Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ally of PM backs Alexander

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 June 2008
WENDY Alexander received the support of one of Gordon Brown's Westminster allies yesterday over her call for a snap referendum on independence.
The Scottish Labour leader's decision to back an immediate referendum is not supported by all in her party, but Nigel Griffiths, MP for Edinburgh South and a colleague of the Prime Minister, said yesterday a referendum should be held "as soon as possible", with a straight yes-no vote.

He added: "The Scottish Nationalists don't want a referendum because never has a party promised so much and broken so many promises within the space of a year."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 June 2008 9:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

22/06/2008 22:09:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

ThomasP,

23/06/2008 00:07:26
Nigel Griffiths, MP for Edinburgh South is already on the SNP's list for the next General Election.

No wonder they would like a snap referendum when they are set to loose their seat.
3

Traquir , Alba,

23/06/2008 00:11:46
So the Unionistas think this U-turn on a series
of U-turns are the tactics of a political genius.
I guess they also thought that when Gordon
Brown prepared the entire country
for a general election then bottled out
when he thought he would lose was
another act of genius. Would you
believe it a politician wanting to hold
an election when it most likely he will
win :)

The SNP has simply (with no u-turns)
repeated that its aim is to keep its manifesto
promise to present a referendum to
the Scottish parliament in 2010.

So the elected Scottish Government
wants to hold an election at the time
of their choosing as outlined in their
manifesto. Would the chances of
a yes vote be better in two years time
with the following events unfolding:

. Much more educational information is
being made available to the Scottish
people such as another two
years of GERS surplus reports and
the Scottish people learn,
apparently not via the Scottish papers
though, how much Scottish oil is
still in the ground and just how long
it will last, and just how it could
be used to benefit Scotland first and
foremost.
. Another two years of the Labour circus
with it's unprecedented unpopularity figures,
massively declining membership and
potentially complete bankruptcy.
. The high likelihood that within two
years Scotland will have another
Conservative Government imposed on it.
4

Traquir , Alba,

23/06/2008 00:12:11
cont.

Yep, I think a yes vote will be much
more likely in 2010 and if the Unionistas
were not completely sycophantic hypocrites
they would admit it to.
Perhaps, just perhaps this is why Wendy and
the Unionistas are ordering the
Scottish Government to have the
referendum as earlier as possible :)
It has nothing to do with putting
the Scottish people first and foremost, but
rather it is just cheap and somewhat
colonial political maneuvering.
I am sure the whole herd of Unionistas
are in a headless chicken style blind panic
that their dream of the Union being a
sacrosanct entity whose destiny is to
shine in perpetuity is exposed as a
complete sham.

Saor Alba
5

Traquir , Alba,

23/06/2008 00:26:08
On a separate topic which The Scottish papers appear
to have missed, it would appear that SNP secret
agent Foulkes is at it again :


"Caribbean, Scotland exploring deeper foreign ties"

see - tinyurl.com/67rw5v

Key quotes are :

"Caribbean high commissioners visit the Scottish Parliament"

"This initiative came in response to an invitation extended by Lord George Foulkes"

"The Scottish Parliament has an outward-looking policy that supports Scottish business seeking to trade abroad, seeks to attract foreign investment and defends its interest in Brussels"

"it has established integrated programmes that promote Scotland internationally as a destination for tourism and the site of world-class cultural events"

"ministerial visits linked to investment and an opportunity to identify where the Scottish model, a significant modern advance on that of the United Kingdom as a whole"

Well thank you yet again Lord Foulkes for showing
what a great job the Scottish Government is
doing, and again of course they are doing
it deliberately. My suspicion at this point
is that Lord Foulkes has seen the writing
on the wall and knows that independence is
inevitable so he is now angling for
the position of Scottish Ambassador to
Caribbean. Given his efforts to date
on behalf of Scotland gaining independence
he probably deserves it :)

Saor Alba
6

subrosa,

23/06/2008 00:36:28
Like Gordon Brown said 'we'll do anything to keep Scotland in the union'. Mr Griffiths is another labour puppet.
7

The Answer,

Glasgow 23/06/2008 00:42:57
#6 Traquir , Alba,23/06/2008 00:26:08

Any chance of some well researched links on how much investment in going into London?

Who needs a press officer for London when they can have you for free!
8

,

23/06/2008 01:05:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Jimmy the Pie,

23/06/2008 06:52:49
When Our Dear Leader bottled an election last October, he said the reason was he want to share his visions (delusions?) with the electorate.

Well Comrade Broon, where are they???

You and all your corrupt cronies have been well and truly rumbled.

Just think, no more troughs for you lot.

Unemployed and unemployable.

Halls of Infamy - a book detailing all the corruption in Glasgow Council. Guess which party it's about!!!
10

yockel,

23/06/2008 06:58:02
A snap referendum might backfire on Nublab. SNP popularity may well decline long before 2010 if Alex doesn't keep certain of his ministers in line i.e. locked in a cupboard.
Could we add a question about the Lisbon Treaty while we were about it?
Given we are helping the US in their Middle East oil grab it seems a bit unlikely that there will be any prospect of independence so long as there is a dram of the stuff left under Scottish waters. Unless we grab the oil from the Brits to sell to the US at a discount.
11

Alastair the First,

23/06/2008 09:14:21
I think the unionists are becoming a bit desperate now. And Wendy Alexander has surely had some sort of breakdown - she seems to be schizophrenic on the referendum issue. Is it Jekyll or Hyde today, Wendy? Actually it's usually "hide" rather than "Hyde" as she seems to like to keep out of sight, and no wonder with her criminal record.
12

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 09:45:17
I have a better idea why dont Labour just call the general election now instead?
13

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 09:45:55
How about a referendum on the Lisbon treaty Wendy?
14

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 09:48:46
"The Scottish Nationalists don't want a referendum because never has a party promised so much and broken so many promises within the space of a year."

What promises have been broken? correct me if I am wrong but arent manifesto promises good for the full term in office or did the SNP promises to fulfill their manifesto commitments within their first year in office?
15

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 10:19:22
#13 Traquir , Alba

You should be delighted at the list of projects that you cite, because Scotland gets a 'commission' on each of them under the Barnett Formula.


http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/cep-barnett-formula-under-fire-at-liberal-democrat-spring-conference-$1210975$479240.htm
"..every extra pound spent in England automatically triggers an additional 10.66% payout to Scotland, a 6.02% payout to Wales and a 2.87% payout to Northern Ireland. This means that any capital projects taking place in England are automatically made a total of 20% expensive, because they instantly trigger extra Barnett Formula funding.'
As an example, this is why the proposed CrossRail project means a financial bonanza in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland got an extra £500 million payment from that project.'
'However, it is a one-way process. Capital projects elsewhere in the UK don't result in a single penny of extra funding for England.'
16

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 23/06/2008 10:24:50
There will be a question that I am increasingly certain will come to haunt, particularly Labour MPs, come the next Westminster General Election: What precisely are you for? I have become ever so ponderous in my old age and have been reflecting on the function of Scottish MPs and simply cannot, for the life of me, come to a certain conclusion as to why they sit in Westminster. It seems democratically wrong for Scottish MPs vote on matters affecting England and I think it's strange that pretty much all their day-to-day duties concerning their constituency essentially now come under the remit for an MSP. Thus, in all, they have a negative effect on the health of England's democracy and their level of responsiveness and level of accountability and responsibility is diminished to near neglible levels post-devolution in Scotland. So, what precisely are they for?

Of course, Holyrood only really deals with 'low-politics' and big, old Westminster deals with England and Wales's 'low-politics' and areas of 'high-politics' that affects all of the UK. Thus, Scottish MPs, it could be said, exist solely to allow for a Scottish participation in a 'high-politics' which is all well and good, I suppose. Yet, the argument, then, is why should Scotland not just have its own 'high-politics' and therefore allow Scotland to both have relations with all our neighbours while being involved directly with other regional and international organisations. So, what precisely are they, Scottish MPs, for?

I'm sure the belief that Scottish representation, via Westminster, in 'high-politics' is all well and good and an argument could be made for that. Yet, Westminster is a winner takes all establishment and it's a two-party system and so the Tories, whether it's at the next election(which it certainly will be), or the election after that, or after that, the Tories, to power, will again come. And when they do get back to power, I would suggest, they will probably have barely three or four from Sc
17

Carmichael, A.,

23/06/2008 10:25:24
25 cont.
And when they do get back to power, I would suggest, they will probably have barely three or four from Scotland and so where is Scotland's participation in 'high-politics' in that inevitable situation. I think, too, once the Tories get back into government the qustion will become even more persistent of Scottish MPs as Labour sit and twiddle their thumbs in the opposition back-benches: What precisely are you for?

After all my meanderings, ponderings, aimless wanderings - I have no idea what Scottish MPs are for, and, you know, I doubt they do either.
18

The-Doctor,

23/06/2008 10:29:30
#1 Mr Ogg. Whilst I agree that NG is not the best MP, he is correct on this issue - Alex should hold the referendum NOW... or never.
19

 Ayrshire Scot™,

23/06/2008 10:32:49
27. Why?
20

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 10:37:28
24 Ken

You seem to resent the one-way process of the "commission" paid out to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for extra capital projects.

I think the clue is in the word "extra".

The yearly budgets for the devolved administrations are based on normal spending.

However, where there is "extra" spending in England, over and above what was planned (and over and above what was used to calculate the devolved distributions), then it stands to reason that the other areas should be compensated as a result.

The capital projects you relate to in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are paid from the normal budgets.

This means that, according to your figures, any extra captial spending in Scotland would automatically be 838.1% more expensive, as proportionate amounts would also have to be set aside for the other three countries.

As a result, extra capital spending doesn't tend to happen in Scotland, unless it's a result of the "commission" from extra spending in England.
21

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 10:39:07
#25 & 26 Carmichael, A

... plus all MPs lost a chunk of responsibilities to Brussels, so one wonders indeed what there is left to do for MPs of the devolved areas. Maybe that's why Des Browne has time to be S of S for Defence and for Scotland.

Possible solution:

Create English Parliament and upgrade Welsh and NI assemblies to same status as Scottish Parliament, with all four parliaments having equivalent devolved powers. That would complete the devolution process properly. Abolish MSPs and AMs. Then MPs sit in their national parliaments on devolved matters for part of the time and at other times all together at Westminster as UK parliament.

Or, of course get this sorry mess at least partially solved by having a referendum and going your own sweet way. In the immortal words of Bruce Bairnsfather:"Well, if you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!"
http://www.olebill.zoomshare.com/
22

Alan B,

23/06/2008 10:45:30
#27 Given they promised to bring forward legislation for a referendum in 2010 why should the snp hold a referendum now?

