Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Rifkind hits back at critics of grand plan to save Union



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 April 2008
THE former Scottish secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, will tonight staunchly defend his plan for a "grand committee" of MPs from English constituencies, to decide on issues affecting only England, as a way of preserving the Union.
He will seek to answer his critics and provide more detail on how he hopes to avoid the need for a "revolution" in the constitution of the United Kingdom.

In a speech to the think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, Sir Malcolm will argue that
the status quo at Westminster cannot be preserved, ten years after devolution and with the prospect of a hung parliament after the next general election.

His solution is to establish an English grand committee to deal with education and health in England – matters that are devolved to Holyrood for Scotland – but to have all MPs voting on UK matters such as taxation, defence and foreign affairs.

Speaking in advance to The Scotsman, Sir Malcolm said: "It's a question of how do we deal with purely English business that does not affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

"At the moment, the House of Commons retains the legal right to overrule the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. In fact, what has happened over the past ten years is that there is a convention that the UK parliament respects the view of the Scottish Parliament.

"In a comparable way, we can evolve a similar convention that the House of Commons reflects the wishes of the English members. We don't need to have a revolution. We don't need to have an English parliament.

"On entirely English business, the government may not get its way. Some people say the government wouldn't be able to function. That is absolute rubbish. Alex Salmond doesn't have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, but nobody says Scotland is ungovernable.

"You can either have a coalition to cover you through a whole parliament or you can have what we had between 1974 and 1979, which was no coalition, and it meant that the government had to compromise. It's what the president of the United States does all the time."

Critics say this would create two classes of MP and would create problems for Scottish MPs such as Gordon Brown, who would be unable to vote on legislation if it affected only England.

Labour has run into controversy by relying on its Scottish MPs to help push through controversial legislation on foundation hospitals and tuition fees, which do not apply in Scotland.

Sir Malcolm said the Tory leadership was awaiting a report from former chancellor Kenneth Clarke's "democracy taskforce", before deciding whether to adopt a new policy. "They're reserving their position on what is the right thing to do," he said. "I'm hugely flexible about that."

He added: "It's absurd for people to say there is no answer to the West Lothian Question. There are several answers. If Ken Clarke's people come up with something that is neater than mine, then that is fine."





The full article contains 506 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 April 2008 9:30 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Conan the Librarian™,

23/04/2008 01:14:19
Here's a neat idea Malkie; a Government in Edinburgh representing Scotland, and a Government in London representing England and a somewhat restless Wales.
I think that's neater than anything Ken Clarkes "people" would ever come up with.
2

,

23/04/2008 03:28:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Navvy,

23/04/2008 05:37:52
Why not?
There was a Scottish Grand Committee for over 100 years, but rarely, if ever, did it do anything other than play party politics
4

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 06:22:40
The Union is in a mess, but as all of us indigenees are Britons then a Federal solution must be looked at.

Independence is a con trick-just look at the 50 or so Scottish sized nations which are going down the plug hole. Look at Iceland.
5

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 23/04/2008 07:24:58
Rules

List of "Scotland" sized nations going down the plughole please. Plus links to substantiate both your claims.

Also, a list of UK and Continental sized countries also going down the pan. I'll start you off. America.
6

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 07:49:27
#5 I quoted Iceland as our nearest neighbour and so most like us. For the rest, look up the economic figures for any small nation in any UN-type handbook on that topic. Wiki is a good source.

Large nations also have problems, as you say, BUT:

That all goes to prove my point: those looking for an automatic pot of gold at the end of the independence rainbow are fools unto themselves.
7

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 23/04/2008 08:01:03

#6 Independence is not about "an automatic pot of gold at the end of the rainbow", it is about the right of a nation to determine what is best for it and have the right and ability to go out and get it rather than to be a marginal interest dependent on the whim of a more populous neighbour.

I aver that Scotland is a Nation and see no good reason why it cannot "go it alone". It may be a "sink or swim" exercise but I believe that the Scottish people have it in them not to "sink".
8

Samoyed,

Costa del Menie 23/04/2008 08:11:19
"At the moment, the House of Commons retains the legal right to overrule the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. In fact, what has happened over the past ten years is that there is a convention that the UK parliament respects the view of the Scottish Parliament."

I want some of what Malcom is having, powerful stuff! much better than super skunk, I bet.

In any case, on behalf of all my nats friends let my congratulate you Sir! There is an on going proposal at the SNP to condecorate you with the Great Cross of St. Andrews for your unrelenting work pro-independence.

It humbles me to think there are laborites so un-selfish that do not mind to give a hand in getting rid of the Union. Thank you kindly, Sir!
9

Boy Wonder,

23/04/2008 08:28:16
Ah yes ... that would be Malkie Rifkind, wouldn't it? Former deeply unpopular Scottish Secretary, lost his seat and then moved south to get a safe London one.

