| 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. |
| Reluctant Hero |
Trident RebellionPut this in this forum as it is based in Scotland.Can you actually believe that Des Browne said this
What an arrogant, patronising, ****. I am away to email my MP just now, to ask him to vote against the government's plans. Think he voted against the "war" in Iraq so hopefully he will do the same this time. What good it will do who knows? Because the Tories look set to vote with the government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438793.stm
|
||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
I can't believe that arrogant c*** is my representative in Westminster. Scaremongering that the Home Secretary would be proud of - I guess Des will be in for a promotion soon then? | ||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It's true, mutually assured destruction kept the West safe for a generation and we have no idea what the future may hold. | ||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
The Soviet Union in their prime must have been quaking in their boots knowing that Britain had a couple of nukes 
|
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I imagine they were actually. We based a lot of our strategic planning back in the Cold War days on the Moscow Criterion - the ability of Britain to unilaterally destroy the entire Soviet administrative and political apparatus in the Moscow area. That's the wonder of nuclear weaponry, it is a great leveller of men. Anyway, it was very systematic. France and Britain have protected the Commonwealth and European states that America probably wouldn't have cared about. If anything, the Falklands showed that even our supposed closest allies couldn't be trusted to make too many ripples in the international community even when one country was acting in an obviously agressive and entirely illegal manner. I imagine we'd have been seen as the deterrent against using nuclear weapons to intimidate certain parts of Europe. As I've said before, there's no country I'd rather had the bomb than the UK. |
||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Looks like Labour won the vote on Trident despite close to 100 Labour MPs voting against it. Having to rely on the Tory vote doesn't say much for Blair's authority.
Interesting article here http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6451615.stm |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6452275.stm
Seems that the majority of Scottish MPs voted against the Government's motion to renew Trident (33 to 26) composed of the SNP, Scottish Liberal Democrats and, significantly, 15 Scottish Labour MPs rebelling. Scotland's remaining 25 Labour MPs and sole Tory representative, clearly either abstaining or voting in favour. Given the strength of anti-Trident/nuclear feeling in Scotland this could be very significant. |
||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
I hope the electorate of Scotland will take note for future reference the names of those Scottish Labour MPs who voted in favour of a renewal of Trident. I wonder how many of their constituents approved of them for doing so?
. |
||||||||||||||
| kevin04 |
Honestly, this is another BIG BIG reason to vote these cúnts out of Holyrood aswell, Des Browne comes across as an arrogant árse-hole, I really hope the people of Scotland will stand up and be counted come May 3rd, We can make a difference and vote these corrupt cronies out of our country, | ||||||||||||||
| mal |
I wonder how those residents of countries without nuclear weapons managed to sleep soundly
|
||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
why should england worry because if there is a strike it will be scotland that gets hit frist seeing they are stationed in scotland . | ||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Well it just seems to me that Scotland doesn't want Trident, Scottish MPs voted against it, yet Scotland still gets Trident and its upgrade imposed on it. | ||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Scotland won't be hit, a small area around the Clyde will be. As I don't live there, it's of as much a concern to me as it is to an English chap.
The majority of Scottish MPs have as little to do with it as the English MPs. Fact is, however, that Parliaments of all sorts have always made local legislation (was it not you who pointed this out in a discussion about the West Lothian Question?) which affects the few but is agreed upon by the many. If we cut it down to size, we have a Lib Dem MP in Helensburgh - ie, the affected area. He would not have been elected on an anti-nuclear ticket as the Lib Dems don't actually have a real position re: nukes. They voted against them this time on the grounds that we should postpone worrying about the matter for a couple of years. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Tell me, you don't actually believe that. It doesn't matter whether it is a small area around the Clyde (which is in Scotland, incidentally, in case you hadn't noticed) I think we'll all be pretty badly affected by it - wouldn't you? Those of us in Scotland, if we aren't dead after the impact, would probably be so in the fall-out.
I respect your opinion because you are a Unionist and probably don't see much of a problem with it. I don't support the Union, therefore see it in an entirely different light. Nevertheless the numbers support my position. I have, previously, pointed out the facts behind the West Lothian Question demonstating that it is a nonsense. After all most folk recognise the truth that it is a lot of tosh, but if people are happy to believe it is an indignity, then I don't care. I don't believe this Trident issues is similar to other local measures taken by Parliament (and I struggle to think of many as potent as this). This is not quite the same as it directly affects many, indirectly affects the few (those who live near Trident, and much of western Scotland by wider implication) and was agreed upon by the many and disagreed upon by the few (who just happen to make up a majority of Scottish MPs) As for the vote, it is undeniably significant. I want Trident removed from Scotland and I think independence is one of the ways to achieve that. The arguments and opinion undeniably show that Scotland is against it. If other parts of the UK want it, I suggest they take it, pay for its removal from Scotland and base it somewhere else - which is next to impossible, but never mind. (And again, bear in mind I come from the position of wanting to end the Union, so of course my opinion on that can never be reconciled with yours)
It is funny you should mention that. I believe Alan Reid MP, the MP for the area where Trident is based at Faslane and Coulport, also voted against the Government on the renewal as well - a local decision perhaps? He may not have been voted in on an anti-nuclear ticket, then again he probably wasn't voted in on a pro-nuclear ticket, either. Given prevailing public opinion is in Scotland on the issue - overwhelmingly and crushingly against Trident and renewal I'd say his opinion is probably more in tune with the majority of the people he represents. Nevertheless, I agree with you on the stupidity of the general LibDem position, but then coming from them, it is hardly a surprise. |
||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
I've just emailed Tom Clarke MP CBE to ask him how his vote with the government reflected the view of his constituents. | ||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Which 'folk' would those be out of interest? Reiterating that the WLQ is nonsense won't make it so. Indeed why you would want to deny it escapes me, as it's a concrete argument against the union in England. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
The WLQ is nonsense, because it states that English MPs don't get to vote on Scottish domestic issues (those devolved to the Scottish Parliament), but they do so with stunning frequency and alacrity. Even the bill which contained top-up fees for England, had a large number of sections with effects for Scottish Higher Education - which is a devolved issue. There are hundreds of examples along these lines. But as I said, if it helps end the Union, from the English side, then I'm not going to get too worried about a few nonsenses and inaccuracies. | ||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
No it doesn't. The Higher Education Act 2004 insofar as it affects Scotland creates an Arts and Humanities Council which spans the UK, has a provision about transfer of information relating to student support between agencies and the payments from treasury funds. I don't see how any of these are devolved matters. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Depends on a huge number of variables. But of course, northern England and Northern Ireland would be just as likely to feel the effects as northern Scotland would. And no, it wouldn't kill us all.
If you're going to have to live in a British state, surely you'd want it to be a fair and equal one.
I think many people in Scotland realise the advantages of having a nuclear deterrent. I don't know if it's the majority, perhaps not, but certainly a substantial number in favour. |
||||||||||||||
| Pip |
So a few odds and ends of UK wide legislation get debated by the UK parliament, where Scottish MPs are still slightly over-represented by population. The overwhelming majority of devolved legislation is dealt with at Holyrood by Scottish MSPs. Corresponding legislation in England is dealt with by British MPs, including many Scots, who have been elected by people who won't be affected by their decisions. It's just one of many arguments for an English Parliament, which can only be reasonably denied if it's overtaken by Independence.
That's the spirit! |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
You also forgot the other sections on Student support, which are.
They're not really grossly over represented to any significant degree - and I certainly admit, I don't want Westminster to have anything to do with Scotland. Whilst the vast majority of domestic affairs is devolved, the point is that it can still be debated on and voted on by Westminster MPs - and frequently they are - and the provisions that relate to Scotland do not normally extend to the whole of the UK. I agree that this happens much less than if there was not a Scottish Parliament, but as inconvenient as it may be English MPs do vote in areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament - they do it far more than even they realise. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Care to cite a section or provision? |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Section 45 of the act. Affects Scotland (as well as the rest of the UK). Therefore over a third of the provisions of the said bill, directly apply to Scotland. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree Scottish MP shouldn't be voting on such provisions, but then I don't support English MPs voting on the Scottish provisions of Westminster bills (through the Sewel Motion etc), and I certainly don't support things, like Trident being imposed on Scotland (or indeed on the constituency of Argyll and Bute), when the majority of Scottish MPs (and the MP for Argyll and Bute) voted against that. The point I am trying to make is that the WLQ states that English MPs do not get to vote or debate on Scottish devolved issues, that is total rubbish. I agree that devolution changed the constitution and practices changed, I don't dispute that. But from my point of view (someone who supports an independent Scotland) I could view the imposition of Trident on Scotland (as it has vastly disproportionate effects here) as unjust as the imposition of top-up fees on England. And as I strongly support Scottish independence, I see the way out of such confusion and unfairness from Scotland, and by extention, England. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Section 45 is the one I made reference to earlier, about sharing information between student support agencies. It'd be entirely impractical not to have that extent to Scotland and doesn't affect Scottish education at all.
A third of the provisions may apply, but they do not have effect on devolved powers or authority. I agree somewhat that the WLQ is invented - for example, who voted for the London Olympics - only the MPs in London? I think not. It's not really a matter of that, however, it's more one of equality: if one nation is offered something, so should the others. On equal terms. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Perhaps not in this instance, but, unfortunately, they applied to Scotland, ergo the bill did not just apply to England. However, you know as well as I do, I can find plenty of provisions in UK bills that do impinge upon devolved authority, and were debated and voted on by all Westminster MPs. And that is the point that destroys the premise behind the WLQ. However if people down south want to manufacture a sense of constitutional victimhood out of, what is largely a nonsense, and it helps break up the Union, then I am not too concerned.
I don't think it is invented, more it doesn't exist. Certainly, things have changed with devolution. Certainly Scottish MPs did make the difference in the vote on the respective top-up fees legislation (although significant proportions of that bill extended to Scotland), in the same way English MPs made the difference in imposing Trident upon Scotland. But that is not the point of the WLQ. It certainly is a question over equity - but the only way Scotland will get equity in all the laws that affect it, is independence. Not only that, but Westminster retains a complete veto over Scottish devolution and Scottish legislation and can pass legislation in devolved areas if it wishes to. |
||||||||||||||
| Pip |
As I've said before, Sewell motions, and the subsequent decisions on Scotland made at Westminster, are in no way pertinent to the WLQ, or England at all for that matter, even though they defy the will of the Scots who voted for devolution. If McConnell and the rest of the Lib-Lab C-List who make up the Scottish executive, don't have the backbone to sign off on controversial measures themselves, then it's something for the Scots to take up with Union Jack and his motley crew. I would have no objection to Scottish MPs voting on English-only measures IF an English Parliament existed and kicked the bill in question back to Westminster. At the moment the majority of Scottish domestic legislation is dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish MSPs, and that which isn't is dealt with at Westminster at the SP's request. ALL English legislation is dealt with by Westminster and British MPs. The Westminster MPs aren't using their powers to override Holyrood; rather they are having Scottish issues thrust in their laps.