The other 3 unionist parties have been against a referendum, wendy does a uturn and now the snp are meant to jump to her tune and have a referendum now.

The snp have judged that the machine of government have been used to scare people away from independence. What they want to do is build confidence in the snp as a party, show the scare stories were wrong and build momentum for independence.

Having only had 1 yr of snp government we can clearly see where devolution is not working. We can clearly see if their is a different party in power in westminter and they want to work against the party in power in the sp they can and will.

One of the biggest adverts for independence is behaviour of labour in westminster and its approach to the sp.

Also before any referendum we need to know what the unionist position is. Wendy has a completely conflicting position. She has set up the calman commission to give more powers to the sp. But want an independence referendum before it even reports.

I would also imagine the snp want to have the general election at westminster out the way first. If this returns a tory government that should show more clearly the problems with devolution. Scotland will be run by a tory party with next to no support in scotland in terms of mps.

It will also allow scotland to see the implications of a tory government. ie will scottish mps be banned from voting on english matters. While i believe they should labour and the lib dems have put themselves in a corner on this. They have argued it would be wrong and anti scottish to implement such a measure. Now they would be arguing for us to remain with a union they feel is implementing anti scottish policies.

Labour will also be in the position of having to explain why it is good for scotland to be run by a tory party the scottish people rejected.

23

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 10:48:51
#29 Talorthane
What I resent is the automatic multiplier effect of the present system, irrespective of defined need at any given time. In the ordinary course of events, one would expect that spend would be higher in one area than another during a particular financial period, because of specific projects. In another period the pattern would differ.

You're also inferring that the devolved areas never have any 'extra' capital projects over and above 'normal' budget, only England being so profligate!

As to your "..any extra capital spending in Scotland would automatically be 838.1% more expensive..", the point is that Barnett doesn't work in the opposite direction.
24

 Ayrshire Scot™,

23/06/2008 10:53:39
32. AM2, as the previous executive thought up the "Homecoming" and as Labour were leading in the polls in the UK when the SNP took office, how can the homecoming and a Tory UK general election win be part of the SNP referendum strategy. The SNP have always said they wanted a referendum in 2010 - your perceived conspiracies involving the last executive and the entire voting population of the UK are amusing in this regard, but just look like more unionist panic and flannel.
25

Alan B,

23/06/2008 10:54:45
#Ken S

If the calman commission pushes for considerably more powers for the scottish parliament then there will be even less for mps from scotland to do.

It is difficult to understand how labour can support devolution as a concept and then restrict the powers of the sp to such a degree.

In the british way i do not think there will be any major revolutionary change, but more continuous evolution. (unless scotland votes for independence in a referendum).

I would suggest that rather than the way u suggest, replacing the house of lords with 4 national parliaments would be better. Westminster then could be radically slimmed down to be an overarching uk parliament.

I however do not think the tories will be that radical. They will simply ban scottish mps voting on english matters. The scottish parliament will take considerably more powers over time. NI will probably go virtually independent within the UK.

Part of the problems for a solution is labour devolved different powers to different parliaments/assemblies. In a democratic way it is difficult to resolve that.
26

Alan B,

23/06/2008 10:57:51
#Ken S

Barnett will not last. The only thing keeping it alive is Brown and his career.

Wendy want fiscal federalism. The lib dems more more fiscal responsibility for sp. The snp would want fiscal autonomy.

As such maintaining barnett is due to pressures at westminster.

It was a bad deal for scotland when it was created. and has little support now within the sp parties.

27

John S,

23/06/2008 11:01:01
#25/26 Carmichael.,A.You may find this interesting-Jan 26, 2003

What have Scottish MPs done since devolution? A lot less work;

Scottish MPs take part in less than half the votes in Westminster, falling far below the levels even for their Welsh counterparts, while their workload in scrutinising government has plummeted since the Scottish parliament was set up.

The definitive study of devolution throughout the UK has found that Scottish MPs' participation rate in House of Commons votes, which hovered above the 50% mark in 1999-2000, fell to 48% in 2001, the year of the last Westminster election. That compares with a Welsh voting record at 63%, which was slightly above even that of English MPs.

The think-tank research, based on House of Commons statistics, also found the number of oral and written questions asked by Scottish MPs has more than halved since the creation of the Scottish parliament. Time for monthly Scottish questions at Westminster has been halved to 30 minutes, and rarely extends beyond the second or third query on the order paper.
28

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 11:03:06
What Wendy said:

"I think we should get on with it in Scotland.

We have a First Minister who claims he has a majority for independence but won't get round to putting the issue to the people.

That causes uncertainty and I think that is damaging. I don't doubt the vast majority of people in Scotland want to stay in the UK. I don't fear their verdict.

We are going to have a referendum, get on with it, let the people of Scotland speak because ... it is a decision for the people not the politicians."


Her argument is based on the grounds that delay causes uncertainty. And she thinks that is damaging.

What uncertainty is there?
The Scottish Government have laid out the question they would like to put to the people and told the people when they would like to do it.

So there's no uncertainty there.

The only uncertainty is whether it might be held before then. And the only one calling for an earlier referendum is Wendy Alexander. So if there is any uncertainty, it is her who is causing it.


And what damage is being done?

As the Scottish economy is now catching up on that of the UK, and cannot be the economy which is being damaged. ( The only reason I thought of this was that it was a claim made by Labour in the past.)

