General / Off-Topic Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Patrick_68000
- Start date
<nods sagely>
Independence for Scotland is a fantastic idea. Think of the jobs that will be created on both sides of the border by rebuilding the wall... and not just rebuild it! We can do better than that, we can create the wall from Game of Thrones! massive employment for years to come and then the biggest tourist attraction ever! Full employment for every Scot playing the part of the Wildlings in the world's biggest theme park. Expeditions 'beyond the wall' in sight seeing coaches. The money-making prospects are boundless!
Ok, so i'm suffering from Referendum fatigue and just can't wait for friday to get here.
Ok, so i'm suffering from Referendum fatigue and just can't wait for friday to get here.
I'm sorry they stopped making those. I really love political satire, especially that sort. Thanx for the link Cosmos.
In which case I suggest we agree to disagree - on the specific point at hand anyway.
Last edited:
... and on this point it appears we do agree.
I'd be interested to hear people's views on this item:
Military response
I know it's a bit of a cheap shot (for which I apologise in advance), but my ironical antenna pricked up at this line from Salmond (at the risk of stating the obvious, it will help if you've read the article):
I can't decide whether he himself has no sense of irony, or whether he's just hoping the Scottish people don't.
Edit: or it could of course just be biased reporting from the BBC...
Military response
I know it's a bit of a cheap shot (for which I apologise in advance), but my ironical antenna pricked up at this line from Salmond (at the risk of stating the obvious, it will help if you've read the article):
I can't decide whether he himself has no sense of irony, or whether he's just hoping the Scottish people don't.
Edit: or it could of course just be biased reporting from the BBC...
Last edited:
The BBC biased? Pft! The Ministry of Truth would never do such a thing hey.
As for defence is seems like scaremongering but given I understand that Scots make up a large contingent of the SAS I have a feeling they'll be okay.
<grimaces> You might think that... I couldn't possibly comment!
I think the larger question that should be asked is what this is all going to do to Scotland's cricket team?
I think the larger question that should be asked is what this is all going to do to Scotland's cricket team?
Nothing - they're called the Saltires already.
I spent yesterday refurbishing and repairing a soil pipe on the side of a 5 story building. Not the most stimulating of tasks, I spent a large part of the day carrying out a repetitive manual task (wire brushing) with lots of time for the mind to wander and as I'd been reading this thread recently my mind wandered to matters political.
I thought I'd punt some of the ideas out here in a pair of loosely related posts.
They are mainly to do with alternatives to "politics as now", rather than addressing the Scottish issue so are a little off topic (if popular I could spin them out into another thread).
So we have (in no order):
Assuming big NO, a possible way to reorganise the Union
Possible alternative to the "pantomime" of the current Parliament
I thought I'd punt some of the ideas out here in a pair of loosely related posts.
They are mainly to do with alternatives to "politics as now", rather than addressing the Scottish issue so are a little off topic (if popular I could spin them out into another thread).
So we have (in no order):
Assuming big NO, a possible way to reorganise the Union
Possible alternative to the "pantomime" of the current Parliament
Assuming big NO, a possible way to reorganise the Union
TLDR
The Long Version
4 Nations, 1 Union
MP's are elected to represent constituencies as per now (or maybe another way). Ideally there are slightly more MP's per head for Scotland, NI and Wales than for England to give a slight counter balance to the population advantage of England.
Each nation has a parliament made up of the MP whose constituencies are in the nation. A national government (with First Minister etc) is formed by the majority party as per now. The national parliaments sit in the current national parliament/assembly seat. England may need a new English Parliament site, say Birmingham (based on it being big city in the middle).
All the MPs also represent their constituencies in the Union parliament (probably still in London). A Union government (with Prime Minister etc) is formed from the majority party in the Union. This may be a different party from the national govs and may be a coalition.
How it would work
The responsibilities and tax raising powers of the parliaments are divided.
To help I've included two pie charts from wikipedia, they are for slightly different years but it's indicative of the current gov spend/tax structure and it's the % I'm looking at. On the left is taxes, on the right spending
The Union parliment keeps all the responsibilities and tax powers it has now except for
Total tax rising powers of National parliaments = ~40% current
The Union parliament is responsible for and pays for everything it does now except
Total spending commitments of the National Parliaments = ~40%
*For large infrastructure projects, across nations, the Union parliament would be in charge, and the costs split in an agreed manner between the participating nations. So Heathrow expansion, would be out of English Parliament budget, A Rail line from London to Glasgow would be split between Scotland and England.
