timeframe for actions.”

I simply do not agree with your conclusion. The negotiations would be about seceding from the treaty of Union

“On the other hand for Federalism there are no international laws that allow outside interference int he internal workings of a state.”

Again I must disagree. The international law is the same for independence and federalism. As far as self determination is concerned.

NB.
Self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.

The key phrase is: ” whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.”
 
 
# manxbhoy 2012-02-20 22:04
I simply do not agree with your conclusion. The negotiations would be about seceding from the treaty of Union

exel, if you are correct in your assumption highlighted above. which i personally doubt Could you please explain exactly who Scotland as a co-signatory of the union treaty, would be negotiating with?
I am trying to be gentle with you here, but the fallacy that the UK parliament as a creature of the treaty could continue to exist and somehow morph into a nascent english parliament is ridiculous. And as a strong supporter of federalism, or confederalism to give it its proper title YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
 
 
# exel 2012-02-20 23:19
manxbhoy 2012-02-20 22:04
“exel, if you are correct in your assumption highlighted above. which i personally doubt Could you please explain exactly who Scotland as a co-signatory of the union treaty, would be negotiating with?
I am trying to be gentle with you here, but the fallacy that the UK parliament as a creature of the treaty could continue to exist and somehow morph into a nascent english parliament is ridiculous. And as a strong supporter of federalism, or confederalism to give it its proper title YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER!”

It is my understanding that the English and the Scottish Parliaments were put into abeyance on the signing of the 1707 Treaty and Westminster was eventually adopted as the UK Parliament.

The Scotland Act reconstituted the Scottish Parliament as a devolved (subsidiary) parliament of the UK. Therefore the secession is by the Scottish Parliament from the UK Parliament.

I have no doubt that the UK Parliament will pass an act reconstituting the English Parliament in due course.

This is of course is my opinion only.
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-21 09:53
exel

"I have no doubt that the UK Parliament will pass an act reconstituting the English Parliament in due course.

This is of course is my opinion only"


In that scenario what will be done with the current MP's with seats in Scottish constituencies?
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 15:58
O T
This is something which could knock the referendum debate off the front page....


Watch live coverage of MPs debating a motion on Iran on 20 February 2012.
The backbench business motion for debate has been tabled by the Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay, John Baron.
The motion argues that "the use of force against Iran would be wholly counter-productive and would serve only to encourage any development of nuclear weapons".
Mr Baron's motion also asks the government "to rule out the use of force against Iran and reduce tensions by redoubling diplomatic efforts".
A cross-party group of MPs have tabled an amendment to the motion which supports "a combination of pressure in the form of robust sanctions, and engagement".
The amendment opposes Mr Baron's proposal to rule out the use of force and instead supports "making clear to Iran that all options for addressing the issue remain on the table".


Do we hear the drums of war rumbling...

20 February 2012
5pm: Motion on Iran

news.bbc.co.uk/.../9697931.stm
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-20 17:32
20 February 2012
5pm: Motion on Iran

This is a rerun of the Iraq arguments...will we never learn?
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2012-02-20 22:58
Yhe problem is that we, the people, understand it's the morons in Westminster who understand nuffingk!
 
 
# call me dave 2012-02-20 20:54
O/T

Population V's Water

We better help out then as Ed Milliballs has suggested.
----------------------------------

Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph:"The rain it raineth on the just and the unjust, says the Bible, but frankly it raineth a lot more in Scotland and Wales than it doth in England."

bbc.co.uk/.../...
--------------------------------------
Another case for independence is that we can put our resources to good use
 
 
# oldnat 2012-02-20 21:02
I note that the BBC's Environment Correspondent is geographically deficient. Scotland and Wales don't have more water because they are further north, but further west.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2012-02-20 21:14
Ah, the highest of "HIGH" intellectual journalistic standards as exhibited by dear old E.B.C.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2012-02-20 21:04
C.M.D. I think Mr. Johnson has just posed a serious problem with his biblical quote.

Quote:
:"The rain it raineth on the just and the unjust, says the Bible, but frankly it raineth a lot more in Scotland and Wales than it doth in England."


This quote raises an interesting little question.

Who is the "just" and who is the "unjust".

Personally I believe that we Scots and Welsh are "Just" and those down south are the "unjust", in particular those in the South East!

Lets face it if the Scots and Welsh were the unjust would "the almighty" really put us in a position where we were always in a water shortage situation, I don't think so.
 
 
# call me dave 2012-02-20 21:30
Two nice countries and just one anti-social neighbour makes three.

Seriously though could we deny a thirsty neighbour the water or indeed the water of life!

It will /could be a dilemma in the future.
 
 
# oldnat 2012-02-20 21:35
We helped out Northern Ireland when they had an unexpected water crisis.

That's a very different thing from helping out a neighbour who has been so silly as to pack far too many people into the driest bit of their country.
 
 
# call me dave 2012-02-20 21:52
Oldnat (AKA the good Samaritan) you would be the first in line to pass round the water jug in an emergency I am sure.

I am informed only 1% of water is usable apparently (2% drinkable frozen at the poles) 97% 'the rest' is salty or polluted.

We don't need to give it away but at a reasonable cost.

Puts the oil into some perspective.
 
 
# oldnat 2012-02-20 21:58
Always happy to help people out in an emergency, of course.

As to selling them water at a fair price in normal times. That seems fair.

However, we can make more profit if we adapt Marie Antoinette's maxim "Let them drink whisky".
 
 
# Edna Caine 2012-02-20 23:36
- However, we can make more profit if we adapt Marie Antoinette's maxim "Let them drink whisky". -

I say, Old Boy, spiffing idea. Especially as there would appear to be a shortage of ice for our gin and tonics.

- Edna, Nat in Berkshire.


Seriously though, folks, it's not very pleasant to see fish stranded in dried up rivers and suffering from fungal diseases in the ones that still have some water in them. The knock-on effect on other wildlife has not become apparent yet but with breeding seasons still to start it's expected to be serious.
 
 
# oldnat 2012-02-20 23:39
Seriously - I agree. It just reinforces the insanity of packing so many people into one wee area with no regard for the environment.
 
 
# exel 2012-02-21 10:10
jafurn 2012-02-21 09:53
“In that scenario what will be done with the current MP's with seats in Scottish constituencies?”

Context my dear chap.

My post was in answer to manxbhoy 2012-02-20 22:04, about negotiations, after a YES vote on independence.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments