Rabbie

[quote user="PaulT"]Now votes only for English MPs over matters only affecting England causes problems for Labour as they would not normally have a majority without the Scottish Labour MPs - wonder if Cameron knows that. The DM is reporting that the YouGov poll that showed the YES camp with a majority was a freak and that there was no need to offer all sorts of bribes to the Scots for a NO vote. The SNP says that the fight goes on - thought Salmond said that the referendum 'was a once in a generation opportunity' not an annual affair.[/quote] Since the war only the 1964 and 1974 Labour governments were dependent on the Scottish Labour MPs for a majority. In 1955 and 1951 there was actually more Scottish Conservative MPs than Labour ones. As regards the freak poll showing a Yes majority it is easy to be wise after the event. We all have 20/20 vision in hindsight[:D] Of course the SNP will continue to fight for independence. It is the reason the party was founded. Salmond's remarks were an attempt to make sure he got all possible Yes voters to the polling stations. Given that the only age group where there was a No majority was the over-65 group it only seems a question of time before they do get a majority making it more important that we get the new look UK right.

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]In principle, I agree that the devolution of powers to a more local level could be beneficial. In practice, in the short term, I can see problems and a great deal of infighting. Witness the comment yesterday from the leader of Plaid Cymru, saying that Wales needs to have powers "as good as, if not better than" those given to Scotland. If everyone thinks along those lines, it's going to be a total s*** fight. Especially if devolved powers are to be given to city councils. I greatly doubt that those who complain now of "London centric" government will be mollified if additional powers are given to London to spend and set taxes collected in London, for example, given that the lion's share of UK taxes currently collected come from there. If London's allowed to keep them, then it's going to stop subsidising much of the rest of the UK, so they're going to have to find that shortfall elsewhere. And individuals (and businesses) will relocate, if they can, to areas which offer them the best deal. Looks like it's going to be another of those things that sets off a spate of arguments about one group/place/area being more "needy" than another, and of course, bringing out all the worst traits of "me first" behaviour that have become so prevalent over recent decades.[/quote]I wouldn't worry too much. I doubt if any real change is actually going to occur for a long time. I don't doubt the ability of our politicians to snatch defat out of the jaws of victory. It is already clear that no changes will take place before the May election and what happens after will depend on the electoral arithmetic. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we have another hung parliament with in the worst case scenario the nationalists holding the balance of power. Who knows what will happen then. It seems we are victims of the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"  

[quote user="mint"]Equal, in what sense equal? Given that the majority of people live in England and the bulk of the wealth is created in England (more specifically in London), the spoils cannot, evidently, be shared equally? [/quote] As George Orwell said "all animals are equal, Some are more equal than others"   Just seen on the News that Alex Salmond is standing down as First Minister and leader of the SNP.

Thankfully we have got a clear result. Now provided there is a sensible answer to theWest Lothian question we can all move forward and have a prosperous and fair UK

[quote user="woolybanana"]All police leave has been cancelled in case of violence when the result is announced. And the bars have an all night licence on Thursday. DDDDUUUUHHHHHHHHHH![/quote]This report from the BBC may put things into perspective[:)]

[quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="Rabbie"]That's why I really really want a NO result. Unfortunately in that case I fear the SNP will want another go in five years if they keep their majority in the Scottish Parliament[/quote] Well twice now Salmond has said there will not be another vote for at least a generation and more likely never but then he is a politician and Westminster does not have the monopoly in political liars. [/quote]Leaders come and leaders go. Who said Salmond will be SNP leader in five years time? Scottish independence has always been the raison d'etre of the SNP and I don't see that changing. If there is still a strong current of support for independence then I would expect people to campaign for another referendum. To be honest I would find it hard to respect any politician who was not prepared to fight for his fundamental beliefs

[quote user="Quillan"] Well the Scots living in what will be the new UK will wake up on Friday as foreigners.[/quote] I don't think so. As a Scot and holder of a UK passport resident in England I will not be a foreigner. Pedantically A Yes win on Friday does not make Scotland independent straight away. There will be months and months of negotiations and then Westminster will need to pass the enabling legislation before Scotland becomes independent.  The present target date proposed by AS is in March 2016 but many people believe it will a lot longer than that. [quote user="Quillan"] There is a plus side for the rest of the UK. The Scots will want to carry on trading with the rest of the EU. My guess is they will try and join the EFTA whilst waiting to sort out their membership. This would mean they would be in the same situation as Norway which is where the Kippers want to take the UK. What I hope will happen is that it will show the Kippers that you can't have your cake and eat it for being in the EFTA is the same as full membership with all its rules and costs but without a vote. The other thing I guess is the UK 'annual EU membership' fee should, in theory, reduce. Not by much but at least by a bit. [/quote]AS still appears to hold the belief that clause 48 applies and Scotland will continue in EU membership without interruption. Of course until Scotland actually gets independence it continues to be a constituent part of the UK so there is no reason to reduce the UK membership fee until then. Remember this is being handled on a legal basis and is not a unilateral declaration of independence. As I said in an earlier post there is no need to get over excited. A yes result on Friday is not the end of the process - just the beginning  

