Left wingers are getting a bit scared
Discussion
Mrr T said:
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
XJ Flyer said:
You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.
I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.From the above (constitution) it appears to be on the government side!
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that if the Constitution does not specifically make a matter a federal matter then its a state matter.
Mind you that does not stop constant battles between the states and the federal government as to the correct meaning of what is a state or federal matter.
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.
What would be your view if Labour had no seats in Scotland? Whether it's right or wrong shouldn't depend on the outcome for either party. Personally, I can't see any rational defense for the current system.
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
It will probably be that catastrophic mistake which will ( hopefully ) deny Cameron getting his ersatz independent 'English' parliament while sadly wrecking the hopes of those of us who thought that Farage was the real anti federalist thing.
I am pretty sure that UKIP's policy has been for more power to be devolved to the home countries for some time now. So to assume that Farage was anti-federalist is a bit strange. He is certainly against the UK in a federal Europe though.So you're saying he's actually a federalist,just not an EU federalist,calling a nationalist,just not a UK federalist,a federalist.In which case,assuming you're right,if that isn't gross hypocrisy nothing is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72l2072nH8
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 19:21
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament.
Not losing all their rights- just losing the right to be involved in stuff that's none of their actual business.We can't vote in theirs, they can't vote in ours. Seems fair to me.
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
It will probably be that catastrophic mistake which will ( hopefully ) deny Cameron getting his ersatz independent 'English' parliament while sadly wrecking the hopes of those of us who thought that Farage was the real anti federalist thing.
I am pretty sure that UKIP's policy has been for more power to be devolved to the home countries for some time now. So to assume that Farage was anti-federalist is a bit strange. He is certainly against the UK in a federal Europe though.So you're saying he's actually a federalist,just not an EU federalist,calling a nationalist,just not a UK federalist,a federalist.In which case,assuming you're right,if that isn't gross hypocrisy nothing is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72l2072nH8
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 19:21
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament.
Not losing all their rights- just losing the right to be involved in stuff that's none of their actual business.We can't vote in theirs, they can't vote in ours. Seems fair to me.
XJ Flyer said:
Not just a Party without opposition.It would be a unionist/federalist Party,taking advantage of justified English nationalist sentiment.To make the required cutbacks in the English budget,to pay off its Scottish /unionist/federalist allies for the bribes given to Scotland to save the Union.
What information do you have that more money will go to Scotland? Keeping the Barnett formula doesnt actually do that, and its only a matter of time before that gets junked.RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.
What would be your view if Labour had no seats in Scotland? Whether it's right or wrong shouldn't depend on the outcome for either party. Personally, I can't see any rational defense for the current system.
I'm not in favour of the Scottish M.P. voting on policies when those policies will only have affect on England. But I am not in favour of gerrymandering either.
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
It will probably be that catastrophic mistake which will ( hopefully ) deny Cameron getting his ersatz independent 'English' parliament while sadly wrecking the hopes of those of us who thought that Farage was the real anti federalist thing.
I am pretty sure that UKIP's policy has been for more power to be devolved to the home countries for some time now. So to assume that Farage was anti-federalist is a bit strange. He is certainly against the UK in a federal Europe though.So you're saying he's actually a federalist,just not an EU federalist,calling a nationalist,just not a UK federalist,a federalist.In which case,assuming you're right,if that isn't gross hypocrisy nothing is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72l2072nH8
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 19:21
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
Not just a Party without opposition.It would be a unionist/federalist Party,taking advantage of justified English nationalist sentiment.To make the required cutbacks in the English budget,to pay off its Scottish /unionist/federalist allies for the bribes given to Scotland to save the Union.
What information do you have that more money will go to Scotland? Keeping the Barnett formula doesnt actually do that, and its only a matter of time before that gets junked.The Barnett formula is actually set in stone as part of the settlement that Cameron has signed up to to 'save the Union'.
XJ Flyer said:
How can it be a 'UK' parliament if it has been devolved to the point where it no longer functions as a UK parliament but it also doesn't function as a Confederate one either.Because as I said we don't have the right of Veto or opt out when setting the respective Scottish share of the UK budget which is rigged so that the Scottish get more per head from it than we do as a net contributor.Which is one of the same reasons given by UKIP for withdrawal from the EU federation.
I think you will find its not going to work like that. The Scots will be told 'this is your share of the budget' based upon a much much smaller budget as the scots will be given more tax raising power and Scots income tax will go direct to Holyrood, if they want to spend more then they can tax their electorate more. When this is finally recognised by the Scots, even the YES voters will be pining for the old days.turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.
Or more success in terms of the majority of the people seeing their vote leading to the Party they voted for getting in at election time. That's true democracy. The idea behind having any form of HM Opposition is to do what you claim will be missing. There will be the odd LibDem yellow spot here and there, a red blob or two particularly up north. What you're possibly mourning in advance, should England get what's on offer in other parts of the UK, is the loss of influence from outdated unaffordable left-ish dogma on the engine room of the former UK's economy and the more libertarian approach to responsible lifestyle self-determination with nanny state in retirement. Otherwise known as an excellent prospect to the large majority of English as opposed to UK voters. XJ Flyer said:
The Barnett formula is actually set in stone as part of the settlement that Cameron has signed up to to 'save the Union'.
Until the new 'devolved' UK is in operation. Then a new settlement will be made. (and Cameron is history). Not even sure that Camerons promise will make it through parliament intact. s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
How can it be a 'UK' parliament if it has been devolved to the point where it no longer functions as a UK parliament but it also doesn't function as a Confederate one either.Because as I said we don't have the right of Veto or opt out when setting the respective Scottish share of the UK budget which is rigged so that the Scottish get more per head from it than we do as a net contributor.Which is one of the same reasons given by UKIP for withdrawal from the EU federation.
I think you will find its not going to work like that. The Scots will be told 'this is your share of the budget' based upon a much much smaller budget as the scots will be given more tax raising power and Scots income tax will go direct to Holyrood, if they want to spend more then they can tax their electorate more. When this is finally recognised by the Scots, even the YES voters will be pining for the old days.s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
The Barnett formula is actually set in stone as part of the settlement that Cameron has signed up to to 'save the Union'.
Until the new 'devolved' UK is in operation. Then a new settlement will be made. (and Cameron is history). Not even sure that Camerons promise will make it through parliament intact. Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 19:59
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
The Barnett formula is actually set in stone as part of the settlement that Cameron has signed up to to 'save the Union'.
Until the new 'devolved' UK is in operation. Then a new settlement will be made. (and Cameron is history). Not even sure that Camerons promise will make it through parliament intact. Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 19:59
Its been admitted that the Barnett formula is unfair (even by Barnett) so its only a matter of time before its replaced.
BTW the UK doesnt need to 'back track' on anything, only Cameron has promised this, not parliament. Any nothing is ever set in stone.
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.
I'd expect most of that to be devolved to a more local level - as it is in Scotland. Tax and spending, well some of that will be UK wide, some devolved, and a limited amount English.edh said:
turbobloke said:
edh said:
The budget & autumn statement are UK-wide, not English.
At the moment.The business of English votes determining English policies, alongside devo-max for Scotland including powers over taxation, means that what was formerly a UK matter may well not be so in the near future. Autumn Statements and the like will either go or be adapted to suit, in whatever way is finally agreed. Without knowing details of what the coalition/individual parties are planning, that much is obvious.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff