Scottish Independence

[Blaven]

I think the possibility of that happening is vanishingly small for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, the Sewel Convention applies to any amendment of the Scotland Act, so even if a Westminster Government wanted to remove some of the devolved competences they would, in reality, need Holyrood's consent. Secondly, though, if they were to attempt to alter the list of reserved matters by way of a s30 Order, the Scotland Act makes Holyrood's consent mandatory.

Thirdly, I can't think of a single power that Westminster would consider it necessary or expedient to withdraw from Holyrood's competence. The Scotland Act 2012 already tidied up the loose ends over competence. Can you name me a single power you think it will take back?

Put simply, for Westminster to take away powers from the Scottish Parliament without its consent would be a moment of constitutional crisis from which no Westminster government could conceivably recover. It's not going to happen.

What if labour were in power up here and in power down there and the down theres told the up heres that they were goin to take back some control. Can we be assured that the up heres will oppose that at all costs and that they will not just toe the party line?

[Ad Lib]

What if labour were in power up here and in power down there and the down theres told the up heres that they were goin to take back some control. Can we be assured that the up heres will oppose that at all costs and that they will not just toe the party line?

I can't speak for the policy of the Scottish Labour Party, just as the Yes campaign can't speak for what a future Scottish Government will do with respect to the national parliament's powers in the future either. For all we know, a future Scottish Government may surrender certain powers presently exercised domestically to the EU or another international treaty-based organisation. They might even enter into a political union with another sovereign state. You cannot guarantee that this won't happen.

What I can say is that in order for London Labour to be certain to take powers back from Holyrood, they would need to win an overall majority not just at Westminster but also at Holyrood. And even then, we would be working on the basis of a Scottish Government with a mandate no less legitimate than that of the SNP at the moment to do so if it was in their manifesto. I would tentatively suggest this is unlikely. Even if they were a minority administration at Holyrood, they would need to hope for support from other parties to take back powers.

What I do know is that Labour's current proposals for further devolution do not identify one single area or power that they would like to see withdrawn from the control of the devolved institutions. It is completely unambitious in terms of what it would aim further to devolve, but that isn't the same question.

Which leaves me asking this simple question: what powers do you think a Labour Government at Westminster would seek to withdraw from Holyrood that there is even the remotest possibility will actually be returned?

Healthcare? You'd have to be pretty bold in this claim given it is a general area of competence exercised by Holyrood since 1999 and in any case under a distinct system since 1945.

Education? Again, a distinct system operating under different terms since long before devolution.

Policing? The big ticket stuff where there's likely to be further changes are reserved anyway (anti-terrorism, drugs, firearms) and, again, there had been high levels of pre-devolution independence in this area.

Energy policy? This is already a reserved matter and contrary to the hissy fit the SNP threw a wee while back, Westminster did not in fact reduce the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It replaced one administrative scheme with another, and in doing so abolished entirely a type of power that either the Westminster or the Scottish Government might have exercised in respect of closure orders.

Social care? Devolved from 1999. Why would they want to take this back?

Transport? They've just devolved more powers in this area around things like Road Traffic regulation. Do you really think they'll take this back into the hands of Westminster?

Culture? What powers will they take back there?

Air weapons? They've just devolved it. Why would they take that back?

I'm genuinely struggling to think what powers we will lose here. Can you name one please?

[Enigma]

What do people think about the future of the Barnett formula following a no vote. Do Labour or Conservatives have any intentions?

[NotThePars]

Haven't checked it but how far was the Better Together co-ordinator's defection covered? Saw Limmy mentioning that it wasn't posted on the BBC Scotland Politics page.

[Ad Lib]

What do people think about the future of the Barnett formula following a no vote. Do Labour or Conservatives have any intentions?

Labour's proposals don't recommend any changes to the Barnett Formula. The Lib Dem proposals recommend scrapping it and replacing it with a UK-wide needs-based formula, building on some of the work done in Wales by the Holt Commission. The Tories haven't published their proposals yet.

[harry94]

What do people think about the future of the Barnett formula following a no vote. Do Labour or Conservatives have any intentions?

It seems quite a delicate issue so I think they will tread carefully in the years after the referendum and they don't seem to have any official plans. They don't need to as it isn't a rule of law in any way.

I'd be happy to see it be scrapped and replaced with a system where money is raised by the Scottish Parliament and then from there passed on to Westminster. Power should be passed up not passed down.

[Blaven]

I can't speak for the policy of the Scottish Labour Party, just as the Yes campaign can't speak for what a future Scottish Government will do with respect to the national parliament's powers in the future either. For all we know, a future Scottish Government may surrender certain powers presently exercised domestically to the EU or another international treaty-based organisation. They might even enter into a political union with another sovereign state. You cannot guarantee that this won't happen.

What I can say is that in order for London Labour to be certain to take powers back from Holyrood, they would need to win an overall majority not just at Westminster but also at Holyrood. And even then, we would be working on the basis of a Scottish Government with a mandate no less legitimate than that of the SNP at the moment to do so if it was in their manifesto. I would tentatively suggest this is unlikely. Even if they were a minority administration at Holyrood, they would need to hope for support from other parties to take back powers.

What I do know is that Labour's current proposals for further devolution do not identify one single area or power that they would like to see withdrawn from the control of the devolved institutions. It is completely unambitious in terms of what it would aim further to devolve, but that isn't the same question.

Which leaves me asking this simple question: what powers do you think a Labour Government at Westminster would seek to withdraw from Holyrood that there is even the remotest possibility will actually be returned?

Healthcare? You'd have to be pretty bold in this claim given it is a general area of competence exercised by Holyrood since 1999 and in any case under a distinct system since 1945.

Education? Again, a distinct system operating under different terms since long before devolution.

Policing? The big ticket stuff where there's likely to be further changes are reserved anyway (anti-terrorism, drugs, firearms) and, again, there had been high levels of pre-devolution independence in this area.

Energy policy? This is already a reserved matter and contrary to the hissy fit the SNP threw a wee while back, Westminster did not in fact reduce the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It replaced one administrative scheme with another, and in doing so abolished entirely a type of power that either the Westminster or the Scottish Government might have exercised in respect of closure orders.

Social care? Devolved from 1999. Why would they want to take this back?

Transport? They've just devolved more powers in this area around things like Road Traffic regulation. Do you really think they'll take this back into the hands of Westminster?

Culture? What powers will they take back there?

Air weapons? They've just devolved it. Why would they take that back?

I'm genuinely struggling to think what powers we will lose here. Can you name one please?

No i cant. Maybe we should try and ask wendy alexander.

What you put above is hopefully the most probable outcome.

So in the event of a No vote, do you feel that westminster will grant Scotland the extra powers to appease the populous or just say stuff them the shower o spineless scroungers?

Scotland was promised jam tommorow once before. Whats different this time?

[Ad Lib]

No i cant.

Okay. So we're clear. You can't think of any powers that Labour would try to return to Westminster? Thanks for clarifying. Will you stop scaremongering about Scotland being "powerless" to prevent a mythical power grab by Westminster from happening now?

So in the event of a No vote, do you feel that westminster will grant Scotland the extra powers to appease the populous or just say stuff them the shower o spineless scroungers?

Scotland was promised jam tommorow once before. Whats different this time?

I've already answered this question.

You can doubt whether there will be further powers beyond that. I do, and it's the reason I'm voting Yes.

[Blaven]

Okay. So we're clear. You can't think of any powers that Labour would try to return to Westminster? Thanks for clarifying. Will you stop scaremongering about Scotland being "powerless" to prevent a mythical power grab by Westminster from happening now?

I've already answered this question.

O it must be scaremongering if little ol me cant think of any. Like I said before- Wendy alexander "return powers".

Ruth davidson "line in the sand. No more powers".

Not my words.

The Scottish parliment was not setup to achieve what it has. It was meant to make the Scottish people fedup with the whole indepenece question.

Now its on the verge of splitting away. I cant help but feel that RUK will want to reverse that in anyway possible in the event of a No.

