Support NeoGAF

[phisheep]

No, he doesn't. The country of Scotland did not in any substantial way vote for David Cameron or the Tory Party. He has no mandate there. That's the issue. The Scottish polity is fundamentally different to the English, to the extent that binding both into a tight multinational unitary state is lunacy.

I don't get why it's hard to accept that the United Kingdom is an anachronism, something worthy of being discarded on the dustbin of history.

That's not the issue at all. The constitutional settlement that we have is (for now at least) what it is. And what it is is that the people elected to Parliament get to vote on legislation and the majority wins.

We might not always like that, and there are all sorts of legitimate ways of pushing against it (and Salmond's proposed referendum is one of them).

If you go for the 'mandate' theory, then the various Labour governments have nearly never had a mandate in England, no party has a 'mandate' over the people who didn't vote for it and no party ever has had the right to govern anything. The whole 'mandate' idea is rubbish. Sure, governments like to claim it as a means of pushing through unpopular legislation, but doesn't mean the rest of us have to play ball, or at lest think that way.

Nobody voted for Cameron, except a few people somewhere in or near Oxfordshire, and even they voted for him as an MP, not as a party leader - though to be fair that may have had some influence.

If we were to argue that any section of the country (or nation, or union or whatever you want to call it) could secede at any time on the grounds it has more opposition MPs than government MPs, then the Southwest of England, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham would have seceded long ago. Maybe even Yorkshire.

But it's a load more difficult than that.

 

[StealthGoblin]

My thoughts on the matter, if Scotland wants to go, let them go.

I would prefer it to be a straight 'in' or 'out' vote. If Scotland wants to fudge it so that they have a 'well we are in but with more power' then fuck it, the rest of the UK should have a referendum to kick them out.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Giving salmond license to use a third option doesn't mean he'll use it -- it would dilute either or both of the yes/no votes, and doubtless he'd want to campaign heavily for a yes.

If there's a third option for a different / more devolved Scotland, and it looked to disproportionately benefit Scotland, I would want to see lines re-drawn and reconsidered the same way for Wales, Northern Ireland and England itself.

 

[phisheep]

Ed Miliband just now: "next time we come to power we will be handed a deficit". Er, who handed what to whom exactly?

 

[Meadows]

HS2 Approved by Coalition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954

Yay! Feel happier than I thought I'd be!

Time savings between London and Birmingham seem to be moderate, but the real savings will come when the line spreads out to Manchester/Leeds. Can't help but feel it's going to take too long to build, but at least we're doing something in regards to infrastructure outside of London.

Ed Miliband just now: "next time we come to power we will be handed a deficit". Er, who handed what to whom exactly?

wow

 

[phisheep]

Time savings between London and Birmingham seem to be moderate, but the real savings will come when the line spreads out to Manchester/Leeds. Can't help but feel it's going to take too long to build, but at least we're doing something in regards to infrastructure outside of London.

Must admit to mixed feelings about this. I guess the idea is it will bring more business to the Midlands and North, but I fear that like every other time we tried something like this it will just suck more stuff into London.

 

[JonathanEx]

And on completely ignorant over most of it but reactionary tabloid reader mode on, can't we... sort out the current train bullshit we've got before making these new mega-expensive things?


...though in that respect at least SOME bits of the network will be faster.

 

[kitch9]

Ed Miliband just now: "next time we come to power we will be handed a deficit". Er, who handed what to whom exactly?

Its just Labour whinging the coffers won't be full when they take power like they were the last time when they did so they can do their usual spending all the countries money to buy votes trick.

 

[SmokyDave]

HS2 Approved by Coalition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954

Yay! Feel happier than I thought I'd be!

Time savings between London and Birmingham seem to be moderate, but the real savings will come when the line spreads out to Manchester/Leeds. Can't help but feel it's going to take too long to build, but at least we're doing something in regards to infrastructure outside of London.



wow

Woohoo! A new and expensive way to get to London!

 

[Chinner]

surely we should be building a gigantic wall around london?

 

[Meadows]

Must admit to mixed feelings about this. I guess the idea is it will bring more business to the Midlands and North, but I fear that like every other time we tried something like this it will just suck more stuff into London.

I dunno, I guess it just kind of trivialises the importance of being in once city or another really, all it might do is bring more business to Leeds/Manchester/Birmingham/London and take away from other places, which I suppose could be harmful.