I'll confess, I object to those elements of the debate which present England as uniquely victimized, in fact I think they're quite disgusting. As I frequently point out to English Nationalists, Scotland and Wales have massive and genuine grievances of their own, and it's in the interests of every English Nationalist to at least understand, if not sympathize with them. There is, however, no basis or justification to suggest that the English are not victimized at all, and increasingly we will be taking part in the debate, and demanding and winning our own solutions. At the moment, however, the ball remains very clearly in Scotland's court. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
The Sewell Motion isn't just a mechanism for the third rate Labour led coaliton to chicken out of controversial legislation by thrusting Scotland's domestic issues onto the laps of the elected representatives at Westminster - although they do that quite a bit as well. A lot of Reserved Matters, have deep implications on the devolved issues. The massive range of Terrorism legislation has deep implications on Scotland's Police and Criminal Justice system, requiring provisions, powers and enactments that can be considerably different to their English and Welsh counterparts. These have to be contained and built into pan-UK legislation I'm not trying to be a difficult b****rd, honestly, I'm just pointing out that the idea that English MPs have no say on devolved Scottish issues any more is total rubbish, because they do and they do very, very frequently. There is no argument to that point. But, yes I do agree things have changed with devolution. All domestic English legislation is dealt with at Westminster by all MPs sitting there, and on the face of it all Scottish domestic legislation is dealt with by the Scottish Parliament - but as I have pointed out, it isn't quite as simple as that. I don't dispute the assertion that the top-up fees section of the Higher Education Act 2004, was voted through on the votes of Scottish Labour MPs. Yes, the missing link in all of this would be an English Parliament - if we wished to retain the Union (which I most certainly do not). I don't dispute any of those points. What I do dispute is the assertion that English MPs are "gagged" and have no say on Scottish devolved issues. That is clearly an untruth. But that is also the premise behind the WLQ, as defined. That is the point, I am trying to make. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I actually can't think of one provision of a UK Act of Parliament affecting devolved matters that was not covered by the reserved powers and was not put to a Sewel vote in Holyrood. The nearest thing I can think of is the Catholic adoption scandal created by the Equality Act 2006 over-riding Holyrood legislation. However equal opportunities, human rights and so forth (provision L2 of the reserved matters in the Scotland Act) are all very firmly reserved matters - so it was very much Westminster's right.
If however England has some provisions for devolution, the significant provisions of that Act would have been made by English MPs, or some sort of devolved MLAs. We all realise this, and it would't have passed. However devolution was not offered to England on the same terms as it was offered in Scotland. That's quite simply state discrimination. It's a political matter though, not a constitutional one as many seem to see it. Edit: and the UK can legislate on devolved matters , but it won't - the Memorandum of Understanding, although not binding, makes that clear. I don't think anyone is advocating ending parliamentary supremacy in England either. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Well, if you think that then I think you should take a look at the list of Sewel Motions for the 2003-2007 UK Parliament. There seems quite a lot that is not purely related to the over-riding Reserved Matters. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Sewel/SessionTwo But once again, you seem to be having difficulty with the point that I am making, and I don't know why, because it is a pretty simple point I am making.
Certainly the provisions that extended to England. But I am in total agreement with that. The only two England-only Acts in the last decade, that Scottish MPs have made the difference on, would not have been passed, in the areas where they extend to England. No-one disputes that. I certainly don't agree that it is discrimination that England does not have a parliament - any more than you'd agree it was discrimination they way Scotland was governed prior to devolution. I do view it as unequal and unfair. I also view it as an aside to debate that Scotland be independent of Westminster.
It can it and does legislate in devolved areas. It may not impose it's will on voting in devolved areas, but it could. I don't understand what is so difficult about the points I am making. I know they may be inconvenient, but they aren't too difficult to comprehend. All Westminster MPs can and do vote on devolved areas. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Let's clarify then, since you seem to have attempted to raise several points at once.
Are you talking about Sewelled areas in which the UK Parliament has legislated for Scotland? Or non-Sewelled cases, which you allege exist and I refute.
What do you call the state giving something to one section of the population, yet denying it to others for no good reason?