Fine Unionist HE is!!! I have one word for him ... AWAY!
10

Bob Christie,

23/04/2008 08:36:20
Malcolm Rifkind?
Another very forgetable politician from the dark ages of Thatcherism. Rejected by Scots he sought solace amongst the English.
I am sure some sort of a role will be found for him when England becomes independent after the coming referendum in Scotland. Perhaps in the soon to be established English Parliament's second chamber?
11

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:41:39
RULES......

what planet are you from,
Iceland going down the plug-hole,
What in the name of God are you talking about,
Are you in the same patch of 'Weed' as the good Sir Malcolm.

I know you Unionistas are adept at turning fact 360,
This is not the same Iceland "that Mum went to".
Unbelievable
12

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 08:47:35
#7. Much of what you appear to want can be achieved through an appropriate federal structure; and that avoids the error of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If you study all these threads over the months you will see that SNP supporters DO see independence as a cure-all. Zimbabwe is an object lesson here. And in case you think there is no connection then be assured that SNP will, Mugabe-like, insist on referendum after referendum until we vote 'right'. After that, no more votes.
13

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:50:59
Sir Malcolm Rifkind,
If one was in politics and lauded the dapper Knight as one of your colleagues, you would have more knives sticking out of your back than a 'Butchers Apron'.
But then again, any Unionist Scottish MP in history has had to have the ability to flog his grandmother for a sixpence in order to survive Westmonster.
14

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:54:00
Rules......

Zimbabwe, I didn't think was about to receive 84% min. of NORTH SEA PRODUCTION.
15

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:55:27
Rules...

First Iceland,

then Zimbabwe,

Where next Pluto?
16

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:59:59
Rules...

Did you ever hear the stories of a bunch of Polish gentlemen digging holes through Invernesshire, its called renewable energy, somewhat different to Gordon's kind where your kids get to glow in the dark.
17

Linda,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 09:03:02
Norway, Slovenia, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic,Finland, Ireland I could go on for ages.

All small independent countries none of which are going down the plug hole and none who wish to go back to the Union they were in.
18

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:04:00
Rules...

You mentioned a Federalist Defence Policy,

Do think if this comes to pass, that it would stop some, or all 57 leaks in the fuel tanks of Nimrod Aircraft?

19

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:06:35
Rules.....

Speaking of defense policy,

Do you think from a Unionist agenda that MOD desks should outnumber suits of body armour????
20

Toast,

23/04/2008 09:10:25
Sir Malcolm Who ?? Insignificant little man.
21

Hamish Scott,

23/04/2008 09:14:28
Malcolm Rifkind is a Scottish politician, perhaps he should leave it to the English to decide how they want to be governed.

'staunch defender' I see the Scotsman is now using the language of Ulster loyalism.
22

lachlan,

23/04/2008 09:18:33
#4#6 it's not just sbout the money. it's also about self determination,pride and yes making your own mistakes.but they will be our mistakes.look upon independence as the teenager leaving home.i am sure the rest of the u.k.will help us on our way and help us out untill we get established.and if not we are not best rid of them anyway.
23

lachlan,

23/04/2008 09:20:20
#4#6 it's not just about the money. it's also about self determination,pride and yes making your own mistakes.but they will be our mistakes.look upon independence as the teenager leaving home.i am sure the rest of the u.k.will help us on our way and help us out untill we get established.and if not are we not best rid of them anyway.
24

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:24:41
Rules.....

Is it fair to say, interpretation of Unionist Defense Policy is,

Lets,fork out 100 million on the system and delivery platform of an WMD,so that after expenditure it will still be out of date.
Send Boeing multi million cheques for Special OP's Chinook Helicopters,so that they sit on the end of a runway not even able to fly in drizzle in daylight,because MOD go the order wrong.
Suppress any and all dissent either at Press or in Law
And just for good measure, whilst recruiting is at an all time low, after Tony has said we will support you wherever in the world with Troops.Then axe 1000 years service of the Scottish Regiments that is Globally renowned.

Would that be a fair description,you think???
25

Ken S.,

Reading 23/04/2008 09:25:05
Why does Mr Rifkind feel that
Scottish Parliament= devolution but
English Parliament = revolution?

Oh, and may I wish one & all a Happy St George's Day
26

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:29:43
Rules.....

Happy Independence Day.........

SOON
27

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 09:48:57
Why is Malcolm Rifkind more concerned about English affairs than Scottish???

Is he the epitomy of Scottish unionism then??
Is this really what it means to be a Scottish unionist???
28

Alan B,

23/04/2008 09:52:30
Rulesbutnotrulers

We have a federal solution at the moment and that has not exactly been great. If u are going to advocate a federal solution when we have a version of one at the moment u really have to specify exactly what u mean.

The other issue is none of the parties actually want ur solution. (The lib dems wanting a federal england, ie regionalisation which england do not want.)

Having specified what powers lie where then u could justify the powers that are pulled and why.

A decentralised version of federalisation would mean scotland could have fiscal autonomy paying to a uk parliament for shared things and also take over the powers for energy, transport, law and order, competition and social security. Shared powers would mean foreign affairs, defence and security, eu membership and currency.

