| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| SLG |
MCCONNELL IS HURTING HOLYROODMCCONNELL IS HURTING HOLYROODBlast by predecessor By Dave King FIRST Minister Jack McConnell was yesterday told his silence over new powers for Holyrood is hurting the parliament. Henry McLeish claimed his successor is being pressed to keep the current devolution set-up by Westminster. But he insisted McConnell is damaging the union by not challenging this. McLeish said MPs see an extension of Holyrood powers as a "step on the slippery road" to independence. And he warned McConnell that leaving the debate to other parties is "dangerous". McLeish said: "The debate on powers and constitutional issues is far too narrow, increasingly polarised, partisan and predictable. "The terms are being dictated on the one hand by Labour ministers at Westminster who see devolution as complete and believe Scots should be satisfied with the settlement. "As a result, enormous pressure continues to be exerted on the First Minister to conform to that. "If Jack sits tight and does nothing, Labour could be left behind as the debate takes shape. "The political space would be filled with ideas and issues that may be politically attractive to some but fail the Scotland test as to what is really in the country's interests." http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...7&siteid=66633-name_page.html |
||||
| Aventinian |
It's always ging to be polarised if you involve the Nationalists - we're quite clear on what they want. A proper debate between the Tories and the Lib Dems (we'd have to involve Labour simply because of their size - not because of their ideology) may yield some positive results. It's not really surprising though, it's a young institution, things will need ironed out. |
||||
| SLG |
Well even within nationalist circles there is a range of opinion. A more open minded approach from the Unionist side might see a reciprocation from that nationalists (and this is already happening to an extent IMO). The SNP are perfectly open to discussing greater powers for Holyrood where there is a consensus.
You are right that things will be ironed out though as the no more devolution stance of Labour becomes more isolated. |
||||
| Corby Boy |
Don't know if any of you saw Andrew Marr's politics show on Sunday, Union Jack was being interviewed. When he was quizzed about the forthcoming elections he looked like a 'rabbit caught in the headlights', clearly his body language is giving away his inner most fears about being gubbed in May. | ||||
| Aventinian |
I suppose that is somewhat true. But is there any point where a nationalist will stand side-by-side with a Unionist and say 'no, a devolved parliament within a wider country should not have x powers'? I think Labour will become isolated - their position is illogical. Particularly, I feel, in relation to 'fiscal autonomy'.
I find it funny how he is called Union Jack by nationalists when he is a former SNP member, a clear closet-Nationalist and has done quite a bit to see the St Andrews Cross flying everywhere without doing the same for the Union Jack. |
||||
| SLG |
There are two ways for the Unionists to win the argument, either isolate the SNP position, or convince the SNP to adopt a new position. If the Unionist parties can come to a consensus for, lets say fiscal autonomy, then I imagine most in the SNP would support that. That's consensus politics, finding the areas we agree on, despite other differences. And that should be enough because even though most in the SNP would continue to call for full independence, if the electorate in the new fully autonomous Scotland are happy with the constitutional resolution, then the SNP will die a natural death. |
||||
| Mctosh45 |
Slg,
Thats a dangerous game to play, independence is a lot more than fiscal autonomy?Scotland deserves much more not least its own say in foreign policy and its profile in the world through its own diplomatic corps. I for one won't settle for anything less than full independence. |
||||
| SLG |
I don't see it as being any more dangerous than supporting devolution. Something I'm very glad the party did. I'm of the opinion that anything that furthers our 'independence' and authority of our parliament is a step in the right direction.
I would continue to argue for full independence, what I'm saying is that while their isn't the mandate through parliament for a referendum, then the SNP should support any moves that would transfer powers from Westminster to Holyrood. That's just pragmatic IMO, and at the end of the day, representative of the electorate. |
||||
| Mctosh45 |
If the Unionist parties can come to a consensus for, lets say fiscal autonomy, then I imagine most in the SNP would support that. That's consensus politics, finding the areas we agree on, despite other differences. And that should be enough because even though most in the SNP would continue to call for full independence, if the electorate in the new fully autonomous Scotland are happy with the constitutional resolution, then the SNP will die a natural death.
Seems to me from the statement above fiscal autonomy is all you want & your concedeing full independence if the Scottish people are happy with full autonomy, which to me is second best. Also you seem to be giving the counsel of hope to our political opponents especially with the last comment?       
|
||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
You can't have fiscal autonomy without independence. | ||||
| SLG |
Well if I was speaking to a hall full of swing voters I might not use such language, but we're having a political debate amongst folk with pretty well formed opinions, so I won't kid myself. Believe me, I wouldn't accept any form of fiscal autonomy as an alternative to full independence (and as MC says, it's debatable whether it is even possible). However anything that leads to more powers for Holyrood is preferable to the present situation IMO and should be supported and welcomed. If that leads to a fall in support for independence then so be it. At the end of the day it is the electorate who decide, so they get the Executive they want. I wouldn't stop me working for independence. However, that's a hypothetical situation, and one I don't believe will happen. If you believe in independence, you should have enough belief to know that as with devolution, any 'fiscal autonomy' granted to us will only be another stepping stone on the way to a fully independent state. |
||||
| Aventinian |
Really? I imagine most countries manage it within their borders to some degree. The United States and Canada are two nations I can think of that allow their political subdivisions to collect and levy tax. In the US especially there are huge numbers of taxation levels - cities, countries, states, federal etc. Just to clarify, I am wanting a fiscally autonomous Scottish Parliament, not a fiscally autonomous Scotland; the UK Parliament would still be responsible for raising tax to fund reserved matters. I think decentralised taxation is the only way one can run a decentralised state effectively and justly. |
||||
| Mctosh45 |
Aventinian, well we want a fiscally autonomous Scottish Parliament within a fiscally autonomous Scotland within a fiscally autonomous Europe the best of all worlds? | ||||