So IF the perfect storm came about, how could it be stopped? Riots, protests, political will, Eddie Izzard comedy tour?

It may not come in the form of taking away powers at all. In the daily mail just last week there was some mp asking for the number of Scottish mps to be reduced at westminster in the event of a No. So as you will know that will mean even less representation than we allready have.

[banterman86]

O it must be scaremongering

That's exactly what it is.

[Ad Lib]

O it must be scaremongering if little ol me cant think of any. Like I said before- Wendy alexander "return powers".

Ruth davidson "line in the sand. No more powers".

Not my words.

Several points here.

1. "No more powers" =/= "Returning powers". If you'd cared to read my post, you would observe that one of my central arguments for independence is the lack of a prospect of meaningful further powers.

2. Wendy Alexander isn't even an MSP any more. The remarks to which you refer related to what she said about the Calman Commission, the recommendations in respect of which have already been implemented in the Scotland Act save the new financial powers which come in from 2016 in the event of a No vote. Those remarks took place a full six years ago and how Calman should look at the 1998 settlement. No matter, here's what she said.

"By implication the Commission should also consider any reasoned arguments for the boundary moving in the opposite direction, for example in national security related matters such as counter terrorism and contingency planning."

Never mind of course that she was told swiftly to get to f**k on that by Nichol Stephen and the Lib Dems. In his words "the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do with stripping powers away from the Scottish Parliament." The result, the actual Calman Commission, implemented by the Scotland Act 2012, concluded there was no need to restore powers over national security. Most of them being discussed related, in any case, to proposals by the then Labour Government for a national DNA database and ID cards, two things which the Coalition scrapped and which Labour no longer argue for.

3. Ruth Davidson has not said that Westminster should take powers back. Indeed, her "line in the sand" is no longer, as the Strathclyde Commission, which will report very soon, makes self-evident.

4. The Labour Party have not said in their most recent analysis of devolution that powers of any description should be stripped from Holyrood and reverted to Westminster.

So what we are left to conclude is that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to the existence or extent of the threat you describe. Good stuff.

The Scottish parliment was not setup to achieve what it has. It was meant to make the Scottish people fedup with the whole indepenece question.

This is just distortion. At least try to be reasonable. Sure, in the mix of the motives included wishing to reduce the influence of the independence argument, but Holyrood was not borne simply out of an intention to dish the Nats. It was part of a long-running campaign by two of the pro-Union parties to give Scotland direct control over significant parts of its domestic politics.

Now its on the verge of splitting away. I cant help but feel that RUK will want to reverse that in anyway possible in the event of a No.

In what ways though? Be specific. What powers will "RUK" [sic.] "want to reverse" a SINGLE power of the Scottish Parliament?

So IF the perfect storm came about, how could it be stopped? Riots, protests, political will, Eddie Izzard comedy tour?

I've already explained this. They can't take powers back without Holyrood's consent under the Sewel Convention (which has never not been respected) or under a s30 Order, which statutorily requires it. The powers of the Scottish Parliament as currently constituted are going absolutely nowhere.

[strichener]

Several points here.

1. "No more powers" =/= "Returning powers". If you'd cared to read my post, you would observe that one of my central arguments for independence is the lack of a prospect of meaningful further powers.

2. Wendy Alexander isn't even an MSP any more. The remarks to which you refer related to what she said about the Calman Commission, the recommendations in respect of which have already been implemented in the Scotland Act save the new financial powers which come in from 2016 in the event of a No vote. Those remarks took place a full six years ago and how Calman should look at the 1998 settlement. No matter, here's what she said.

"By implication the Commission should also consider any reasoned arguments for the boundary moving in the opposite direction, for example in national security related matters such as counter terrorism and contingency planning."

Never mind of course that she was told swiftly to get to f**k on that by Nichol Stephen and the Lib Dems. In his words "the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do with stripping powers away from the Scottish Parliament." The result, the actual Calman Commission, implemented by the Scotland Act 2012, concluded there was no need to restore powers over national security. Most of them being discussed related, in any case, to proposals by the then Labour Government for a national DNA database and ID cards, two things which the Coalition scrapped and which Labour no longer argue for.