I still think one infrastructure issue that needs to be sorted is the lack North-South Wales transport links. Both areas of Wales are under the same government jurisdiction but have little economic participation with one and other (South Welsh economy obviously based around Swansea, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol etc, North Welsh economy based around Bangor, Chester and Liverpool).

That it takes a 4 hour car/train trip from the Senedd in Cardiff to the Assembly offices in Llandudno Junction (which is only a 120 mile trip as the crow flies) is a pretty big problem for me, and one that could be solved with the building of a nice (not even necessarily HS), green railway line from Cardiff to somewhere in North Wales, perhaps Bangor or Conwy.

Although clearly such an infrastructure project is way down on the list of Westminster priorities.

Woohoo! A new and expensive way to get to London!

Yeah, high ticket prices are a fucking huge problem that need to be sorted. I drive every single time I want to go home to see my parents because the trains cost 2x more than the petrol does (split between me and my GF). Pisses me off that the price is driven up by companies that buy shitloads of tickets just in case they might need a train at some point in time (you always see a ridiculous amount of booked, empty paid for seats on the trans-pennine route)

 

[phisheep]

at least we're doing something in regards to infrastructure outside of London.

If it was about infrastructure outside London it would have joined up, say, Leeds with Exeter. Like electrifying the A38 or something.

 

[Meadows]

If it was about infrastructure outside London it would have joined up, say, Leeds with Exeter. Like electrifying the A38 or something.

Yeah, I suppose so, but I'll just go with the economists who are saying it might narrow the north-south divide.

Plus if it ever reached Glasgow then that would be good, providing faster travel between Manchester/Glasgow, Birmingham/Glasgow.

 

[defel]

Im happy to see new high speed railways in the UK but as a Meadows says, for students like me train travel in the UK is prohibitively expensive. It costs almost 4 times as much to get from Cardiff to London by train as by bus and from central to outer London on the tube its another 5 quid a time. Compared to NYC where train fares are a fixed $2.50 no matter how far you travel. I know that a system whereby individual rail users pay for their own travel is largely preferable to one where taxpayers subsidise the railway but the economics of the railways is frustrating. Surely Great Western would rather have my £10 for a journey between Cardiff and London on a train that is only 40% full than no money at all or is the marginal cost to them of my presence on that train really greater than £10? I dont think so.

 

[Empty]

yay new trains. hopefully they extend the high speed up to scotland after this, to fight people taking internal flights in the uk which is incredibly wasteful.

 

[Arnie]

Wait, so HS2 won't hit Manchester and Leeds area (nearer me) until 2033?

I'll be 40 years old. Hard to get excited about something knowing you're going to be middle aged when it happens.

 

[daviyoung]

yay new trains. hopefully they extend the high speed up to scotland after this, to fight people taking internal flights in the uk which is incredibly wasteful.

Or they could spend the money and the time on better trains and improved lines, and doing something about not making a ticket from London to Glasgow cost over £500.

 

[SmokyDave]

Hard to get excited about something knowing you're going to be middle aged when it happens.

Unless 'something' is banging inappropriately-aged girls and buying a sports-car in a desperate bid to cling on to the last vestiges of my youth.

 

[Walshicus]

Surely Great Western would rather have my £10 for a journey between Cardiff and London on a train that is only 40% full than no money at all or is the marginal cost to them of my presence on that train really greater than £10? I dont think so.

There are two approaches you can take with trains - high volume, low margin or low volume, high margin. Rail operators seem content with the latter. Bloody rail privatisation.

 

[Arnie]

Unless 'something' is banging inappropriately-aged girls and buying a sports-car in a desperate bid to cling on to the last vestiges of my youth.

I vow to follow in your size 14 footsteps Ser Smoky Dave.

 

[Meadows]

I vow to follow in your size 14 footsteps Ser Smoky Dave.

You know what they say about men with big feet!

Spoiler

they're cunts

 

[Arnie]

You know what they say about men with big feet!

Spoiler

they're cunts

:lol

Big socks.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Yeah, I suppose so, but I'll just go with the economists who are saying it might narrow the north-south divide.

All its going to do is give people a slightly faster way to take their money or goods to London. And as Arnie points out, it won't be finished for years, I'll be 50 by the time its complete. I'm not against the improvements or anything, but I am loathe to believe it will close the north-south divide.