I do agree that the context of administrative devolution was somewhat unfair. However if the UK hadn't had that, and had been a true unitary state, then it wouldn't have been unfair in the least. Equally with my devolution argument, the other parts of the UK should've been administratively devolved too if Scotland was going to be. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I am talking about any instance of all Westminster MPs having a say or vote on devolved areas. Yes, some of that comes through Sewelled areas. But the point is it happens, that is the sole point I am trying to make. I don't see how it makes any difference, whether it was caused by the passage of a Sewel Motion, or whether the devolved matter in hand was over-ridden. Ergo, the West Lothian Question is destroyed. I understand there are a lot of administrative and constitutional differences now, compared to when we didn't have devolution, but all the points I make boil down to the point, I have been trying to consistently make. And no amount of dancing around the point, will change the fact. |
||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Let's just remind ourselves of the original question raised by Dalyell,
Economist's point, as I understand it, is that Westminster MPs (of whom the majority are English) do have a say on devolved matters in Scotland, and frequently exercise power over matters in Holyrood's remit. Hence there is nothing for the English to tolerate and Dalyell was talking out of the top of his hat. Please correct me if I've misrepresented the argument, as I'm not trying to be an awkward b-----d either! My point is that Westminster's voting on Scottish devolved legislation makes not the slightest difference to the WLQ in the event of a Sewell motion OR where UK wide measures impact upon Scotland. In the case of a Sewell motion the SP has decided to evolve its power back to Westminster, and has voluntarily given up the option to vote upon it itself. Why hey should do this is an issue, although it doesn't seem to be a point of much contention with Scottish nats, and I think Holyrood should be called on why it happens so often. The choices of the Scottish Parliament, however, do not have any bearing on England's situation; the practical power rests with with Scotland. Similarly it's quite obvious that all national and regional Assemblies and Parliaments will be subordinate to Westminster while the UK continues. Because Scotland has a different legal system, it's very easy to claim that part of a UK wide measure is specifically Scottish (such as the anti-terror legislation), when it is merely the same or similar result, achieved via Scottish rather than English law. As to an English Parliament I am more than happy to argue the overwhelming case in its favour, but a Trident thread in the Scottish Politics section is not the most appropriate place to do so. I do agree that it's a largely separate issue to UK break-up. If established it will refocus people in England to recognize themselves as English rather than British, which can only have a beneficial affect on the equivalent movements in Scotland and Wales. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
That is exactly the point. They do.
I'm not saying anything about people tolerating it, it is up to people in England whether they tolerate it or not. I can see why people might not tolerate it. As for Dalyell, that quote was from 1977. The Scottish Parliament had not been established, the Scotland Act 1998, neither had any of the conventions alongside it. The question is fundamentally about the principal of reciprocity. The point remains, that all UK MPs can and do have a say over Scottish issues. They do so much, much less frequently than they did, but it still happens. I don't much like English MPs imposing Trident on Scotland, but I recognise that is a separate point to the issue.
That certainly may be your viewpoint to make. I entirely respect that, I can see where you are coming from with it. But even looking at Dalyell's 1977 definition, it is clear in many instances UK MPs do have a say, quite a big say in devolved Scottish matters. I recognise, it may be weak, compared to before, but the principle still exists, this is all I'm getting at.
In some cases that may be true, they do. In other places it may be down to finding a common position across the UK and for various other reasons. The Scottish Parliament is wholly subordinate to the UK Parliament.
Scottish "nats" have made an issue of this before. I agree it shouldn't happen as much as it does. But it does and clearly clouds the whole West Lothian Question issue, when we take that at face value and look at the principles behind it. I know, myself, I'd rather that Westminster had nothing to do with Scotland, but until we get independence, there is little I can do about it.
I'm not denying much of this. I don't disagree that there has been a fundamental shift in the governance of the UK, with devolution and how that impinges on the Union. Certainly many reserved matters have huge effects on the devolved areas, and to wholly legislate in them, English MPs and others have to have a say and vote on them. The points behind the WLQ, are that they do not get to do this.
An English Parliament is largely irrelevant to Scottish independence, I think. That is a debate for England to have. I don't have a dog in that race. |
||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Well that all sounds reasonable enough. I can certainly see your point, that Holyrood is not the sacrosanct bubble of purely-Scottish legislation that it is portrayed as. The WLQ does have a slightly tainted origin, having been originally asked by such an arch-unionist, and it would be good for the English to make that we've adopted it for use against the parties at Westminster, and not its original target. | ||||||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Britain has almost 200 nuclear warheads, but because they are a DETERRENT (they will never actually get used) just one nuclear warhead is enough to keep Britain safe. |
||||||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Why would someone aim their nukes at an area where nukes are stationed? It would be far more devastating if they aimed nukes at London, a city of over 7 million people and the economic powerhouse of the UK. |
||||||||||||||