Scotland take control of own taxes?

RDM · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:25

Biohazard said:
I hope that is tongue in cheak.

Mostly yes.

The Highland Clearances were a pretty awful part of both Scottish and English history (with the lowland Scots having to shoulder at least part of the blame). But to be honest would you really like to see Scotland with a populatioin of 20m people?

Biohazard said:
I'd love a stab at 'pacifying' the south.

What, another go? Historically most Scottish victories have been holding actions. York would probably disagree though.

Sankari · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:29

a1ex2001 said:
It's not robbing them of there representation in Westminster

Er, yes it is. If you prevent their Westminster representatives from voting in Westminster, they have no effectively representation in Westminster.

it is robbing them or representation in decisions which don't effect them which they shouldn't have any say in.

Er, no. Westminster also votes on national issues, remember? Defence foreign policy, VAT, etc. All decided by Westminster. All immediately relevant to Scottish constituents, who are directly affected by it.

They would be full represented in decisions which effected them as I said.

By whom? They have no Parliamentary representatives in the Scottish Parliament, and you've just told their Westminster representatives that they're not allowed to vote.

:confused:

Thats just plain weird and I'm sure the majority of Scotish, Welsh and English people wouldn't agree.

Horses for courses.

That is for decisions that effect the whole of England and Wales not for things that are decided on in the Welsh assembly.

Well obviously. The Welsh Assembly barely has enough power to determine how much cheese you're supposed to put on a Welsh rarebit, let alone anything else.

Biohazard · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:32

Evangelion said:
Thanks for the clarification.

I don't recall mentioning "Scots Law".

Scottish Law, Scots Law, whatever.

You say tomato, I say Lycopersicon esculentum.

Biohazard · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:35

RDM said:
Mostly yes. The Highland Clearances were a pretty awful part of both Scottish and English history (with the lowland Scots having to shoulder at least part of the blame). But to be honest would you really like to see Scotland with a populatioin of 20m people?

What, another go? Historically most Scottish victories have been holding actions. York would probably disagree though.

I agree, quite depressing read especially the parts where it was scot against scot, from a north/south perspective as well as social.

Would you like to see England with 100m, 25m? etc I don't know, and I contest that figure to be accurate. I'd be interested to see how the highlands would have developed had it not been for the black faced sheep, burning of tennancies and forced movement to collonies. Oh, and the odd bit of starvation and slaughter.

I'd make amends for things!

a1ex2001 · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:39

Evangelion said:
Er, yes it is. If you prevent their Westminster representatives from voting in Westminster, they have no effectively representation in Westminster.

Er, no. Westminster also votes on national issues, remember? Defence foreign policy, VAT, etc. All decided by Westminster. All immediately relevant to Scottish constituents, who are directly affected by it.

By whom? They have no Parliamentary representatives in the Scottish Parliament, and you've just told their Westminster representatives that they're not allowed to vote.

Are you deliberately missreading what I have said? The Scotish and Welsh MP's would still be elected to parliment in Westminster to represent there constituents. They would be elligable to vote on all issues except those that are decided on by the devolved assemblies. Thus the Scotish and Welsh would have representation for all bills/laws/etc at Westminster that effected the UK as a whole but not a say in the bills/laws/etc that only effect the English. Is that really so hard to follow?

Evangelion said:
Well obviously. The Welsh Assembly barely has enough power to determine how much cheese you're supposed to put on a Welsh rarebit, let alone anything else.

that at least we can agree on, if they were going to bother they should have done it properly.

Biohazard · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:41

a1ex2001 said:
that at least we can agree on, if they were going to bother they should have done it properly.

Well I am in concurrence with both of you, having little idea of the worth of an assembly.

a1ex2001 · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:45

Biohazard said:
Well I am in concurrence with both of you, having little idea of the worth of an assembly.

It's a really worth while little talking shop that makes great decisions, they for instance decided to spend enough money to build a new Childrens Hospital that the people are crying out for on dual language signing all the existing hospitals.

eddiemcgarrigle · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:50

It is viewed that but for the clearances, the Highlands would be full of small to medium sized villages rather than the desolate emptiness we have now.

I've no direct references on the 20m figure. I gather that it is an extrapolation of the projected figure of how many left or where killed multiplied by the average birth rate over the generations. The first thing to be done in way of an apology to the Highlanders for the clearances is to demolish that hideous statue of Leveson-Gower that towers over Golspie.

Biohazard · 17 Jun 2009 at 14:54

eddiemcgarrigle said:
It is viewed that but for the clearances, the Highlands would be full of small to medium sized villages rather than the desolate emptiness we have now.