The immediate problems with that are
1)scotland would not be able to join the euro even if it were in scotland economic interests to do so.
2)even if we were still a member of the uk it would be better for us to be a member on our own right in the EU. UK interests and scottish interests have not exactly co-insided over the last 30yrs.
3)defence: scotland is not as in favour of international intervention and nuclear weapons.
4)foreign affairs: why and to what benefit.

The best i could see if we want a relationship with england would be to have confederal solution that means a sovereign scotland would be a member of the uk with the 4 powers above pulled. Meaning that scotland would not be dominated in the same way with the evolution of that relationship coming from the sp via the scottish people.

29

Rosie,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:05:02
If Rifkind wants 'MPs from English constituencies, to decide on issues affecting only England' then they must find somewhere else to conduct these proceedings. They cannot use the 'British' Parliament and exclude any 'British' MPs. English MPs still vote on Scottish only issues which are reserved for Westminster.... where will it all end?
30

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:09:03
#17 - Linda
"Norway, Slovenia, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic,Finland, Ireland"

To mention any of these small countries in the same breath as the UK is a joke. These are tiny economies with tiny achievements - what do youa ssociate them with:
Norway - sardines? Slovenia - Eurovision? Denmark - bacon reared from stealing Scottish sandeels? Czech Republic - pilsner beer? Findland - forestry? Ireland - tourism and blarney?

The UK has the fourth largest economy in the world. London is increasingly seen as the most vibrant capital city in the entire world in terms of economy, the arts, theatre, music etc. Britain has the best army, airforce and navy in the world (pro rata). British Aerospace and Airbus are world-beating aircraft manufacturers. Britain publishes more books by more writers every year than any country in the world.

By contrast- all these small countries -with the exception of Norway - can only exist as vassal/states of the EU - and Scotland could not survive 5 minutes without being a client state of the EU. So - you want to swap the situation where Scotland has more than 10% MPs in the UK parliament - for one where it has about 1% in the EU Parliament. Or a situation where Scotland has provided the last two prime ministers, the last three foreign secretaries, the last two Chancellors - and where the UK cabinet has been dominated by Scots - who have kept the vast subsidies of over £30,000,000,000 a year flowing from London to Edinburgh. You would swap all that for a situation where Scotland would be a tiny country on the periphery of Europe which the EU would gobble up for its oil and fish. Thats about it. Do you think Scotland would have even a tiny percentage of the clout which the UK exerts in the EU Council of Ministers or the EU Commission (both unelected by the way).

The breaking up of the United Kingdom via devolution - leading to independence - has been the long term strategy of the EU for 40 years. Europe tried to conquer Britain i
31

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:09:41
continued:
The breaking up of the United Kingdom via devolution - leading to independence - has been the long term strategy of the EU for 40 years. Europe tried to conquer Britain in two world wars - and failed. It has found that 'gradual absorption by stealth' is a far more successful strategy. Over 90% of all UK laws are now made in Brussels - and rubber stamped in the EU Parliament - which has no right to propose legislation; it is then rubber stamped in the UK parliament.

Instead of understanding the real threat to Scotland and the UK's sovereignty - the Nats are happy to throw away a dominant influence over the UK Parliament for a very, very inferior position in the EU Parliament - within a union of 27 countries and 300 million people - all of whom will have the right to move to Scotland, work and receive benefits, housing, medical care and education. Absorption into Europe will mean the destruction of the UK - and of all nation states. You will not recognise anything in Scotland as Scottish in 2050 if it is absorbed into the new European superstate.

32

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 10:10:11
Now I know some of you will be thinking that Mr Rifkind didn't think there was any problem using English Tory votes to ram policies like the poll-tax down the throats of Scots who were overwhelmingly opposed to such policies. and that this is typical Anglo-centric unionism at its most hypocritical.

And when I think of a good counter-argument to dispel this rest assured I will post it!
33

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:20:21
30

RIP OFF BRITAIN is commonly known for exporting its thugs internationally.
For cowtowing to America.
Excessive personal debt 2 Trillion plus.
Expensive housing.
High and excessive taxation.
Expensive cars
Poor public transport.
Anti European.
Anti EEC.
Dirty streets and public areas.
Poor health.
excessive utility charges.
Warmongering.
etc
etc
etc

Changing yer logon doesnt work anymore AM2/HM/EV/Troll
Save yer sh*t stirring party political propaganda we have been through this so many times already.
34

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:24:05
31

"Europe tried to conquer Britain in two world wars - and failed. It has found that 'gradual absorption by stealth' is a far more successful strategy."

Britain(England) Went a long way in trying to conquer the world. It just couldnt sit at hame and leave things be.
You could cut the irony of that statement with a knife.
35

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 10:24:31
Rifkind - isn't he MP for Kensington? Lives and works in London? What the 'H' is pontificating on Scotland for? He has no moral or politic right to do so as he represents an English constituency.

