Scottish Independence

[mrblackbat]

A change is needed (although it is hardly a dire need) - but as it stands Scottish MPs have every right (and a moral duty) to vote on every issue in the house of commons, as they have been elected to do on behalf of their constituents.

Indeed, it's actually totally irresponsible for the SNP not to vote upon any law brought forward in the house of commons, the house that they have been elected to represent within, regardless of whether they perceive it to affect them or not. They have been given a mandate to do so and should act upon it.

Anything less would be like holding a referendum to reject a bailout and then agreeing to that bailout a few days later.... Ahem.

The problem lies with the mix of some devolved powers. If you are going to devolve powers you have go do it evenly and distributed across all areas; the Scottish can decide how their tax is levied and spent, the Lancastrians theirs, the Yorkies theirs etc. However, then having those smaller sub regions able to then decide upon the macro level could be levied and spent is counter intuitive and leads to a clear conflict of interests. Any Scottish MP that didn't vote for an increase in tax whilst immediately absconding their constituents from that tax through devolved powers, whilst at exactly the same time voting for increased spending within their area would not be representing their constituents to the best of their constituents interests.

[Gibbon]

I've decided if they're all like Mhairi Black they can vote on whatever the fuck they like.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAmhB55_-k[/youtube]

[Rover the Top]

Scotland has roughly the population of Yorkshire and is represented by just about the same number of MPs. In what way are they being 'shafted' any more than people of Yorkshire without having a parliament?

It's such an obvious point that to persistently miss it comes across as trolling. There's no rational reason why people from one geographic region of Great Britain should be more entitled than those from any other comparable region. We're talking centuries since England, Scotland and Wales were separate countries, if they're still going to be viewed as such then why not resurrect all the other historical divisions that have split the island?

[Rover the Top]

Anything less would be like holding a referendum to reject a bailout and then agreeing to that bailout a few days later.... Ahem.

I must confess to feeling a touch of schadenfreude whenever I hear Tsipras' name.

[Rover the Top]

I've decided if they're all like Mhairi Black they can vote on whatever the fuck they like.

What, so you're easily swayed by young women with the gift of the gab and a strong regional accent? As seems to happen too often with politicians, she seems to be judged more on personality rather than what she's actually offering. Ooh, look she's waffling competently in front of grown ups and she's only 20! Why's a kid ranting about a government from before she was born instead of the one that screwed things up in her lifetime? Her politics seem more indoctrinated ideology rather than a reaction to her (short) life experience.

But then it seems to be a problem within British politics that all the parties want to keep a wide gap between themselves and the Tories because Thatcher. The problem is, Thatcher is long gone, and the Conservatives are moving more towards the middle ground. Labour got elected by doing the same under Blair, and what we really need is to forget about the histories associated with the names of the parties and have two battling over the same ground as alternatives to each other. Instead, the Labour party seems to want to close its eyes to reality and push further towards impractical leftist ideals. There's a rebellion after Harman makes a rare sensible suggestion, and they look set to make this Corbyn fella leader when he was only nominated for a laugh. It's going to leave the country as a whole with just one party to choose.

[theadore]

The tories are not moving toward the centre ground. They are slashing the size of the state massively while paying nothing but lip-service to the centre on issues like climate change (how they can claim to be doing anything on climate change whilst slashing green subsidies and offering fossil fuel tax relief is laughable). I applaud their genuine centrist work however... while the living wage doesn't go far enough for me (and I'd like to see more brought in for small businesses who are going to be most affected), like the minimum wage, it is the right idea and we'll fight about the details later. Same sex marriage was long overdue, but Cameron didn't need to pick that fight with his back bench.

You're right about the history... I'm as tired as hearing about Thatcher and the Iraq war as I am about Labour causing the financial crisis. The idea that anyone serious in government (lets not get sidetracked by Wintertons or Galloways) is actually trying to make things worse for people just isn't credible. Osborne and Cameron genuinely believe that their policies will do the most amount of good. While I think their wrong it isn't therefore true that they're evil lizards bent on torturing the poor.

For the record, I'm voting for Corbyn (which probably isn't a surprise). For a variety of reasons (his voting record is almost blemish free to my knowledge) - but the main one is the weakness of his opposition. Labour has been obsessed since Blair came to power with winning at any costs... and while it is true that you don't get to do anything when you aren't in power, if you have to abandon all your principles to do it then what is the point? Kendall, Burnham and Cooper will give me more austerity, pandering to UKIP on immigration and a rampant pro-business agenda. I can have that from the tories but at least the main opposition would be opposing it rather than complaining that it doesn't go far enough.