That's why I really really want a NO result. Unfortunately in that case I fear the SNP will want another go in five years if they keep their majority in the Scottish Parliament

[quote user="Quillan"]Just as a matter of interest what will happen to the Scottish currency now in circulation? I mean they have the Scotish Five Pound note for instance which is legal tender in England but if they decide to use the UK pound will their current currency become worthless after a set period?[/quote]No need to panic whatever happens tomorrow. There will be no change in the legal status of Scotland for at least eighteen months maybe even longer if there is a Yes win. Scottish Bank notes are in fact promisory notes and clearly state that the Bank promises to pay the amount in Pounds sterling. As the Scottish banks will have to move their registered offices to England (EU Rules) when independence occurs you money will be guaranteed by the BAnk of England and the rUK government. So no immediate need to panic

 Duplicate post

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]It always makes me laugh when the Scots go on about London arrogance, or "London-centric" stuff. I wonder if anyone knows what percentage of the population of London was actually born there, or indeed how many Scots reside in London? Let's face it, almost 13% of the UK's entire population actually live in London, versus less than 9% in the whole of Scotland... And don't tell me it's a chicken and egg scenario. If Scots want to make Scotland such a great place (or indeed, if they believe it already is) then why have they been leaving the place in droves over the years? After all, the pro-independence lobby would have us believe that Scotland is just bursting with stifled entrepreneurs and go-getters who have been held back by being part of the UK. Jeez, some entrepreneurs they must be if they can't manage to get anything off the ground without waiting for Scottish independence. [/quote]Betty,Glad to have made you laugh but seriously you will find a lot of people living in the English regions complaining about Londoncentricity. Compared to many other first world countries London as the first city of the country is proportionately much larger than the second city. In most western countries the second city is about 50% of the size of the first city while London is 4 or 5 times bigger than any other city in the UK. Also too many of the government offices are London based and should be spread more evenly over the UK as a whole. As I have said previously much of the Yes campaign seems to be based on wishful thinking about what can be negotiated. Unfortunately the No campaign seemed to take victory for granted until very recently and much of what they are now offering seems to be ill-thought out and will, justifiably in my opinion, create ill feeling in the less prosperous regions of England. I believe that the deprived areas of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated the same. If as I hope there is a win for the No side then serious discussions have to take place to come up with a just solution for the whole of the UK. It shouldn't all be about Scotland - it must be about the whole country

Q, just another symptom of London arrogance. At the time the agreement was reached the Yes side had only 30% in the opinion polls. Also the reason why the Devo-max option was omitted. I have always felt the final negotiated terms should be endorsed by the Scottish people before independence is granted

Just to clarify. The following groups of people can register to vote in the referendum: •British citizens resident in Scotland. •Qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland. This means Commonwealth citizens who either have leave to remain in the UK or do not require such leave, and are resident in Scotland. •Citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries resident in Scotland. •Members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland. •Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland. Hope that makes it clear. Personally I agree that only Scottish residents should be allowed to vote.

[quote user="Quillan"]So whats this 'postal vote' all about then?[/quote]Quite simple really. People who may not be able to get to the polling station can have their ballot paper posted to them. They then put an X in the appropriate place, fill in other paper work and post it back to the authorities. There are procedures in place to preserve the secretness of the vote. While postal voting has been allowed in the UK for many years it is becoming increasingly popular. By all reports many postal votes have already been returned in Scotland

[quote user="Araucaria"][quote user="Rabbie"]......... One thing is certain. A Yes result will trigger a drop in the pound at least in the short term and could derail the UK recovery which will affect people on both sides of the border. .......[:D]  [/quote] I am not at all sure that what you say is certain. A Yes vote will most likely trigger a drop in the value of sterling, but that could very well stimulate the UK recovery: it would make UK goods and services cheaper in international markets, and in principle at least that would increase demand for them. There's an effect on imports too, of course, but normally devaluation improves the balance of payments. [/quote]you could be right. I was influenced by some expert on the radio who felt that uncertainty had an unsettling effect on the markets and on the UK economy as a whole. Hopefully there won't be a yes vote so we will never find out which of us was right.

What has happened to people's sense of personal responsibility? Why do people expect to be bailed out when they do something stupid?  I was always brought up not spend more money than I had and if possible to have some put aside for a rainy day. I do feel some sympathy for the couple who ran their farm for seven years and then were hit by bad luck but they do seem to be trying their best to support themselves and not expecting to be bailed out as a right. To me it seems reasonable that if you have not contributed to a system you should not expect anything from it. People need to learn to read the small print.