Malcolm you should take your big brain and read the Scotland Act which clearly states what decisions are Holyrood's in total with no need of referal to Westmonster. Then say after me: the Union is irreparably broken, the Union is......
36

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:29:38
Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/nmap123.xml

England has been wiped off a map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats as part of a scheme that the Tories claim threatens to undermine the country's national identity.
The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries.

The "Manche" region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales.

The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany.

A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the "Channel Sea".

Each zone will have a "transnational regional assembly", although they will not have extensive powers. However, the zones are regarded as symbolically important by other countries. German ministers claimed that the plan was about "underlying the goal of a united Europe" to "permanently overcome old borders" at a time when the "Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum".

Wake up before it is too late!
37

Alan B,

23/04/2008 10:32:07
Tweedmouth

Sorry never read so much rubbish in my life. For a start u did not seem to realsie the poster was answering someones question. Secondly what is the point in insulting other countries. anyone can try and choose a sterotype of another country and slag it off. The one of Ireland could easily be as the european economic miracle and a friendly country and guiness. Scotland would be what? Iron Bru, whisky and country side, crime. Britain would be colonialism and imperialism. England would be crap at cricket and underachievement at football, morris dancers and stiff upper lip and hooliganism. The US?

What is it all meant to mean and in what way has it anything to do with independence. Also much of this is just how we in the uk seem these nations not necessarily how others see them.

i love the way apologists for the union

"The UK has the fourth largest economy in the world"

But miss out the relevant bit about how rich it is per person a much more relevant measure. Here the UK slips down compared to other small european countries.
38

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:34:03
Tweedmouth,

Your comments are amazing, what year of our Lord are you coming from,
Fourth largest economy, well I'll tell you what the first largest contributor to that economy is over the last 30 plus years shall I ???
39

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 10:35:40
#28 Alan B.

Fair comment. I don't prescribe the form of federation/confederation as I don't know enough about such things to do so. What I would like to see is a. a general admittance that the Union is failing, b. that a con/federal solution should be seriously examined. c. that the consequent agreed form becomes an option in any referendum.

I hesitate to use the much abused term 'third way', but I do see successful federal systems all round the world; and I also see many failing small nation states. I know which option I want my family to live in.

Nationalists see only one solution. Sadly, the record for small nations is not on their side. Ireland is sliding now that EU funding is drying up, Iceland is fading fast despite being energy rich and educated, New Zealand survives only because of so many hungry Chinese..a sorry tale. Many small black countries are even worse off. Why vote to be part of this?
40

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 10:36:58
The big assumption here is that there is such a thing as "English-only" legislation. In my opinion there can be no such thing - any legislation carried out in England will have an effect on Scotland in politically, socially and economically. At the very least all legislation would involve spending decisions - why should England only decide what England gets yet it is the whole UK that decides what Scotland gets? Clearly issues such as the decision to raise the school-leaving age and introduce a bill to guarantee an apprenticeship for all who want one will have a knock-on effect in Scotland.

This is just one of the assumptions that make the West Lothian question such a complete red herring.

Another assumption is that English MPs have no say over what happens in Scotland. That is not true - the Westminster Parliament still controls the budgetary purse strings. It is they who have kept the Barnett formula; it is they who have the power to decide Scottish expenditure - all the Scottish Parliament is doing is prioritising how that expenditure is made.
Gladstone tried to implement a policy of stopping Irish MPs voting when dealing with Irish Home Rule - it was found to be completely unworkable.

In any case - taking the logic of the English-only brigade to its fullest extent - should only London MPs be voting on Bills such as the Crossrail Bill?

41

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:38:20
Oh but Hey,

The Oil is running out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You heard it first at the Scotsman or maybe,

The McCroneman
42

Usconbuts,

23/04/2008 10:38:48
The Union will be destroyed, not just because the Scots defect from it, but because the English decide to chuck it in. They don't like people from outside their country making laws for them. Right on! And unlike Scotland, England is powerful enough not to have to put up with that situation for 290 years.
43

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 10:39:18
Can anyone define for me an issue that could be described as English-only?

One reason why any piece of legislation would have an effect beyond England is because of the dominance of England within the Union. It has over 80 per cent of the UK population, over 80 per cent of the GDP and over 80 per cent of the seats at Westminster.

English MPs effectively set the level of public expenditure in other parts of the UK, and levels of taxation too (apart from council tax and the currently unused Scottish parliament three pence in the pound tax supplement). Decisions that at first glance appear to impact only on England in practice have a knock-on effect around the UK.

The answer is not an English Parliament either. An English Parliament would have exactly the same faults as the existing Westminster Parliament - it would not be long until regions such as the South-West would be looking for devolved powers. An English Parliament would be as distant from the English people as the UK Parliament undoubtedly is. Merely removing the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would ignore the fact that there is of lack of trust in politicians in general.

The issue for me is that power is centralised in Westminster itself - that is the nub of the problem - an English Grand Committee or English Parliament is not going to solve that problem.

