Tory wars over Europe

[Sheilbh]

In what sense?

The campaign name's 'better together' which is a better message. They're talking more about the benefits of the union and shared interests and claiming to speak for Scotland. Patriotic Scots talking like that also ruins the way the SNP tends to conflate Scottishness with pro-independence.

It's better than some sneering southern public schoolboy like Osborne just saying how Scotland would have to re-apply to join NATO and the EU, wouldn't keep sterling, would lose x amount of money and so on. It reduces the argument to threats and accounting which I don't think would get a good response from people. Also I think telling Scots or British people they'll be fucked if they leave the UK/EU isn't a message that'll work that well - and it's not necessarily true.

I was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

[Gups]

I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

The effect on wages is contested; my read of the studies is that there has been some impact but it is relatively marginal.

Is the view that laws of supply and demand don't apply in the labour market?

[Valmy]

I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

No that is ridiculous.  I think it should be like the US where most competences are split depending on whether or not they involve the other erm...kingdoms?  in the Union.

[Gups]

Devo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

The only way it works is if we had a UK Parlimanet and separate ones for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Which isn't going to happen.

[PDH]

Devo-max?  BB will be ecstatic!

Wait, wrong Devo.

[Sheilbh]

No that is ridiculous.  I think it should be like the US where most competences are split depending on whether or not they involve the other erm...kingdoms?  in the Union.

Why is it ridiculous?

The Scots already have their own legal system, their own education system and are in charge of the NHS in Scotland. In my view a problem with Scotland is that they've got no responsibility in the Parliament. They choose how to spend based on a budget set in Whitehall. In my view they should be given responsibility for altering taxes, having their own regulations and labour laws and paying for the state they want. I'd like to see events like the Scottish government's budget actually matters - they're deciding how to raise money and how to spend it.

Failing that at least move to a more federal system with say x amount of national tax and then the rest can be changed by the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh devolved governments.

Devo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

Yeah. Unless you were to create an English Parliament which I think would be ridiculous. I think the only alternative would be for English MPs (and Welsh ones on things like the NHS) voting on their own in those areas which had been devolved to any regional government. Maybe have Parliament sit as a Committee (I think they do that for something already - edit: is it the budget, so the deputy speaker presides?) when voting on, say, reforms to the NHS.

[Barrister]

Devo-max?  BB will be ecstatic!

Wait, wrong Devo.

[Gups]

Why is it

Devo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

Yeah. Unless you were to create an English Parliament which I think would be ridiculous. I think the only alternative would be for English MPs (and Welsh ones on things like the NHS) voting on their own in those areas which had been devolved to any regional government. Maybe have Parliament sit as a Committee (I think they do that for something already) when voting on, say, reforms to the NHS.

That couldn't possibly work. We could have one party forming a majority in the UK Parliament and a different one in the committee (with Parl. sitting a committe for 75% of its business). Who woudl form the Government?

That's not a hypothetical, it would be the case in the current Parl, where the Tories would have a majority of 52 if Scottish MPs were excluded but (obviously) can govern only in coalition for the UK.

[Barrister]

In what sense?

The campaign name's 'better together' which is a better message. They're talking more about the benefits of the union and shared interests and claiming to speak for Scotland. Patriotic Scots talking like that also ruins the way the SNP tends to conflate Scottishness with pro-independence.

It's better than some sneering southern public schoolboy like Osborne just saying how Scotland would have to re-apply to join NATO and the EU, wouldn't keep sterling, would lose x amount of money and so on. It reduces the argument to threats and accounting which I don't think would get a good response from people. Also I think telling Scots or British people they'll be fucked if they leave the UK/EU isn't a message that'll work that well - and it's not necessarily true.

I was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

[Valmy]

Why is it ridiculous?

Everything you are saying here sounds sort of like what the States in the US do so sure why not?

I just do not think Scotland should be able to dictate immigration policy or have customs boundaries or anything as part of the UK.

[Valmy]

It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

That was a pretty close call back in the 90s wasn't it?

[Sheilbh]

That couldn't possibly work. We could have one party forming a majority in the UK Parliament and a different one in the committee (with Parl. sitting a committe for 75% of its business). Who woudl form the Government?

That's not a hypothetical, it would be the case in the current Parl, where the Tories would have a majority of 52 if Scottish MPs were excluded but (obviously) can govern only in coalition for the UK.

Fair point and previously, I think on tuition fees, the Labour government depended on votes from Scottish MPs to pass an English reform. Which is a problem, that would only get worse with more devolution to Scotland. Presumably it used to go the other way and the UK Parliament could change things in Scotland even if all Scottish MPs opposed it? I know the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland was passed despite most NI MPs opposing it.

Everything you are saying here sounds sort of like what the States in the US do so sure why not?

I think the US goes too far, and it would depend on what people want, but I don't see why not. If there was a referendum and the Scots said they were happy with things as they are then that'd be great too.

It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

Chretien was over here a few days ago talking about the parallels of Scotland and Quebec. He made some very interesting points.

[Barrister]

It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

That was a pretty close call back in the 90s wasn't it?

Aye.  The PQ presented a vague question which didn't include the word "independence" and the ultimate result was 49.5% voting "yes".  It was later revealed that if it had been 50.1% Quebec would have made a UDI which would have been recognized by France.

Support for independence is back to where it has historically been, in the 30s.

[Sheilbh]

There was an argument over here about that. The SNP wanted to ask 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' Apparently questions that start 'do you think' or 'do you agree' tend to have higher positive responses so they were slapped down by the Electoral Commission. The actual question will be 'should Scotland be an independent country?'

[Valmy]

Man it is going to nerve wracking next year as this thing gets closer.

If nothing else I would really miss the Union flag.

But we should probably get back to EU talk.