I've no direct references on the 20m figure. I gather that it is an extrapolation of the projected figure of how many left or where killed multiplied by the average birth rate over the generations. The first thing to be done in way of an apology to the Highlanders for the clearances is to demolish that hideous statue of Leveson-Gower that towers over Golspie.

I'd be content with blowing up Fort George, however I digress.

When you look at the benefits that the south had over the north, and look at how the central belt has come to its present state my guess would be an extra million people at best, more like half that. It is hard to say how plagues that came later would affect non existent populous as well. Scotland as a whole had very poor farming land, done little to expand or improve this, as well as other utilities like roads, I just cannot see our country swelling to half that of England.

Sankari · 17 Jun 2009 at 15:07

a1ex2001 said:
Are you deliberately missreading what I have said? The Scotish and Welsh MP's would still be elected to parliment in Westminster to represent there constituents. They would be elligable to vote on all issues except those that are decided on by the devolved assemblies. Thus the Scotish and Welsh would have representation for all bills/laws/etc at Westminster that effected the UK as a whole but not a say in the bills/laws/etc that only effect the English. Is that really so hard to follow?

I did not refer to Scottish and Welsh MPs in general. I referred solely and specifically to the Chancellor and Prime Minister, both of whom represent Scottish constituencies but vote in Westminster. They do not vote in the Scottish Parliament, which means that their constituents have no direct representation there.

If you pass a law stating that MPs representing Scottish constituencies cannot vote in Westminster, then the constituents of the PM and Chancellor will have no representation whatsoever.

If you pass a law stating that MPs representing Scottish constituencies cannot vote issues which only affect English law, then the PM will be excluded from voting on issues for the very country he governs (England).

a1ex2001 · 17 Jun 2009 at 15:28

Evangelion said:
I did not refer to Scottish and Welsh MPs in general. I referred solely and specifically to the Chancellor and Prime Minister, both of whom represent Scottish constituencies but vote in Westminster. They do not vote in the Scottish Parliament, which means that their constituents have no direct representation there.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that the people in the constituencies of Gordon Brown and Alisatair Darling do not vote to elect MSP's to represent them in the Scotish Parliment? Thats simply not true.

Evangelion said:
If you pass a law stating that MPs representing Scottish constituencies cannot vote in Westminster, then the constituents of the PM and Chancellor will have no representation whatsoever.

I never proposed that but even if you did they would still have MSP's representing them in Edinburgh.

Evangelion said:
If you pass a law stating that MPs representing Scottish constituencies cannot vote issues which only affect English law, then the PM will be excluded from voting on issues for the very country he governs (England).

Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . He already doesn't get a say on those issues in Scotland and Wales that are decided by the devolved powers. So why would it be any different for him not to get a say in England only on those issues that are controlled by the devolved powers in Scotland and Wales?

Sankari · 17 Jun 2009 at 15:40

a1ex2001 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that the people in the constituencies of Gordon Brown and Alisatair Darling do not vote to elect MSP's to represent them in the Scotish Parliment? Thats simply not true.

That's not what I said. And stop me if I am wrong, but a constituency is represented by their local MP, not by the MPs of other constituencies.

Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . He already doesn't get a say on those issues in Scotland and Wales that are decided by the devolved powers. So why would it be any different for him not to get a say in England only on those issues that are controlled by the devolved powers in Scotland and Wales?

Er, because it makes no sense for him to be excluded from decisions in England, since he is supposed to be Prime Minister of the entire UK!

a1ex2001 · 17 Jun 2009 at 15:56

Evangelion said:
That's not what I said. And stop me if I am wrong, but a constituency is represented by their local MP, not by the MPs of other constituencies.

When exactly are you saying that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darlings constituents will not be represented in matter that effects them?

My proposals allow them to be represented at all times in matters that effect them.

1. UK wide decisions taken at Westminster - There elected MP's would represent them
2. Devolved decisions taken by the Scotish Parliment - The MSPs who they elected would represent them
3. Decisions taken at Westminster that only effect England or England and Wales - They don't need to be represented as it does not effect them the same way I don't need representation in the Scotish Parliment

Evangelion said:
Er, because it makes no sense for him to be excluded from decisions in England, since he is supposed to be Prime Minister of the entire UK!

Why does it make no sense, his role as Primeminister is irrelevant that just makes him the leader it gives him no other special powers he still only gets one vote the same as anyone else. He is elected to represent a Scotish constituency so why should he have a say in policy that only effects England when the equivalent English vote cannot effect the policy in Scotland. He already doesn't have a say in decsions taken in Scotland and Wales so it would be no different for him to have no say on decisions that only effect England.