Personally I don't go along with this "settled will of the people" crap - devolution or rather decentralisation is not a static process but an on-going one.
44

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 10:39:36
Germany tried to take over Europe as an antidote the British and French Empire's expansionistic activities in Africa. World War One was a result of access to materials and markets being denied to Germany, as Germany saw it.The Von Schiffen Plan assumed that as a world power the UK would leave Germany to act out the Second Prussian-Franco War undeterred as it was a continental affair. The only problem was they blew it by invading Belgium just like in round two they invaded Poland.

So is 31 saying that the EU is Germany's master plan to dominate Europe at last? Don't think the Poles, Austrians, French, to name but three, would agree with this assertion.
45

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:46:07
Rules...

Not one single country you mention is similar to Scotland,What amount will the North Sea add up to this year at over 100 a barrel.

Then divide by 6.5 million,
as opposed to,
58(really nearer 70)million plus 6.5 million.

Then energy generation from renewables( multiply by 1.5 within 2 years)

Man I could go on all day.
46

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:50:45
38 Alan B
I suggest you read Niall Ferguson's highly praised book 'Empire' a - detailed history of the British Empire and its great achievements. Ferguson is a Scot - and one of his key insights is how much of the Empire was created and run by Scottish soldiers, doctors, engineers, jurists, linguists and merchants. Unlike other empires - the British Empire did a great deal of good in the world. It unified 400 princely dictatorships in India, gave them one language for education and legal purposes; created systems of railways, education, hospitals, justice etc. It wiped out the Thuggee murder cult and imposed religious tolerance on Muslims and Hundus. It eradicated malaria and brought basic health care to millions. Finally - it voluntarily granted independence in 1948 - as it did to over 100 other former British territories in the following decade. All of these countries were left with parliamentary democracy, free elections the rule of law, habeas corpus, railways, ports, medical and education systems.
Not a single former colony chose to leave the Commonwealth - which is still a major force for good.
Some - like Zimbabwe - have reverted to dictatorship, murder, torture and election rigging - they are also starving. Most former colonies of the Belgian, French and Dutch empires (Congo, Angola, Guinea Bissau, etc.) have always been murderous dictatorships.

I strongly recommend Niall Ferguson's book 'Empire' - it is a 'good read' and very enlightening.
47

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 11:00:11
43 - "would ignore the fact that there is of lack of trust in politicians in general."

That is why subsidiarity is vital to rejuvenate politics. How can anyone try to sustain a system of democracy that the people no longer have any trust in? Look at the Scottish people's view of Holyrood and Scotland pre May 2007 and post.

The difficulty for any status quo argument is it is already lost - Rifkind's Grand Committee will not deliver what the people of Scotland increasingly want - more powers including full fiscal at Holyrood.

People in Scotland can see what happens when you have a Government in Holyrood that actually looks out for Scotland and they like it. The positioning of the SNP in respect to ensuring that Westminster keeps to its obligations under the Scotland Act is empowering and for many Scots is removing the scales of dependency that have blinded them for years. The only conflict they see is Westminster grimly hanging on in the face of increasing opposition from Scots.

One look at the housing market currently indicates that the Scottish housing market is not suffering from the same levels of contraction as is its English counterparts. Edinburgh Estate Agents are still seeing more or less normal levels of sales and purchases for this time of the year.

In a small way this indicates how the Scottish economy is not subservient to the English economy and probably never has been.

So I would argue that the Federal solution, which I once believed in, to the UK's political problems has had its day. Tony B-liar's last years as Prime Minister have seen to that and Brownovitch is now left kicking around the ashes looking for a Phoenix to rise up and save the Union. With every word from Wendy another hammer blow puts the lid more firmly on the Union coffin.
48

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:03:50
#39 Rulesbutnotrulers

"Sadly, the record for small nations is not on their side. Ireland is sliding now that EU funding is drying up, Iceland is fading fast despite being energy rich and educated, New Zealand survives only because of so many hungry Chinese..a sorry tale. Many small black countries are even worse off. Why vote to be part of this?"

Firstly i think we should compare the performance of scotland with that of other small north european countries using african countries or even new zealand that does not have the option of the EU does not really compare like for like.

Iceland has got itself into trouble becuase it purchased alot of sub prime morgages from the US.

The economic facts are
Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland are all richer than the UK and the UK has done better than scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The fact is government of big and small countries can make a mess of things but looking at europe we can see small countries have performed better.

"Nationalists see only one solution."
I do not think this is true. Some like me would like a low tax economy. Other follow a more scandanvian model. Some like me would like the euro while others support different currency options. Some like me want to be in the EU but other want out.

I also would not be against a confederal option. It would mean Scotland a soveriegn country but means we could be a member of the UK. The only difficult thing here is why? Of the 4 things i outlined above. I would join the euro and believe scotland should be an eu member on it own right. That would leave the pulled powers as foreign policy and defence. I really do not know whether it is worth it. Would it not be better just to have 2 independent countries with a defence union? Does the scottish electrate really have enough in common when it comes to nuclear to even make this worth while.