 

[J Tourettes]

surely we should be building a gigantic wall around london?

Anything that keep the rest of the moaning cunts in this country out would be fine by me.

 

[Meadows]

Anything that keep the rest of the moaning cunts in this country out would be fine by me.

picture of J Tourrettes:

 

[J Tourettes]

picture of J Tourrettes:

Those hipsters are typical out of towners. They move in to a traditionally working class area of London because it's 'cool' and end up pricing out local families that have lived there for generations. Wankers.

 

[Meadows]

"The last Labour government did more to tackle than any in British history" - Miliband

What crack is he smoking.

Such an assertion is a slap in the face of Clement Attlee's 1945-51 government.

 

[phisheep]

"The last Labour government did more to tackle than any in British history" - Miliband

What crack is he smoking.

Such an assertion is a slap in the face of Clement Attlee's 1945-51 government.

Also Lloyd George, Pitt, Wellington ...

 

[Meadows]

Miliband:

"We've already set out how we'd fix the economy in the short term: by taxing banker's bonuses and putting young people back to work"

What the fuck does that even mean? It's just rhetoric.

Mr Miliband said economic circumstances meant he could no longer promise to reverse "coalition government cuts" to the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

Instead, he revealed he would change the law to require energy companies to automatically place everyone aged over 75 on the cheapest available tariff.

I like this though. In fact, they could introduce that to a vote in Parliament and it would probably get enough cross-party support to pass, I don't know why it has to be an election promise.

 

[phisheep]

Miliband:

"We've already set out how we'd fix the economy in the short term: by taxing banker's bonuses and putting young people back to work"

What the fuck does that even mean? It's just rhetoric.

Um, I thought it was Labour (or at least Balls') policy to NOT fix the economy in the short term? Or am I missing something?

I like this though. In fact, they could introduce that to a vote in Parliament and it would probably get enough cross-party support to pass, I don't know why it has to be an election promise.

Bit wimpish though, isn't it? I mean, if he's going for legislation to control energy pricing, it would be no extra effort to require the energy companies to put everyone on the cheapest available tariff - rather than just the over 75s.

 

[Meadows]

Um, I thought it was Labour (or at least Balls') policy to NOT fix the economy in the short term? Or am I missing something?

dunno, that's what he said though

 

[Meadows]

SNP say they will ignore Parliament and hold the referendum in Autumn 2014.

This is a huge own goal for the SNP imo, they were given a chance to have a full, legally binding referendum but turned it down. Even if they win it will have no legal legitimacy and will be a glorified opinion poll.

It seems like the SNP want to stoke up antagonism against London for no reason (well other than to win more seats in the election in 2015)

 

[phisheep]

SNP say they will ignore Parliament and hold the referendum in Autumn 2014.

This is a huge own goal for the SNP imo, they were given a chance to have a full, legally binding referendum but turned it down. Even if they win it will have no legal legitimacy and will be a glorified opinion poll.

It seems like the SNP want to stoke up antagonism against London for no reason (well other than to win more seats in the election in 2015)

I don't think that is quite the 'own goal' that it seems.

I haven't worked out yet what all this stuff about 'legally binding' means in terms of real law, but roughly there seem to be a whole bunch of different considerations here:

One is what I take to be the government line, which I think is that it would not be lawful for Scotland to even hold such a referendum, whether the result were to be binding or not. I'll have a little rummage later to try and work out what the true position is.

Second, there's the question over whether any referendum can be legally binding in the UK at all, since even if laws were passed in advance to make a referendum binding, those laws could always be undone retrospectively once the result were known.

Third, there's the question of timing. This is really important. Because if there were to be a legally binding referendum (whatever that means) then it would be legally binding as to a NO vote as much as it is to a YES vote. Would that be legally binding forever? No, that's impossible. Would it be legally binding for a limited period? No, that's (politically) impossible as well. So it could only be binding for a YES vote, and since it is the YES campaigners who have the upper hand politically in Scotland then it is (rationally I think) their shout as to timing and campaigning, which is what the UK government is trying to stop by forcing an early vote. There's absolutely no reason whatever that Salmond should concede this any time before he is ready, which will be when the public opinion is right.

Fourth, and so far unaddressed, is the issue of who should contribute to this decision. Who should be polled? Doubtless Mr Salmond has some ideas about who he would extend Scottish citizenship to, and I'm sure it would not be restricted to those currently living in Scotland. It isn't clear either that this is only a decision for Scotland, since it affects in different ways the whole UK economy. Could, for example, England vote on whether to chuck Scotland out of the Union (after all that is surely an English matter ain't it?).

Fifth and worst for the SNP is that if they go for a binding referendum (yay!) and if they win it (yay again!) they have just buggered up their negotiating position for working out the terms of withdrawal from the Union (doubleplus un-Yay!) because since the referendum was binding both sides know that the SNP can't walk away.

Best outcome for Salmond and the SNP is overwhelming popular support in a non-binding referendum, because that would change the political atmosphere in Scotland, from an 'if' to a 'when and on what terms'. Last thing he needs is to be shoehorned into a timetable by somebody else.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I do wonder what Salmond would do if Cameron announced tomorrow that the rest of the UK will hold a referendum on whether we keep them or kick them out. If they are angling for Devo Max, that might fuck him up a bit.

 

[killer_clank]

I do wonder what Salmond would do if Cameron announced tomorrow that the rest of the UK will hold a referendum on whether we keep them or kick them out. If they are angling for Devo Max, that might fuck him up a bit.

That would be the most abhorrent piece of politics, and would almost definitely cause the biggest outrage ever seen in Scotland.

 

[Meadows]

I do wonder what Salmond would do if Cameron announced tomorrow that the rest of the UK will hold a referendum on whether we keep them or kick them out. If they are angling for Devo Max, that might fuck him up a bit.

no way that would happen, the Lib Dems have got quite a few seats in Scotland.

 

[killer_clank]

SNP say they will ignore Parliament and hold the referendum in Autumn 2014.

This is a huge own goal for the SNP imo, they were given a chance to have a full, legally binding referendum but turned it down. Even if they win it will have no legal legitimacy and will be a glorified opinion poll.

It seems like the SNP want to stoke up antagonism against London for no reason (well other than to win more seats in the election in 2015)

They haven't done anything other than announce a date, and the actual published consultation from the UK government has blanks where a time delay is mentioned. So this 'option' could still be accepted, theoretically.

 

[StealthGoblin]

no way that would happen, the Lib Dems have got quite a few seats in Scotland.

Oh, I'm not saying it would ever happen. It would never happen. The question was a theoretical one.

I would find it terribly amusing.

'Hey Alex, we are going to vote on a referendum next year to kick your country out'.

'WAT'

'Suck it'

That would be the most abhorrent piece of politics, and would almost definitely cause the biggest outrage ever seen in Scotland.

If we voted Scotland out. . their outrage is not our problem. Lol.

 

[Meadows]

I think the thing that annoys me most about the 2014 date is that it's pretty much an admission from Salmond that a referendum hasn't got majority backing in Scotland and that they're buying as much time as is physically possible.

If Salmond was doing this properly he would have scheduled the referendum for early-mid 2012 when he got in power, i.e. make Scotland independent asap.

 

[Wazzim]

I heard about the referendum this afternoon, what's wrong with Scotland being in the UK?

 

[killer_clank]

I think the thing that annoys me most about the 2014 date is that it's pretty much an admission from Salmond that a referendum hasn't got majority backing in Scotland and that they're buying as much time as is physically possible.

If Salmond was doing this properly he would have scheduled the referendum for early-mid 2012 when he got in power, i.e. make Scotland independent asap.

politics is politics, any government is gonna hold a referendum when they think they can win. and there's hardly outrage in scotland about 2014. plus independence is a big, big, big decision, and must require a fair period of proper debate

 

[Walshicus]

I heard about the referendum this afternoon, what's wrong with Scotland being in the UK?

The Scottish political centre is almost completely at odds with the English? There's no benefit to Scotland in being tied to England? The UK is an anachronism that should be discarded and shat on?

 

[phisheep]

I do wonder what Salmond would do if Cameron announced tomorrow that the rest of the UK will hold a referendum on whether we keep them or kick them out.

He would immediately say that it wouldn't be legally binding!

 

[Meadows]

There's no benefit to Scotland in being tied to England?

no benefit?

now you're just drowning in rhetoric, you can have one view or another about independence in Scotland, but to say there is no benefit is untrue.

 

[PJV3]

Oh, I'm not saying it would ever happen. It would never happen. The question was a theoretical one.