As the SNP committed to these plans their manifesto, then it cannot be the democratic process that is being damaged, as the electorate for them as the largest party.

As the SNP are saying that they are sticking to this commitment that they made in their manifesto, and appear happy to do so, then it is not the SNP who are being damaged.

Obviously, with a referendum on independence, there is the potential risk of damage to the United Kingdom, but only if the public vote for indenependence. But if that's the case, surely the democratic will of the people is more important than how those people are governed? But even here, the damage is not current.

That only seems to leave one option. When Wendy Alexander ta
29

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 11:04:34

That only seems to leave one option. When Wendy Alexander talks of a referendum not taking place before the date in the SNP's manifesto, she means that it is damaging to the Labour party.

She says that she doesn't fear a referendum result, but clearly she really means that she wants it as soon as possible because her fears are growing with each passing day.
30

Alan B,

23/06/2008 11:10:55
#AM2

While a potential tory victory is probably one of the reasons for delaying a referendum till 2010, i think there are other reasons aswell.

One point regarding a tory victory. Most people assumed brown would go to the polls in 2007 or spring/summer 2008. The snp talked about 2010 long before brown bottled the election.

I think 2010 was more to build confidence in the snp as a governing party. Many people find it hard to imagine the opposition in power. They talk of no experience etc. Being in power and ruling competently could be said to be a big boost to any referendum.

We all heard the £5000 tax bill. The snp know they will be scare tactics. If they can show the shy will not fall, when in power, it will be very difficult for labour to recreate the scare stories.

There is also the issue of a scottish prime minister. It is a coinsidence that when we get a scottish pm we also have the snp in government. Given that having a scottish pm it could be politically expedient to wait until he is chucked out of office. although noone thought brown would be quite so bad a pm.



31

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 23/06/2008 11:14:32
Hi Ken S. (30,

There has been centrainly been a level of centralisation to Brussels but I would suggest that's more at a governmental level rather than day to day work of an MP. The EU, mind, is driven by the member-states with the other supranational levels there to try to ensure some level playing field. Well, that's my interpretation.

I agree, that could be a possible solution, of devolution to all constituent nations, but, the only way one could envision a fully devolved UK would be to regionalise England. And, from discussions I've had with friends in England and people from England on these forums I'm pretty sure the majority in England do not want to have their country regionalised in such a way. Apart from one chap from Yorkshire who wanted devolution but he admitted to being a lone voice and thinks people in Yorkshire wouldn't vote for it either. Equally, for a federal UK, England would also need to be regionalised. Furthermore, although it could be done administratively I don't think such regions would politically define themselves as such because it would generally have to arbitrarily done. I would suggest the political traditions and history and political appeal for people in England is of a central, sovereign parliament, constitutional monarchy, and Whitehall in a way reminiscent of the way the American constitution holds such value in American political life.

I would suggest that come an independent Scotland there would be the founding of a Council of the Isles in which the heads of governments, including Ireland, would meet every six months. This would be a great way to organise politics in the British Isles which would recognise our interdependency and also allowing for plans for shared approaches to European meetings and that. Also, regarding Wales, I would think that would allow the Welsh political space to define themselves to the rest of the UK and for NI to decide how it wants to define itself. That's the best solution, I thin
32

Carmichael, A.,

23/06/2008 11:15:17
43 cont...
That's the best solution, I think, but, of course, it's up to people in Scotland to agree.

33

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 23/06/2008 11:16:12
#22. What about Labours manifesto pledge to give the Uk a referendum on the EU.

Or the 600 new consultants in Scotland by 2006, ha ha only kidding. Kerr the PFI puppet.

Or this. http://tinyurl.com/5q2em7

Ooops some more. http://tinyurl.com/5qdcos

Or Tough on crime and the causes of crime.

Laugh I nearly paid my poll tax?


Have you voted yet? http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com

84% for independence...WOW!!!!!!

So much trust in this Scottish Government. Must be getting something right.

Alba Gu Brath.
34

Alan B,

23/06/2008 11:16:54
#AM2

The outcome of a referendum could easily depend on turn out. (also how calman is received and what the tories do to scottish mps voting rights).

Many people may be unsure one way or the other and many other may not care.

If say their is a 50% turnout. To win a referendum u would need 26% of the electrate.



35

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 11:18:08
AM2

She is reported as having said this in the Sunday Mail.

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/06/22/labour-leader-wendy-alexander-renews-calls-for-immediate-independence-poll-78057-20616367/

I wanted to check it out elsewhere but, strangely, a lot of papers seem to be ingoring this story. I wonder why.

Anyway, lie you (I think) I am unaware of Alex Salmond ever saying this. I would be surprised if he would be so careless as to ever have said this. He may have heralded the sunday poll from a couple of months ago that showed more people in favour of independence thatn against it. But Wendu can't be referring to that as it would undermine her argument.

I think Wendy Alexander is (once again) trying to mislead.
36

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 23/06/2008 11:18:30
Chhers for that John S (37) I'll use that when my friendly, local neighbourhood MP comes a-calling 2010.

That'll be a cracking election night - probably one of the best in decades.
37

Alan B,

23/06/2008 11:28:15
#AM2

I think u have misunderstood what i was saying. I not arguing this was pre or post independence.

My point regarding the £5000 was that it is a scare story. The question is whether people believe that scare story or not.