49

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:09:30
39

The entire capitalist world is fighting a recession right now including large as well as small countries.
If you really believe in federalism then make a case for it based on REAL FACTS not spin waffle and misleading statements.
I am starting to believe everything you post is a smoke
screen and this federalist crap is a unionist decoy away from Independence.
50

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:09:52
45
I find it deeply disturbing to see nationalists celebratiing rises in the price of oil. Alex Salmond has frequently boasted of how rich Scotland could be if it had control over North sea oil revenues.Presumably he feels that the higher the price of oil the richer we could become. Meanwhile, who suffers most from high oil prices - thirld world countries who struggle to maintain basic infrastructure, transport and medical services. Never mind - lets be rich and stuff the third world - is this Alex salmond's vision of Scotland on the "world stage"?
51

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 11:09:52
46 - Read 'Scotland' by Micheal Lynch where he explains why so many Scots ended up in colonial service.

It had a lot to do with the appalling state of the Scottish economy post the 1707 Union and the fact that Scots were numerate and literate in greater numbers than their English counterparts thanks to the free education provided by 'Sunday Schools' and so better equipped to meet the needs of middle level colonial administration. This situation remained until the late 1800's but the key jobs still went to English Public Schoolboys who may or may not have been of Scot's descent - that was irrelevant against the fact they had been at Eton. See David Cameron as modern day example!
52

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:11:04
45

Norway is and its doing very well thanks to its forethought in keeping an oil profit fund available for a rainy day something we should have had since the 70s.
53

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:11:08
#2 Even the SNP (who don't vote on some "English-only" legislation) recognise that some so-called "English-only" legislation does have a knock-on effect - that's why they voted on the Higher Education Bill.

Their reasoning was that changes in expenditure on higher education in England and Wales would impact on Scotland’s block grant—and thus on the level of public expenditure in Scotland. This had previously been explicitly recognised by the Royal Commission on the constitution, which stated that:

“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

That is my argument - English MPs already have a say on Scottish Expenditure by setting our budget - the Scottish Parliament decides how said budget should be prioritised.

PS Can any Nats explain to me how the SNP decides what is "English-only" legislation when it comes to voting at Westminster?
54

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 11:12:41
50. Well said, the Nats should not be celebrating the rise in oil prices, and these rises are not connected to our policy of invading Iraq and destabilising the middle-east.
55

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:13:20
50

Higher oil prices higher oil revenues to spend on the necessary services with enough left over to keep for a rainy day. you dont have to be an economist to understand the basic simplicity of exploting natural assets instead of giving them away to a larger neighbour to shore up their economy with.
56

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:16:07
53

All legislation in Westminster can only pass if a majority of English MPs vote for it even if all Scottish MPS from every party voted against it.
So its safe to say that all legislation brought up in Westminster is in fact English only legislation is it not???
57

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:17:38
#47 "That is why subsidiarity is vital to rejuvenate politics."

I'd agree with that - the problem is Peter that politicians seem to think that having decision-making powers at the lowest possible level means making decisions at the nation state level instead of the European level.

For me subsidiarity means making decisions at the most appropriate level be it the European Union, Westminster, Holyrood, Local Council or even parish council.
58

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:18:43
#46 Tweedmouth

My point was why insult other countries for no reason. It was nothing to do with what the poster was talking about anyway so was irrelevent. the fact that we may have negative stereo types of other nations in many ways can be down to our own ignorance. Say Belgiun is boring. What i found amusing is when u go over there it u find it has some of the best beer (and chocolate) and has poor stereotypes of the uk. an island of poor food and that was Belgians who actually travelled to london for work regularly.

With regard to the empire. Looking through rose tinted glasses about the empire is not good. Even if there were positives to come out from it, it was morally wrong. It is wrong to go and invade other people by force and run there country without their consent for out own benefit. And lets face it was done for out own benefit and not theirs. i do have a problem with the fact that britain does not admit that it was wrong we expect Germany to face up to the wrong of its invasions.

The argument it was culturally beneficial to them is almost racist. Was it wrong for Germany to invade Poland but ok for us to invade India.

If look at problem areas in the world today many of them can be traced back to the empire.

-India and Pakistan - partition, nuclear weapons pointing at each other, Kasmir.
-Afganistan
-Israel - what gave us the right to give away palestinian land to jews in europe. and it still one of the world trouble spots today.

One thing i notice about indian guys i talk to is that they are all oppose to what britain did, all feel britain owes them, and all feel britain raped there country.

At the end of the day, in anything u can see benefits but it simply does not justify trying to own half the world against the will of the people who live there.

59

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 11:19:43
50 - Please answer - What use of oil funds has Westminster made to help developing nations?

The equivalent of two thirds of Scotland's block grant went to bailing out Northern Rock. Two to three times the Scottish block grant is being used to back the bonds the Westminster Government is issuing to banks to try and reverse the credit crunch and prevent its economic miracle of PFI and PPP from collapsing which surprise, surprise have triple A credit rating. Now we know that London's Olympics are going to cost the UK Government in excess of £9 billion pounds or nearly a third of the Scottish Block Grant.