3. Ruth Davidson has not said that Westminster should take powers back.

4. The Labour Party have not said in their most recent analysis of devolution that powers of any description should be stripped from Holyrood and reverted to Westminster.

So what we are left to conclude is that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to the existence or extent of the threat you describe. Good stuff.

This is just distortion. At least try to be reasonable. Sure, in the mix of the motives included wishing to reduce the influence of the independence argument, but Holyrood was not borne simply out of an intention to dish the Nats. It was part of a long-running campaign by two of the pro-Union parties to give Scotland direct control over significant parts of its domestic politics.

In what ways though? Be specific. What powers will "RUK" [sic.] "want to reverse" a SINGLE power of the Scottish Parliament?

I've already explained this. They can't take powers back without Holyrood's consent under the Sewel Convention (which has never not been respected) or under a s30 Order, which statutorily requires it. The powers of the Scottish Parliament as currently constituted are going absolutely nowhere.

Sorry to but in on this but I assume that you will expend similar efforts to dispel that notion that you actually vote against a single party in a multi-party election......

Just to keep everyone honest

[Ad Lib]

Sorry to but in on this but I assume that you will expend similar efforts to dispel that notion that you actually vote against a single party in a multi-party election......

Just to keep everyone honest

Huh?

What's this in reference to?

ETA: I don't know of any non-binary election where you can be said, per-se, to be voting against any party or proposition. Equally, however, a plurality of the popular vote is not the same as voting for something.

So, for example, Scotland has never voted "against" the Conservative Party or its various pseudonyms since the War.

[H_B]

Huh?

What's this in reference to?

Strichener embarrassed himself last week over this. I really thought he'd be keen not to see it brought back up.

I said more people voted against the SNP than for it at the last election. Which is of course, true.

He demanded evidence to support this shocking claim, was given the election figures then attempted an Edmund Blackadder "Great Boo's Up" defence which involved there being no "Not the SNP" option on the ballot paper.

An absolute shambles from him.

[Ad Lib]

Strichener embarrassed himself last week over this. I really thought he'd be keen not to see it brought back up.

I said more people voted against the SNP than for it at the last election. Which is of course, true.

He demanded evidence to support this shocking claim, was given the election figures then attempted an Edmund Blackadder "Great Boo's Up" defence which involved there being no "Not the SNP" option on the ballot paper.

An absolute shambles from him.

Ah, I see.

I'd be reluctant to speak in terms of "voting against" because it is misleading. It is true to say, however, that the SNP do not carry the support of the majority of Scots (or for that matter, voting Scots), even if it is not necessarily true to say that the majority of Scots are against them.

Of course, on majorities, we get people saying that Scotland ends up with governments that a majority of its voters didn't vote for. Inconveniently for those deploying this simplistic tactic, neither has England or the rest of the UK as a whole virtually in living memory. Plural politics is just a little bit more complicated than that, which is why more Scots voted Tory or Lib Dem in 2010 than voted SNP on the list in 2011. The majority of Scottish voters did not vote Labour in a single UK General Election.

[strichener]

Strichener embarrassed himself last week over this. I really thought he'd be keen not to see it brought back up.

I said more people voted against the SNP than for it at the last election. Which is of course, true.

He demanded evidence to support this shocking claim, was given the election figures then attempted an Edmund Blackadder "Great Boo's Up" defence which involved there being no "Not the SNP" option on the ballot paper.

An absolute shambles from him.

Only if the definition of embarrassed in your dictionary states

"made a c**t of me by pointing out that my pedantry could come back and bite me on the arse."

[strichener]

Ah, I see.

I'd be reluctant to speak in terms of "voting against" because it is misleading. It is true to say, however, that the SNP do not carry the support of the majority of Scots (or for that matter, voting Scots), even if it is not necessarily true to say that the majority of Scots are against them.