By being in government for a few yrs the snp will be able to quash most scare stories. Negative campaigning appears to work and the uk have followed the us line. But it is much harder to run a negative campaign against a successful government. (Some say it is governments that lose election rather than oppositions winning them).

Look at labour themselves they found it very difficult to overcome the scare stories over the economy while in opposition. Negative campaigning over say minimum wage etc.

What i am saying is, if an snp government having been seen to have done well for 3yrs, riding high in the polls against a demoralised labour party will serve the snp well in any referendum poll.




38

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 11:34:07
#35 Alan B
The Tories' idea of English Votes for English laws is flawed because, even discounting the Barnett effect, it has been suggested that only a small proportion of legislation can be regarded as solely of English impact. For example, despite devolution, Wales is currently still an integral part of England in constitutional terms and does not possess primary legislative powers, and so many Bills cover "England & Wales". Not your concern on that particular aspect, I realise, but it illustrates why EVEL is an insufficient measure towards completion of the basics of devolution.

Before proper consideration can take place on the overall set-up, it is necessary to get a Scottish referendum over & done with. If it results in independence, so be it; I'm sure we'll all remain on speaking terms! If Scotland opts to remain in the UK, however, it needs to understand that it cannot be on the same basis as at present. Fiscal devolution of the four component parts seems to be the answer in that respect - which would bring with it an English parliament. Perhaps that would bring about a newfound bliss & harmony between us all - or perhaps it would accelerate a drift towards further separation. Who knows?
39

Alan B,

23/06/2008 11:35:37
#AM2

The threshold would be 50% of those that vote.

As such I do not think it would be undemocratic. If u were to say to have independence needs 60% of those that vote, then 59% people voting for independence against 41% for the union. And u would end up with the union.

It would be best to have a good turnout. But council elections can be as low as 30% turnout(and lower). It would be best to have a decisive answer.

But at the end of the day u cannot deny the majority that vote. if people abstain because they are not bothered then that cannot be counted for one side or the other.

I am sure if there was a 60% threshold of people that vote. U would not like the question to be "Do u want to remain in the union?".

What was undemocratic was the 79 election.
40

,

23/06/2008 11:40:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Alan B,

23/06/2008 11:41:17
#Ken S

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I am only suggesting that it will not happen.

The tories plan is flawed but given that labour will not change the current arrangements and the tories are likely to get into power. The tory plan will be implemented.

The uk way is evolutionary. As such it will be alot of small steps. Bit like a chess game.

England have not reacted to the need for constitutional change until the devolved institutions. England is awaking to this, while at the same time scotland is realising how weak the scottish parliament is.

Calman could have a big impact on this.



42

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 11:54:46
#43 Carmichael, A.
Hi also, C.A.

The objections to regionalisation of England are twofold:
UK Context- Why should the entity of the nation of England be sacrificed so as to mollify you lot as regards being outnumbered? ;-)
EU Context- Divide & conquer so as to reduce England to a set of Euro Regions, you lot having been gulled into it already, by happening to be already in bite-sized Euro chunks, though retaining the belief that you are still nations!

Taken out of either of those two contexts, the regional idea could be a useful aspect of localism, i.e. delegating ( a semantic distinction from what "devolving" has come to signify) as many powers from central UK government as practicable. Even then, I think it would be unacceptable, presentationally, for Scotland and Wales to comprise one nation-based region each. You'd have to split, say Highlands and Lowlands, or somesuch. Nope? Oh well, another brilliant idea goes out the window.

In order to govern equitably between regions of varying sizes, perhaps we need to study how USA manages this as between the extremes of California (36million) and Wyoming (1/2 million) - or is it Wisconsin, I forget.
Maybe the House of Lords could become an elected Senate?
43

,

23/06/2008 11:58:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 11:58:28
#56 Alan B
"Calman could have a big impact on this."

Sure will!
He made his feelings apparent even before first meeting of the commission. I think it would be contrary to the basic facts of life for any such body to recommend the same or fewer powers as at present.
45

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 11:58:47
AM2

"Only the SNP's misleading question results in 40% or so, and obviously the Scottish parliament isn't going to sanction that."

As you will probabably imagine, I disagree with you on this one.

The SNP's proposed question, in my view, is not misleading.

Far from it. It identifies the process by which a preference for independence will follow.

And, as far as I understand it, this is about the only way that the Scottish Parliament can legally frame the question.

Even Nigel Griffiths has said that it should be the Scottish Parliament that holds the referendum, and not Westminster.

So, it has to be the question that the SNP has proposed.
46

,

23/06/2008 11:58:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:00:23
#Ken S

While it is up to England whether they want to regionalise, i do think it would be in Englands interests to have regional parliaments.

The centralised nature of english governance does not serve it well. Having 7 regional parliaments would improve the way the county is run. It would also improve democracy. These regional parliaments could act as the 2nd chamber.

48

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:02:48
#64 cont #Ken S

Also. I find it amusing that in such a centrally run country, with everything based in london, and with the media london based too, the only area with strong regional government within england is london.
49

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:03:52
#Talorthane

Would be better if westminster was to give more powers to the scottish parliament so they could ask a better question.
50

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 12:04:16
#54 AlanB

I completely agree with you on the issue of what the rules should be for a referendum.

It doesn't matter that this is the most serious serious issue that Scotland should decide upon, or that it would be an irreversible decision, normal rules apply. Regardless of the turnout, it should be (as it always should be) a decision based on 50% + 1.