I would find it terribly amusing.

'Hey Alex, we are going to vote on a referendum next year to kick your country out'.

'WAT'

'Suck it'



If we voted Scotland out. . their outrage is not our problem. Lol.

This English need to start thinking more positively about their own democracy and what they want rather than sticking up two fingers to Scotland or the EU etc (i realise you are joking).

 

[Omikaru]

The political manoeuvring around this referendum is quite amusing to watch as a relatively impartial Welshman. Scottish independence doesn't really affect me (well, it does, but it's not my decision to make so I haven't given it too much thought), and I'm not passionate for either side, so watching Alex Salmond and David Cameron trying to one up each other is pretty amusing, whilst interesting at the same time, for the obvious reason of being Welsh. I may one day find myself in a similar position to what every Scot must be in now, and I'll have to decide whether I want my country to remain part of the UK, or to split.

And quite frankly, from that perspective, any interference by the English government in a predominantly Welsh affair would annoy me. I can't be the only one who thinks that, right?

Honestly, my view is that Cameron is acting like an arse. Scotland voted for the SNP with the full knowledge that Salmond wanted a referendum in 2014. For the previous Scottish elections in 2007, they voted majority Unionist and there was no referendum. It sounds pretty simple to me.

And ultimately, Salmond has a really strong mandate for this. He directly wields a majority, which is something David Cameron doesn't. He is also merely acting on a promise made in his party's manifesto, which is something that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have struggled to do in the coalition, much to the upset of their parties. Also, the Westminster Government's argument of getting it out of the way sooner rather than letting Salmond effectively "rig it" (which is their implication, if the papers are to be believed) stinks of hypocrisy when precisely what they want to do is pull an AV again by running a dirty campaign bankrolled by special interest groups, probably full of lies, in an attempt to nip it in the bud as fast as they possibly can. And yes, I'm implying that they will do anything to get the result they want, rather than letting the Scottish people make an informed decision. The Westminster government's position feels cheap, and the arguments hollow, considering successive governments have always flat-out opposed a referendum up until this point. Needless to say, Salmond must be very wary of Tory tricks after the AV result.

Now I don't necessarily support Scottish independence, but since they voted in a government knowing that they would get a referendum, there now needs to be a serious debate about it. In my view, such a big decision takes time, and the referendum should be held towards the end of this current Scottish Parliamentary term. And if Cameron's government doesn't like that... well... tough! They need to respect the democratic process, which has determined that the Scottish people want this referendum on their own terms, not ones from the English.

 

[phisheep]

There's no benefit to Scotland in being tied to England?

Well there is at least the benefit of exporting politicians that you don't like to Westminster (Blair, Brown, Robin thingummy and so on).

 

[Meadows]

Scotland voted for the SNP with the full knowledge that Salmond wanted a referendum in 2014. For the previous Scottish elections in 2007, they voted majority Unionist and there was no referendum. It sounds pretty simple to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13030467

There's a strong conention to be made that people voted SNP because of their centre-left campaign promises, not the referendum, as shown in that link, where independence was the *drumroll* 22ND MOST IMPORTANT SNP POLICY below stuff like free pensioner's bus travel, and alcohol pricing!!!!

 

[Omikaru]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13030467

There's a strong conention to be made that people voted SNP because of their centre-left campaign promises, not the referendum, as shown in that link, where independence was the *drumroll* 22ND MOST IMPORTANT SNP POLICY!!!!

I'm sorry, but everyone in Scotland knows what the SNP would do should they get a majority. If they wanted centre-left without independence, they had the Greens and Labour to go to. I'm not saying all SNP voters want independence, but it seems pretty clear to me that Scotland wants to make this decision, whether that is a Yes or a No.

I think it's fair to say that other issues are more important, but to imply that they didn't know what they were letting themselves in for is absurd. I know plenty of people who support what Plaid Cymru says on a lot of policy, but would never vote for them because of the whole Welsh independence thing.

 

[Meadows]

I'm sorry, but everyone in Scotland knows what the SNP would do should they get a majority. If they wanted centre-left without independence, they had the Greens and Labour to go to. I'm not saying all SNP voters want independence, but it seems pretty clear to me that Scotland wants to make this decision, whether that is a Yes or a No.

for me it seems pretty clear that Scottish people don't paticularly care as long as they get free bus passes for the elderly and a council tax freeze.