How can it be fair, democratic and representetive for the Scotish and Welsh to have is say in England when the English don't get the same say in Wales and Scotland?

My money says you would have seen some different decisions taken at Westminster on English issues if all Scotish and Welsh MP's had been excluded as they should be removing Labours massive Scotish and Welsh Majority from the vote.

Sankari · 17 Jun 2009 at 16:14

a1ex2001 said:
When exactly are you saying that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darlings constituents will not be represented in matter that effects them?

My proposals allow them to be represented at all times in matters that effect them.

1. UK wide decisions taken at Westminster - There elected MP's would represent them

They don't have any MSPs for their constituency, remember? They have the PM (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) and the Chancellor (Edinburgh South West)! Neither of these men is an MSP.

2. Devolved decisions taken by the Scotish Parliment - The MSPs who they elected would represent them

Which MSPs did they elect? Oh that's right - they didn't elect any. They elected Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling.

3. Decisions taken at Westminster that only effect England or England and Wales - They don't need to be represented as it does not effect them the same way I don't need representation in the Scotish Parliment

...and yet they don't have a local MSP who represents their constituency. Fantastic.

Why does it make no sense, his role as Primeminister is irrelevant that just makes him the leader it gives him no other special powers he still only gets one vote the same as anyone else.

And where is he going to use that vote? He can only use it in Westminster. But you want him limited to Scottish issues only. Yet Scottish issues are decided by the Scottish parliament, which the PM does not attend. So he is forced to remain silent on everything except national issues. Which in turn means that he cannot represent his constituency properly.

He is elected to represent a Scotish constituency so why should he have a say in policy that only effects England when the equivalent English vote cannot effect the policy in Scotland.

Because he's the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and he's elected to Westminster. English issues fall into his remit by default.

He already doesn't have a say in decsions taken in Scotland and Wales so it would be no different for him to have no say on decisions that only effect England.

He has a say in Wales.

How can it be fair for the Scotish and Welsh to have is say in England when the English don't get a say in Wales and Scotland?

The English get a say in Wales and a limited say in Scotland. The Welsh have virtually no say in Wales. They've only got a talking shop, remember?

Scotland still sends MPs to Westminster to represent their constituents' interests. Those MPs do not vote in the Scottish Parliament; they only vote in Westminster. This makes them no different to MPs who represent Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Yes, they can vote on issues which do not affect their constituents. The tradeoff is that they can't vote in the Scottish Parliament.

My money says you would have seen some different decisions taken at Westminster on English issues if all Scotish and Welsh MP's had been excluded as they should be removing Labours massive Scotish and Welsh Majority from the vote.

Maybe. Hell, it's no skin off my nose. I don't give a monkey's.

a1ex2001 · 17 Jun 2009 at 16:22

Evangelion said:
snip

Are you for real? Do you honestly not know that the people who live in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath get to vote in the Scotish Elections to elect members of the Scotish Parliment to represent them?

http://www.aboutkirkcaldy.com/mp-msp-councillors.htm

I can't debate with such clear stupidity.

Sankari · 17 Jun 2009 at 16:28

a1ex2001 said:
Are you for real? Do you honestly not know that the people who live in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath get to vote in the Scotish Elections to elect members of the Scotish Parliment to represent them?

http://www.aboutkirkcaldy.com/mp-msp-councillors.htm

I can't debate with such clear stupidity.

No I didn't know that, and there's no need for childish insults. So you know how to use Google - congratulations. Feel free to address my other points.

weescott · 25 Jun 2009 at 22:29

Some good debate here. A good point about the highland clearances but, if we want to get into pedantic history we could go to before 1400 when Shetland was part of Scotland before it was raped and pilaged by the Vikings wiping out most of the local inhabitants. I can see the point of view about not being part of Scotland or the UK but it's not justified historically. As such there goes the arguement about Oil and gas revenue. On that pedantic note we could say that Berwick and Newcastle are parts of Scotland.

Also, the latest unemployement demographic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7789784.stm

Scotland doesn't look too bad in these times of gloom!

RDM · 25 Jun 2009 at 22:47

weescott said:
Scotland doesn't look too bad in these times of gloom!

That's because most of it is empty...

Ross1234 · 25 Jun 2009 at 22:50

RDM said:
That's because most of it is empty...

Are you aware of the concept of percentages?

RDM · 25 Jun 2009 at 22:53

Ross1234 said:
Are you aware of the concept of percentages?

Yes, but sometimes straight percentages are not going to give an accurate account of what is going on. Either that or the Lake District really is the industrial powerhouse of the UK with almost full employment...

You are going to have lower percentage unemployment in rural areas because people move to the urban areas to find jobs, leaving most of the people in the rural areas to be either working or retired.