[mrblackbat]

Salmond wants another referendum. He'll probably want another one after that, too, when the indepence vote loses again....

[Jim]

Have to say Theo, you've pretty much summarised my thoughts on the current political situation perfectly. I also believe Labour should go with Corbyn and align further to the left.

They are supposed to be the party of the people, fighting for the rights of the very poorest in society and to see them roll over and capitulate like they did the other week made my blood boil.

I completely agree that Labour have had a "win at all costs" attitude the last few years and have sold their soul in the process, losing touch with their powerbase who have defected to the SNP and UKIP in their droves.

As a side point, I personally admired Miliband very much and I think he was a very principled man and stood for what he believed, not for what the papers expected him to believe. Sadly it wasn't enough, but I feel even his leftist ideals were watered down by the Blairites in his party.

I'd rather see a possible coalition government of a leftist Labour party and the Liberals/SNP than a centrist 'soulless' Labour party in power.

As for the Tories, the less said the better.

[Gibbon]

It's bizarre to me that labour supporters have defected to UKIP, but I've seen it happen myself.

I can only assume they only aligned themselves with the values of socialism while it aligned with their self interests rather than any ethical stance.

[Rover the Top]

It's bizarre to me that labour supporters have defected to UKIP, but I've seen it happen myself.

I can only assume they only aligned themselves with the values of socialism while it aligned with their self interests rather than any ethical stance.

It didn't surprise me at all. Labour appeal to the low-earning, low-educated portion of the population by promising more free handouts and an easier life for nothing. It's why they dominate in the poorer areas of the country. But UKIP's policies also targeted low-earning, low-educated people, promising to clear out the nasty foreigners and give their jobs back to British people. The ideologies behind the two parties may be far apart. But there is a crossover on who benefits from far right and moderate left ideas. You just have to consider the contradiction of a nationalist party like the SNP being regarded as left wing socialists.

[Gibbon]

The ideologies behind the two parties may be far apart. But there is a crossover on who benefits from far right and moderate left ideas.

Indeed. It still surprised me though.

[SheepShagginRover]

It didn't surprise me at all. Labour appeal to the low-earning, low-educated portion of the population by promising more free handouts and an easier life for nothing. It's why they dominate in the poorer areas of the country.

Awful lot of ideological rhetoric, care to back any of your drivel up with fact?

[mrblackbat]

You just have to consider the contradiction of a nationalist party like the SNP being regarded as left wing socialists.

The classic National Socialist party...

[mrblackbat]

It didn't surprise me at all. Labour appeal to the low-earning, low-educated portion of the population by promising more free handouts and an easier life for nothing. It's why they dominate in the poorer areas of the country.

Awful lot of ideological rhetoric, care to back any of your drivel up with fact?

You can just look at electoral stats to back it up. Industrial areas with a lower average wage vote Labour; this has been true for the last hundred years or so. All left wing parties have a firm rooting in the proletariat, to try and suggest otherwise is a bit bonkers. For Labour, in the last thirty years, the only time they've had success is when they've moved away from the traditional socialist doctrine and engaged with a wealthier voter, and during that time they retained the working class vote.

To be honest, the only way a Labour government could succeed in the current economic climate would be to go completely to the left and embrace communism and marxist ideologies; pretty much nationalise everything and then take the hit with foreign trade and the fact that most organisations would simply abandon the country. Otherwise, we simply cannot afford to do anything but continue to cut public spending.

For the country to be able to offer a benefit state like many people want, we have to be in a position where we're doing the lending on an international scale, rather than in debt. We'd do better in the long run if we stopped investing in our own public services now and instead lent the tax we collect to other nations. After recouping it, we'd still be in a position to continue lending but have far more left to support a much larger welfare state than is even being suggested and continue to allow the rich to continue to get richer.

Look at Norway; instead of using the money generated from their North Sea oil internally, they instead bankrolled it; lent to other nations, and are living off the proceeds of that revenue and now have a pretty high standard of welfare.

[SheepShagginRover]

I wasn't disputing the fact that Labour voters are drawn from the proletariat predominantly, what I was disputing was the highlighted part of the sentence, which is not borne out by actual facts.