If it's a serious matter, then it should be led by a serious debate.

Given that Wendy Alexander is suggesting that it should be held as quickly as possible, it sounds like she either does not understand the magnitude of the matters involved or (more likely) does not want the Scottish people to be informed by the level of debate that this matter demands.
51

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:09:53
#Talorthane

I find it amusing that AM2 was not long ago arguing against having a referendum for independence (or for the outcome of Calman).

Now he is arguing that the snp should have the referendum asap.

He also seemed to want a threshold, but has not said what threshold he would want. A threshold seems much more undemocratic.



52

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 12:11:17
#66 AlanB

"Would be better if westminster was to give more powers to the scottish parliament so they could ask a better question."

That's an interesting question.

Firtly, could the question be improved?

I'm not so sure that the question matters too much, as it will be determined by the debate that preceeds it.

But I think an bigger question is whether Westmister would ever consider enhancing the powers of consultion with the public of a Parliament that they now know could be run by a nationalist party.

They may consider it at some stage, but I doubt they would hand these powers to an SNP Government.

But if they wait for them to leave office, it may be too late.
53

,

23/06/2008 12:11:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 12:14:53
#65 Alan B,
"..only area with strong regional government within england is london."

Aha! I looked this aspect up when engaged on this topic on another forum a while ago.

Having leafed through the Act which set up the new framework, it is simply local government writ large. There are no direct legislative powers, for example, only the power to promote Bills through parliament, i.e. the same as any statutory authority can do. All through are provisos that the relevant Sec of State may direct or overrule. Mayor of London is certainly a big job - but quasi First Minister he ain't.

Anyway, if London is devolved in the same manner as the rest, why for instance does it not likewise have representation on the British-Irish Council? (btw England doesn't either)

55

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 12:18:23
#69 AlanB

There are several on these boards who will critise the nationalists for being in thrall to Alex Salmond and the rest of the SNP.

This, despite the fact that people are pretty consistent in their arguments for independence.

Then with Labour in such a poor position they have to jsutify everything that their leader says.

Unfortunately for labour, with a leader like Wendy Alexander, this means constant inconsistency and panic reaction.

Surely an aspect of leadership should be not making fools of those you represent.

56

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:19:32
#Talorthane

"Given that Wendy Alexander is suggesting that it should be held as quickly as possible, it sounds like she either does not understand the magnitude of the matters involved or (more likely) does not want the Scottish people to be informed by the level of debate that this matter demands."

I think i may be to do with Calman being undermined by Brown.

Calman was meant to be the scottish unionist parties response to our constitutional future. Brown then said it was a review, said that it could take powers back, vetoed members and has taken political control of it.

Wendy i think though calman could give an alternative vision for scotland. It was almost like saying, yes we got devolution wrong, but let us try again and we will get it right this time. They could then argue that scotland should atleast give it a try.

The problem for her is if calman offers little. People will see it as a sham.

The lib dems who have argued that the sp is too weak will be in a difficult situation if calman does not offer substantially more powers.

Many labour members may find it difficult if calman does not offer significantly more powers. Henry Mcleish has already taken that position.

What if Brown decides not to support all of calmans recommendations.

He has already refused passing control of scottish elections to the sp, despite his own review team recommending it.

Can Calman recommend less money for scotland? Will abolish Barnett.

For labour it may be easier to critise independence rather than having to defend Calman.


57

Miss H,

23/06/2008 12:20:43
It's worth remembering that the SNP question simply asks whether the Scottish Government should open negotiations on independence.

It is not therefore a vote on independence itself but to open negotiations.

As for Wendy Alexander, I have come to the conclusion that she has simply drifted off into some parallell universe.

There is no logic or strategy to what she says, she is acting at random.

58

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:23:31
#71 Ken S

U are missing my point. I just think strong regional assemblies (within an independent england) would be good for english governance.

I think the London mayor has been good for London. (although the candidates have been pretty poor). The conjection charge shows what can be done when u have direct government for specific areas. London had a clear choice with this and elected the candidate supporting it.

But as i said it is up to england.







59

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:29:04
#Talorthane

"Firtly, could the question be improved? "

Read #74 Miss H to why i think the question should be improved. I understand it is limited by the powers of the sp.

To me the question should be a simple and direction question regarding independence.

Asking a long question about negotiations is confusing. Remember people could not vote properly at the last election.

It also opens up the issue to another referendum once negotations have been completed.
60

Alan B,

23/06/2008 12:36:16
#Miss H

"There is no logic or strategy to what she says, she is acting at random"

I actually disagree. While i am no fan of Wendy she is right about holding a referendum. It is brown and rest that are wrong by denying a referendum

If brown actually had taken the initiative he could have had a referendum and put the issue to bed. (His only fear really would be losing.)

Wendy i think has been constrained and not allowed to go her own way. She apparently has been arguing for a referendum for a long while. Her problem is she is the leader who is not in a position to make leadership decisions. That is really untenable.