Its then when you add all this up, you start to understand how 'Ugly' your thinking is.
60

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:22:16
#56 That may be one definition of "English-only" legislation but not one I'd agree with. It certainly isn't "English-only" if the consequences of legislation and decision-making affects Scotland.
61

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:25:39
The Federalist : Evidence given to Ken Clarkes commission said that for english votes on english matter to be workable scotland should be granted fiscal autonomy.
62

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:29:01
60

Aye but they dont care if it does or not it isnt a consideration.
63

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:29:57
50 and 59
The UK is committed to spend £9.1 billion in overseas aid by 2010. This figure is greater than the total oil and gas revenues for every year (except one) over the last 20 years. We notice that nationalist are eager to claim 90/95% of UK assets (oil) but rather more reluctant to claim the equivalent proportion in liabilities (overseas aid).

59
Please attempt to gain some perspective rather than resorting to abuse.
64

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:37:33
#61 Whilst fiscal autonomy sounds appealing I suspect the devil will be in the detail - something I am afraid most politicians are not good at.
65

Alec M,

Falkirk 23/04/2008 11:45:40
Re Tweedmouth #36, today's "Sun" carries a similar report, under the heading "EU Traitors" :

"WHAT delicious timing!

Today is St George’s Day. The day on which, according to a poll, eight out of ten Englishmen and women feel intensely proud of their country.

So much so that Scot Gordon Brown last night ordered the English flag must fly above No 10.

National flags will also fly for Wales’s St David’s Day and for Scotland’s St Andrew.

This is all about “Britishness”. But it turns out to be a grotesque con on the British people.

This is also the day we learn that England, Scotland and Wales are to come under direct rule from Europe.

The EU has been split into “transnational regions” which will eventually take orders from Brussels, not from their elected parliaments.

Much of Scotland and the North-East merges with Scandinavia; Wales and the West join Portugal and Spain. Parts of the South link to Northern France.

Ministers insist this is an admin exercise of no great consequence.

Rubbish. This is the latest step in the accelerating collapse of British sovereignty — and the unstoppable growth of unaccountable EU power.

Now you know why Brown broke his 2005 election pledge to hold a referendum."



66

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:48:44
#61 The only way it can work is if there is a complete separation of Scottish and the rest of the UK's taxation and expenditure. Most proposals for "fiscal autonomy" still include an aspect of UK-wide taxation and that would still impact on an expenditure of "English-only" legislation ie unless there were ring-fencing, monies garnered by the UK exchequer from Scotland could still end up paying for "English-only" legislation. Personally, I think that trying to separate out taxation is too complicated. It would better if Scotland had complete fiscal autonomy with UK-wide services being paid for by some kind of reverse block grant mechanism.

The whole issue is a minefield - one just has to look at out historical experience with the Irish question to realise these matters are not easily resolved.

Gladstone’s solution to the problem of Irish parliamentary representation was for an “in and out” answer. But under the detailed examination of the committee stage the proposal disintegrated. Among the various flaws he found was the impossibility of discriminating between “Irish” and non-Irish (described as “Imperial”) issues. Despite trying hard to find a means of doing so, Gladstone was finally forced to concede that:

“it passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”

67

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:00:41
Just a wee reminder of what a clean slate needs to begin with.

IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM.


Independence from the English Parliament.

Independence from American Military Installations

Independence from the European Union

Independence from Non Governmental Organisations
(NGO's)

Declare Neutrality

Control our own Resources

Man a 350/400 mile sea boundary, taking back all.

Re-establish the trade routes.


Run our COUNTRY on an international footing.


The english can have a south British parliament that has Cymru (Welsh) as a compulsory language.
68

Peter,

Labour: Brown envelopes 'r us 23/04/2008 12:01:23
63 - Rotary International has already spent $3 billion in its program to eradicate Polio from the world raised in the main by its 1.2 million members in over one hundred nations. None of its $30 million grants each year have any political ties or consequences.

The Polio Plus program has created ceasefires in as diverse places as Afghanistan, Darfur and Sri Lanka to ensure children are vaccinated. Rotary International were the only NGO named by Kofi Annan in his final speech to the UN for the good they do and the peace they encourage among nations.

Rotary in the UK rebuilt a town in Indonesia after the Tsunami, provided many of the shelters and water purification units you saw on TV at the time.

My own club has raised £14,000 to buy mobile AIDS clinics for South African Townships which will end up in excess of £30K once matching grants have been applied for, every pound going to the project.

And UK Government Grants - what have they been used for?

Building dams where they were not wanted, dispossessing subsistence farmers from their land, being syphoned off by corrupt officials, buying friends in African Governments - simply another brown envelope tool of Nu Labour.

Your claims for aid to developing countries by this or any UK Government are hollow they all have a political aspect. Anyway you ignore the £1.9 million the SNP Government have set aside for aid projects from the block grant over the course of this Parliament.