Of course, on majorities, we get people saying that Scotland ends up with governments that a majority of its voters didn't vote for. Inconveniently for those deploying this simplistic tactic, neither has England or the rest of the UK as a whole virtually in living memory. Plural politics is just a little bit more complicated than that, which is why more Scots voted Tory or Lib Dem in 2010 than voted SNP on the list in 2011. The majority of Scottish voters did not vote Labour in a single UK General Election.

Cheers

[~~~]

[Blaven]

Several points here.

1. "No more powers" =/= "Returning powers". If you'd cared to read my post, you would observe that one of my central arguments for independence is the lack of a prospect of meaningful further powers.

Sorry, I do try my best to stay focused when reading your posts but I do tend to nod off half way through.

2. Wendy Alexander isn't even an MSP any more. The remarks to which you refer related to what she said about the Calman Commission, the recommendations in respect of which have already been implemented in the Scotland Act save the new financial powers which come in from 2016 in the event of a No vote. Those remarks took place a full six years ago and how Calman should look at the 1998 settlement. No matter, here's what she said.

The point I was attempting to make was that it was said. This is not a madeup statement by the SNP. It makes little difference when or by whom, these statements will and probably should stick in peoples minds. There can be as many Acts and Laws put in place to protect these powers as you like but it wont change the feeling that they are not safe and untouchable.

"By implication the Commission should also consider any reasoned arguments for the boundary moving in the opposite direction, for example in national security related matters such as counter terrorism and contingency planning."

Never mind of course that she was told swiftly to get to f**k on that by Nichol Stephen and the Lib Dems. In his words "the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do with stripping powers away from the Scottish Parliament." The result, the actual Calman Commission, implemented by the Scotland Act 2012, concluded there was no need to restore powers over national security. Most of them being discussed related, in any case, to proposals by the then Labour Government for a national DNA database and ID cards, two things which the Coalition scrapped and which Labour no longer argue for.

Lib dems will never want to give up any powers that they might have a smidge o a chance o having. Danny Alexander is my prime example of power crazed.

3. Ruth Davidson has not said that Westminster should take powers back. Indeed, her "line in the sand" is no longer, as the Strathclyde Commission, which will report very soon, makes self-evident.

I Never stated that she said powers back. Line in the sand was said. Again its hard to ignore this.

4. The Labour Party have not said in their most recent analysis of devolution that powers of any description should be stripped from Holyrood and reverted to Westminster.

No stripping I will agree would be fatal for Scottish labour. But we all will have to wait and hope that labour can deliver more devoloution in the event of a No when they finally get back into power. will that be in a year, or the ellection after that or after that?

So what we are left to conclude is that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to the existence or extent of the threat you describe. Good stuff

I will be delighted to be able to take off my tinfoil hat now that you have put the world to right.

This is just distortion. At least try to be reasonable. Sure, in the mix of the motives included wishing to reduce the influence of the independence argument, but Holyrood was not borne simply out of an intention to dish the Nats. It was part of a long-running campaign by two of the pro-Union parties to give Scotland direct control over significant parts of its domestic politics.

I'm shure you could tell us all who said that devolution would kill off nationalism once and for all.

In what ways though? Be specific. What powers will "RUK" [sic.] "want to reverse" a SINGLE power of the Scottish Parliament?

How about I try looking a wee bit ahead and imagine the Scottish goverment getting full fiscal powers. Scotland starts to really thrive the way we all know it will and we start to outdo RUK on many levels. Ruk starts to get a little restless about it and so the Ruk government ...............and so on.

Do you think Ruk will ever give a devolved Scotland full fiscal powers?

I've already explained this. They can't take powers back without Holyrood's consent under the Sewel Convention (which has never not been respected) or under a s30 Order, which statutorily requires it. The powers of the Scottish Parliament as currently constituted are going absolutely nowhere.

I'm thrilled that you can assure everyone that these powers are going nowhere because there is only two sets of sircumstances in which it could happen. I shall sleep tonight.

I get the impresion that you are someone who thinks only with their head. Do try to take into account that most of us think with heart and head.

[Broccoli Dog]

Go gently into the night sweet Darling.