61

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 12:52:24
49

You yourself made the claim quite a few times on these blogs just before the election. I even remember seeing it up on bill boards before the election it also made headline news in the Sun at least twice.
62

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:03:03
22

Na its your continuous trolling which is wearing very thin. Manifesto promises are good for the term in office FACT! you denying it doesnt change that FACT!
get over it.
63

,

23/06/2008 13:05:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

,

23/06/2008 13:09:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:11:47
76

Did you miss the part about the legality of how the question is formed?
66

,

23/06/2008 13:13:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:15:32
83

True but what can you do its their playground and their ball.
68

,

23/06/2008 13:22:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

DouglasT,

23/06/2008 13:23:25
Talorhane AM2

news headlines then a couple of ads but eventually the 'Any Questions' with Wendy's words.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/anyquestions
70

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:23:50
85

Couldnt agree more.
71

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:27:49
77

I wonder about you sometimes.
Having the referendum now is not going to put it to bed no matter what the result is. The next election will bring the whole matter back onto the agenda if the result follows the poll predictions.
Any increace in SNP support will always encourage a push for an Independence referendum. The SNP are in the driving seat why should they feel the need to pass over the stearing wheel to Wendy when she doesnt even have a licence to drive?
72

aliruadh,

Lairg 23/06/2008 13:33:59
How disingenuous of the Labour Party calling for a snap referendum. They won't go down in history as the party of honour to the people of this country.
73

Alan B,

23/06/2008 13:50:16
#82 MisterN

"Did you miss the part about the legality of how the question is formed?"

No. That is why i posted.

#66 "Would be better if westminster was to give more powers to the scottish parliament so they could ask a better question."

#76 "I understand it is limited by the powers of the sp."

Do not think u have followed what i was saying. To summmarise i think it would be better to have a more direct question but that is limited the powers of the scottish parliament.

That is why i said posted #66.)Although we know it is unlikely to happen.)
74

Alan B,

23/06/2008 13:52:38
#88 MisterN

U are again completely misunderstanding what i said.

"The SNP are in the driving seat why should they feel the need to pass over the stearing wheel to Wendy when she doesnt even have a licence to drive?"

Did not say that. Did not imply that. Do not think they should.
75

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 13:55:18
91 92

So you are thinking our loud? or indulging in wishful thinking on a blog for debate and arguement?
I see.
76

lulach mac gille coemgain,

23/06/2008 13:58:34
Just for the record - all my friends (and there are many) will vote yes to independence whenever the referendum is called and none have been polled in any official poll ever ?

That should help statistics a wee bit.
77

Alan B,

23/06/2008 14:00:48
#MisterN

Do not follow you. I want independence and want a referendum and support the snp strategy to wait till 2010.

Having read the question i do think it would be better for such an important issue to have a better question.

I responded to Miss H who said any referendum by the snp was not an independence referendum but just a question to negotiate independence. While that may be technically correct i want to see a straight forward referendum on independence. That has little to do with "wishful thinking". I do not want to see a further referendum on the negotiated settlement.



78

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/06/2008 14:01:14
Griffiths states:

"He added: "The Scottish Nationalists don't want a referendum because never has a party promised so much and broken so many promises within the space of a year."

Unfortunately for him, the general public do not believe Labour spin.
79

,

23/06/2008 14:03:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

Alan B,

23/06/2008 14:03:24
#connaughtboy

Will he still be saying that when the snp bring forward a referendum bill in 2010.
81

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/06/2008 14:06:27
#98 Alan

I would imagine he will be too queasy to say anything.

The Referendum result will make him feel even worse!
82

Talorthane,

23/06/2008 14:22:44
While we're on the subject of a referendum, or not being afraid of the public's decision, and of manifesto commitments what else comes to mind?

The last time Wendy Alexander raised this issue, one of the big difficulties in Labour position was its own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the European constitution.

Since then, and only last week (Wendy's timing is excellent), the Irish voted against the ratification of the Lisbon treay, and a judge has ordered Gordon Brown not to ratify the treaty on the UK's behalf until an outstanging call for a referendum is considered.

If Wendy Alexander understands that she speaks for the Labour party, and Gordon Brown understands this (and does not have her removed), where is Labour's credibility?

Given the Irish vote (and the outstanding court case), in the short term, there are clearly much greater grounds for a referendum on Europe than in Scotland.

Labour had this in their manifesto, they claim to be confident of their arguments, and that the Lisbon Treaty is in the public's interests.

Labour cannot credibly criticise the SNP on the timing of a Scottish referendum or manifesto commitments until they honour their pledge to hold a referendum on Europe.
83

,

23/06/2008 14:26:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 23/06/2008 14:27:02
58 Ken, S.
LOL - och, we’ve been beyond mollification for years, it’s you lot doon there I’m gettin’ concerned aboot - but seriously to bring about such organisation would need to split England, and as you say maybe Scotland and Wales although that would mean strange tinkering about with the Parliament and Assembly that would be unnecessarily politically divisive. It would really have to be England to be regionalised but, as you say, that would be unfair on people in England

I don’t really think the idea about Euro-regions is a runner because much of that is really just to be able to allocate structural funding and allow for a Committe of the Regions and, remember, it’s the member-states who run the EU and there’s not been a history of central governments sacrificing something that isn’t in their best interests. So I wouldn’t worry about being divided and then conquered. The EU is actually quite benign when it comes crucial aspects of member-states’ governance, it’s really just a big member’s club.