I, like most sensible people, don't think that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should vote on purely English matters. However this was the decision of the predominately English parliament and it is for that Parliament to change the rules. Personally I would like to see devolved regional parliaments in England but that is a matter that should be decided by the people of those regions. IMO many of the problems in the UK are due to the fact that the country is so Londoncentric and things would only improve if people in the regions had more say. It hopefully would lead to people feeling less distanced from the democratic process and voting turnout would go up making the whole process more relevant. There should still be a UK parliament for matters such as Defence which affect the whole country and other areas that have not been devolved. The powers devolved should be the same for all regions, Scotland included. Regardless of the result next Thursday these are issues that need to be resolved as soon as possible. Let us hope that those making the decisions do what is best for the country as a whole and not for some petty partisan advantage.

I am sure they would not be allowed to starve if they turned up at Dover. Of course it may be that the DM has exaggerated their plight but who am I to query the honesty and accuracy of the DM [6]

As a Scot living in England (and therefore no vote) I would like to comment on what I perceive as arrogance on behalf of Cameron and the Better Together campaign. I can only assume that they thought a No victory was a foregone conclusion that led them to omit “Devo Max” from the ballot paper. It seems highly likely that that Devo Max would have been by far the most popular choice of those entitled to vote. They also got bogged down on the currency question which has come down to which politician do you mistrust the least. Their over confidence in the result now leads to the real possibility that a major constitutional change can occur on the basis of a handful of votes.  A single vote majority for Yes will split the UK. Those voting for independence also do not know the terms that will be negotiated so they also are taking a massive leap in the dark. The final terms may not be what Salmond has spelled out in his manifesto. One thing is certain. A Yes result will trigger a drop in the pound at least in the short term and could derail the UK recovery which will affect people on both sides of the border. At the start of the campaign I was firmly in the No camp but now I look at the arrogance and incompetence and I despair. Perhaps emigration from the UK is the best solution [:D]    

[quote user="Patf"]This has been mentioned elsewhere, and on the media, from a few weeks ago. Currently there are 40 or 41 Scottish Labour MPs in the House of Commons. Only one Conservative MP. Unless Milliband and his party put a lot of work in it seems England will be ruled by the Conservatives, with little competition, ad infinitum. The question that follows is, if this is so, why is Cameron so keen to have the Scots stay? Something to do with Scotland sharing the national debt  perhaps? [/quote]The old myth. In fact only in 1964 and 1974 did a labour government need the Scottish labour MPs to have a majority. 1959 was the first general election when the conservatives weren't the largest party in Scotland. Tony Blair had a comfortable English majority in all three of his election wins so regardless of the result of the referendum I don't see a long succession of Conservative governments unless Labour goes down its suicide route of the Thatcher years

NickP, not sure why you are so worried about this. All the person did was to say he knew what the P stood for. Since you chose the P when you registered you must  know what it stands for and  I am sure that it is not offensive in any way. Don't worry about it. I hope we will continue to enjoy your contributions.

In order to successfully change the constitution you need a strong leader who can force the change through so IMO it is not going to happen in France at the moment unless some thing drastic occurs.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this case  is that the CPS issued a Euro Arrest Warrant even though no charges had been brought against the Kings. This was on the grounds that this would speed up the search. This is surely a misuse of process as IMO a warrant should only be used  when  charges are to be brought. last week when the search was ongoing it was clearly stated thatPhoton Beam treatment was only available on the NHS for Eye Tumours but now it seems that it is available for all cases where it is judged to be helpful. I read on the BBC page that the NHS is sending out a top Oncologist to decide whether it should be offered to the Kings. I wonder if we will ever learn the  whol truth about this

I agree yet again with what Mint says. I think it was unfortunate for the parents that this occurred just after the Rotherham report came out. IMO this has lead to the hospital, police etc overreacting so they were not tarred with the same brush. I suspect that their actions were not motivated as much by concern for the child but  concern for how they would look when the story broke. Edit:  The CPS have now dropped all charges against the parents. More info here

[quote user="Clark Kent II"]The family may not have done anything illegal (this is a presumption we are making) but they have been very foolish.[/quote] NickP, Mint I agree with your posts. Clark Kent  Under UK law a parent has the right to remove their child from hospital unless under special circumstances there is a court order forbidding this. No allegation that there was a court order in this case has emerged and I am sure it would have done, if only to justify the police action. The parents clearly think they are acting in the child's best interests by moving him to get a treatment not currently available in the UK. IMO the whole case is being condeucted with a regrettable lack of sympathy and disregard for the child's emotional needs. It is clear that the parents may have been over-zealous but they appear to have been acting from the best motives.