Ugly, like your argument.
69

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 12:15:09
Most people in Europe would not defend the need for independance on economic grounds.In spite of the facr that smaller European nations are relatively affluent,neither would I.

My committment to Scottiah independance is succinctly descibed during a converstion that I had last year with a 95 year old Finnish Lady.She was born before Finnish independence in 1917.Prior to that,Finland was ruled by Sweden(400years) and Russia (100 years).I asked her if independence was a good idea.She looked at me with surprise and asked me why I would ask that question.Her view was that if you claimed to be a nation,you had a responsibilty to govern yourself.She acknowledged that there was also a need to be international and to collaborate with other nations,but was quite firm in her view that it was mature and normal to accept the responsibilty of self-government of your own nation.

That is how I feel.The economic benefits of independence are compelling but independence in itself is a worthwhile goal.I think that this article is another "straw in the wind" that illustrates that change is constant.

70

The Master,

23/04/2008 12:20:31
Rifkind says “we don’t need to have an English Parliament” but does not elaborate on why this is the case. Surely such a body would gel nicely with the administrations which have already been established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and restore constitutional balance and stability. I quite agree that an English Grand Committee is a sensible and workable solution to the West Lothian Question, but would have thought that the Tories would have learnt from the folly of opposing the establishment of a Scottish Parliament for many years: there is a rising tide in support English devolution and surely it’s time for the new look Tory Party to ride the wave. Am I right or am I right!
71

Alan B,

23/04/2008 12:27:56
#66 The Federalist
"The only way it can work is if there is a complete separation of Scottish and the rest of the UK's taxation and expenditure"

That is fiscal autonomy. Where scotland would set it taxes and pay for common services eg defence.

That is obviously different from "some" fiscal autonomy. Or Wendies term of fiscal federalisation (which she has recently backed away from). My understanding of fiscal federalisation would be uk taxes for uk expenditure (ie defence) and scottish taxes for scottish expenditure. But while Wendy used the term she appears to want only limited fiscal powers for the sp.
72

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 12:32:39
#71 I think we are singing from the same song sheet when it comes to fiscal autonomy Alan - I think it is important to make clear that the term means what you and I think it means and not the watered-down version that Alexander supports.
73

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:34:04
69 Suomi

Indeed, unfortunately in this insular island the english media dominates a large percentage of the general consensus (dumbing down) and has been doing everything to destroy all basic human relations in normal life. It has succeeded in this achievement.
The dignity of self autonomy is plainly obvious when the intellectually challenged are given the real story.
To the intelligent native it is merely necessary.
74

Alan B,

23/04/2008 12:34:08
Master
I think the problem the tories would have with a separate english parliament is that it would hand away much of their powers and for what purpose another layer of governmnet.

I think a much more likely solution is for the english mps to wear 2 hats. One as "english parliament" within westminster and the other for uk wide issues. The problem here is does Cameron really wnat to hand so much stuff of to an english first minster and only have power over uk wide issues.

The problem for england coming up with a solution for itself is that scotland is seemingly committed to more powers (maybe unless brown scuppers it) but that is not defined. And Wales are also going to have referendum over more powers.

The issue of having an english parliament for those that support the union is that it will probably just bring about the demise of the uk more quickly.

75

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:35:00
68
So Actionaid, Save the Children and all the other aid agencies who are on record as welcoming the UKs contribution to overseas aid are all just corrupt tools of New Labour? Are you going to call them ugly as well?

I apologise for not mentioning the 1.9 million from the SNP Government. I realise that as 0.00000002% of the UK figure it has to be taken into account.
76

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 12:35:35
#48 Alan B

Some small countries are worse off than Scotland, some are better off. That is my point: independence offers no guarantees and there's no point in leaping from frying pan to fire.

SNP offers no coherent strategy for the Scottish economy after independence which is why I call its supporters numpties: they appear to want it at any cost, even if Scots become worse off. Zimbabwian, or what?

With 10% of Scottish households having no one at work, ever; with oil running out; with a national debt around all our necks; with so many second rate politicians; with no worked-out and publicly available victory plans in place, to support independence is a form of suicide.
77

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 12:37:21
#70 Can you actuually give a defintion of legisaltion that is "English-only" though?

As the Royal Commission has previously stated:

"“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

Can you name a piece of English-only legislation that does not involve the expenditure of public monies?

I can't.
78

The Master,

23/04/2008 12:51:37
#74 Alan B: how would an English Parliament bring about the demise of the UK more quickly? I just don’t follow your logic here and cannot think of any relevant examples of countries whose demise has been brought about as a result of the presence of several regional assemblies/parliaments.

#77 The Federalist: point taken. The establishment of an English Parliament along similar lines to the Scottish one is the solution which I think will inevitably be adopted (even if it takes many years!)
79

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:54:17
63

No it isnt it is bigger than the oil and gas revenue figures presented by the Government not bigger than the true oil and gas revenue figures.
80

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:55:51
77

All legislation concerning ENGLISH law.
81

John PM,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:57:18
Independence for every country in the UK. That's the only logical answer to the West Lothian Question.