Germany is also federal with larger bits and smaller bits like the US but the sheer number of states means such discrepancies have no real effect on one another whereas to divide the UK into its 4 ‘nations’ would be unworkable. I maintain the best thing would be for an independent Scotland and an independent England (allowing Wales and NI to define themselves as they see fit) to enter into a Council of the Isles, based on the Nordic Council, meaning we would interact, relate and approach external things very closely but internal politics would be the proper reserve for our respective governments. I think that would actually see the respect and understanding of each other come about that has been so lacking in the past.
85

,

23/06/2008 14:27:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

Miss H,

23/06/2008 14:47:31
76 As you say the Scottish Parliament only has the power to hold a consultative refeendum. But I think the other issue is that people will want to have a bit more detail about what they are voting on - the division of assets and liabilities and so on not to mention the constitution of Scotland. There is a lot to be decided. I don't think it is realistic to ask people to make a binding decision on independence until at least some of those issues have been clarified.
87

,

23/06/2008 14:48:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
88

,

23/06/2008 14:48:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
89

,

23/06/2008 14:49:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

Shave,

Edinburgh 23/06/2008 15:06:58
ALL papers have an agenda.
91

,

23/06/2008 15:23:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 15:33:02
#102 Carmichael, A.
"The EU is actually quite benign when it comes crucial aspects of member-states’ governance, it’s really just a big member’s club."

eh? EH?? Where've you been cloistered of late? Does the phrase 'Lisbon Treatystution' ring any bells?
Must be the only club where a member has blackballed himself. Huh, the Irish;what's to be done with them!

You could be forgiven for making a wild guess that I am less than keen on the political absorption aspects of the EU, as opposed to the trade/friendship/cooperation principle. ;-)


Actually I think a Council of the Isles is the most elegant of the various solutions but I could not see such an arrangement as having any major significance under the umbrella of the EU. It would simply be viewed as a cross-border subcommittee, on a par with TransManche covering both coastal strips of the English Channel.
93

,

23/06/2008 15:40:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
94

Alan B,

23/06/2008 16:18:31
#104 Miss H

Are u saying it is snp policy to have 2 referendums?

One for commencing negotations for independence and another for based on the outcome of these negotations.
95

Daveunderwater,

Auchterturra 23/06/2008 17:14:35
Ah, but did Paw Broon give his backing..

I don't think so
96

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 23/06/2008 17:19:31
Ken S. (110)

I would just like to echo, Eh? Bells? Cloisters?

I suppose you could say the French and the Dutch blackballed themselves but, in reality, there's not a cold hand of the EU resting on any of the member-states' shoulders because that's not really the way the EU is structured. If the Irish are in any difficulties over this then it's just short-term and the EU member-states will rumble along as per usual with some tinkering at the edges as per usual.

Aye, I wouldn't expect a C of I that could bind any of the participants to any course of action, it would just have a wee office in London and a wee office in Edinburgh and a wee office in Dublin and arrange places for the heads of governments to have a chin-wag while maintaining day to day contact. It would, though, ensure dialogue and draw attention to any of the ways we could find something of mutual benefit or interest.

Anyway a wee C of I office would be a darned lot less expensive for you to interact with us, if the papers down your way are to be believed, or, a darned lot less expensive for us to interact with you, if our papers are to be believed ;-)

Either way, we'll gonna be gettin' a good laugh at the politics and the politicians over the next while, particularly up here. All the Best.
97

Arfur,

23/06/2008 17:30:30
27 The-Doctor, - why? because Labour says so?

As Billy Connolly would say - gerrrefuryawnger, hey yerwangergerrefurya.

AM2 - why do you even bother these days? nobody believes you when you dribble your rubbish.
98

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 17:45:39
#115 Carmichael, A.,

".. a wee C of I office would be a darned lot less expensive for you to interact with us.."

Right enough - just merge the current Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish Offices into one smaller one, along with whatever staff effort currently goes towards secretariat of British-Irish Council, et voila.

"..Either way, we'll gonna be gettin' a good laugh at the politics and the politicians over the next while, particularly up here.."

Right enough - and down here 'n all. Politics has almost got interesting!

Cheers
99

Truely English,

23/06/2008 17:48:05
There is no need for a referendum in Scotland or England over Independence, Devolution or anything constitutional as we are one nation with the same language, culture, heritage, Christian religion and way of life.

This applies equally to Inverness as it does to Bath, to Glasgow as it does to Reading and to Montrose as it does to Newcastle.

We are one and the same people.
100

Ken S.,

Reading 23/06/2008 18:12:03
#119 Truely English
.. So why ain't you 'Truly British'

"..to Glasgow as it does to Reading.."
How did you know where my in-laws live?!
101

brownlie,

23/06/2008 19:10:54
119 Truly English

If you and I are the same people how come it's always me that pays the bills?

Ring any bells?
102

ThomasP,

23/06/2008 19:36:14
119 Truely English.

"There is no need for a referendum in Scotland or England over Independence, Devolution or anything constitutional as we are one nation with the same language, culture, heritage, Christian religion and way of life."

What rubbish. Your all wrong.
103

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 22:51:29
124

Spot on you nailed the troll in one. What a clown.
104

Brianwci,

Edinburgh 24/06/2008 00:35:16
Not genius Traquir No 4, just two people looking up from the herd and seeing the looming disaster. They know the longer the delay the stronger the case for Independence becomes. As if that wasn't bad enough, two years from now it will plain to everyone that $130 a barrel (probably more) will be the settled price of Oil.

Everything points to YES in 2010, but a referendum later this year might at least have a chance of a NO. those two will inevitably be joined by others from their party.
105

,

24/06/2008 16:47:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
106

,

24/06/2008 19:50:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.