Scottish Independence

[woolybanana]

Great Bobo in a bucket Nimt, why on earth did you buy all those clubs. Knitting the pretty tops for each must have taken years and as to polishing the balls...!

Most ladies only need a smallish number 4 driver, a decent low iron, say a 3, then a 5, 7, 8 and putter. The rest is nonsense.

Plus, on the bag, a mirror, comb, hair dryer.....

Plus of course a hulking caddy to carry the pink bag!

[Clark Kent II]

[quote user="woolybanana"] ... However, to more serious things; without looking it up, can anyone tell me what the national animal of Scotland is?  ...  [/quote]

It's the lesser spotted haggis.

In a national vote (which wasn't reported anywhere else) it was a clear winner over the greater gum-booted bald sporran. [6]

[YCCMB]

[quote user="woolybanana"]No, Q, I didnt miss it, I was deeply in shock and thinking of going into mourning.

However, to more serious things; without looking it up, can anyone tell me what the national animal of Scotland is? (In case you are wondering, the Americans have the bald eagle, which looks a bit like Norman when he is trying to find a dropped tickie which is an old fashioned Saouth African threepenny bit in silver.)[/quote]

According to Kevin Bridges, the unicorn.

[woolybanana]

Which definitely tells us something about Scotland, Betty, but what I am not sure. Suggestions welcome.

[mint]

Well, Wools, the unicorn is a fabulous creature (in the original meaning of "from fables" and not the dumbed down meaning of wonderful, gorgeous, etc) and so it doesn't exist in reality.

I think "Scotland" as an intellectual concept is on par with "Wales, the IMAGINED nation" (I promise you I have read a book with that title) and so neither exists in reality but they are just entities that live on, against all proofs to the contrary, in the minds of their inhabitants.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Which definitely tells us something about Scotland, Betty, but what I am not sure. Suggestions welcome.[/quote]

Birthplace of Harry Potter?

[YCCMB]

Meanwhile, mint, in the imaginary Wales, there's just been some woman from the Welsh Assembly on the lunchtime news saying "we should make sure that the powers given to Wales are as good, if not better than those being given to Scotland"

Because, yes, of course, in the new egalitarian federal Britain, gifted to us by Mr Salmond, everybody should be fighting, not for an equal share for themselves, but for a bigger, better share. That's going to work, isn't it?

[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?

[Rabbie]

[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.

[PaulT]

Well, Mr Salmond has had a hissy fit and has told his party that he is going away to sulk in the corner and that they should forget about him.

Perhaps, 2014 will be the year of the fish for the SNP

[woolybanana]

So, he has gone, after causing all that trouble just because he wants his own railway layout and won't share, or because he can't stand the Tories. Could he and his party be stuck with the bill for all this nonsense? It would seem appropriate,

[Patf]

I'm sorry he has had to resign.

At least he was sincere and kept his word.  More than can be said for the current rubbish in Westminster.

[woolybanana]

He lied and lied and lied about the wonders of independence

[mint]

Salmond has resigned and done the honourable thing.

Would Cameron have resigned if the vote had gone the other way?

[NormanH]

He should  resign anyway.

[woolybanana]

why, he won and he has put Labour in a really tight spot

[Alan Zoff]

What, Cameron won? The No camp succeeded in spite of DC, rather than because of him.

[mint]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]What, Cameron won? The No camp succeeded in spite of DC, rather than because of him.[/quote]

Not only Cameron surely?

In spite of Darling, Brown and Miliband!

What a load of second-raters [:'(]

[Gardian]

Well, the "No's" won and I'm pleased about that because I always felt that they'd have been mad to separate.

Having said that, Salmond was never a politician to underestimate (like Farage) : the SNP will never be the same force without him at. helm. I suspect that the last minute concessions had little or no effect on the outcome.

Now? Chaos.

Endless bickering in the coming months and with that (+ no disenfranchised Scottish MP's) a much greater chance of a Labour victory next year. Presumably no UK referendum on EU membership if that happened?

BTW, nobody should interpret any political preference on my part from any of the above!

[Clark Kent II]

The sensible outcome from this should be a commission examining the British constitution and proposing a new constitution which will meet the needs of a diverse economy in the 21st century.

My fears are that politicians, obsessed with the short term and quick fixes, will dodge their responsibilities and merely tweak a system designed as a system of stewardship for the 19th century to give the impression that something has changed. Cameron does not appear to me to be capable of strategic thinking and will do whatever he considers necessary to appease the more Neanderthal occupants of his backbenchers. His only qualification for leadership of his party was that his name is not Clarke.

[idun]

I didn't think we had a constitution, do we?

I don't think that we need a constitution, look at the americans, they seem to think that it is written in stone and these things should not be.

They need to rehash things at the moment and they can and I want no more than that.

Of all the boring stuff that has been on tv about this, Gordon Brown amazed me, who knew he could have so much passion about anything, quite remarkable.

 

[Clark Kent II]

We do have a constitution but it is not contained in a single document but many, starting, I suppose, with Magna Carta.

You are right about the American constitution. It was written in times very different from today and its intention was to prevent the state from interfering too much in the affairs of (well off) individuals. It completely separates the tasks of making law from running the country - so that the president (chief executive and figurehead) is all too often at loggerheads with Congress (legislature) and ends up all too often in stalemate. In spite of the USA's image in the rest of the world its president is all too often quite powerless. The founding fathers made the constitution difficult to amend and so the process of government in the USA can be very messy and confrontational.

In the UK, the executive is made up from members of the legislature, usually (through being formed from the majority party in the Commons) ending up with considerable real power. One of the consequences of this has been that governments like to hang onto power and accumulate as much of it as they can - to the level of determining how frequently dustbins can be emptied in Scunthorpe.

Perhaps the central difference between the US and UK constitutions is that in the USA, unless otherwise stated, power is located at the lowest possible level. In the UK unless otherwise stated, power is located at the highest possible level.

If it results in the breakup of this centralised power, then the Scottish referendum will have done us all a great favour.

 

[YCCMB]

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.

[Quillan]

If anyone watched the Daily Politics show yesterday (Friday) you might of twigged what's going on.

Firstly Gordon Brown wants a debate in mid to late October on Scottish devolution.

Secondly there was a Tory who was talking about the powers they (the Tories) would possibly give to Scotland re tax, VAT etc. As Andrew Neil pointed out these were somewhat different to what 'Wallace' was saying. The Tory guy said that it was a matter of getting this all down and into his party's manifesto for the next election. It is therefore clear that the Tories and Labour are going to try and use the powers they might consider giving to Scotland to take votes away from SNP and each other. One thing that was talked about and which may not happen is English MP's voting on English only issues. Quite a clever political move if you think about it especially if they don't implement the preceding comment.

[Rabbie]

[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"