The reason I have left health care off the list (I could have had it in place of one of the others) is that I believe that the core healthcare across the Union should be uniform. Nations could do stuff (as Scotland already does) like subsidise prescriptions out of it's own pocket.
Although the National parliaments have responsibility for Education and Social protection, the Union would set down some basic standards, so all Union citizens will get certain things in Education and social protection guaranteed. The funds for these would come from central Union taxes.
This way, National Parliaments can set income tax levels and "curves" how they see fit, Scotland may have a more aggressive regime at the top end and tax corps and businesses more, whilst England could pursue a different regime.
All taxes would be collected by HMRC and then "block grants" to the national parliaments given, based on the take from their constituents.
So a person in England would pay all the same Union taxes (NI, VAT etc) that a person in Scotland would pay, but their tax code would be different (due to the income tax regime being different), so they might end up paying less (or more) tax.
When a person went to collect benefits, their place of residence (as determined by the electoral roll) would be used determine their benefits under the rules of the appropriate Nation i.e. registered as living in Scotland - pay Scottish taxes, get Scottish benefits.
Some problems
One of the disadvantages of this is that the MPs will have to wear two hats and be dashing back and forth between London and their National parliament. One possible solution to this would be to allow votes on Union matters to be cast either at London or at a National parliament.
This system may result in National and Union parliaments being opposed to one and other. Realistically speaking, England will tend to dominate the Union parliament, although with the tweaking of the number of MPs from the smaller nations this could be slightly counterbalanced. An additional counterbalance would be for some areas (e.g. use of Union troops outside the Union borders) to have a National government veto attached i.e. the vote is only passed if all 4 National Govs vote "yes".
TLDR
- 4 National Parliaments to handle National matters
- National govs formed from the majority MPs in National Parliament
- 4 Parliaments come together (like a giant Power Ranger robot) to form the Union Parliament to handle Union matters
- Union gov formed from majority of MPs
- Tax raising powers and spending responsibilities are split between them
The Long Version
4 Nations, 1 Union
MP's are elected to represent constituencies as per now (or maybe another way). Ideally there are slightly more MP's per head for Scotland, NI and Wales than for England to give a slight counter balance to the population advantage of England.
Each nation has a parliament made up of the MP whose constituencies are in the nation. A national government (with First Minister etc) is formed by the majority party as per now. The national parliaments sit in the current national parliament/assembly seat. England may need a new English Parliament site, say Birmingham (based on it being big city in the middle).
All the MPs also represent their constituencies in the Union parliament (probably still in London). A Union government (with Prime Minister etc) is formed from the majority party in the Union. This may be a different party from the national govs and may be a coalition.
How it would work
The responsibilities and tax raising powers of the parliaments are divided.
To help I've included two pie charts from wikipedia, they are for slightly different years but it's indicative of the current gov spend/tax structure and it's the % I'm looking at. On the left is taxes, on the right spending
- Income tax - 29%
- Corporation tax - 9%
Total tax rising powers of National parliaments = ~40% current
The Union parliament is responsible for and pays for everything it does now except
- Education
- Social protection
- Transport*
Total spending commitments of the National Parliaments = ~40%
*For large infrastructure projects, across nations, the Union parliament would be in charge, and the costs split in an agreed manner between the participating nations. So Heathrow expansion, would be out of English Parliament budget, A Rail line from London to Glasgow would be split between Scotland and England.
The reason I have left health care off the list (I could have had it in place of one of the others) is that I believe that the core healthcare across the Union should be uniform. Nations could do stuff (as Scotland already does) like subsidise prescriptions out of it's own pocket.
Although the National parliaments have responsibility for Education and Social protection, the Union would set down some basic standards, so all Union citizens will get certain things in Education and social protection guaranteed. The funds for these would come from central Union taxes.
This way, National Parliaments can set income tax levels and "curves" how they see fit, Scotland may have a more aggressive regime at the top end and tax corps and businesses more, whilst England could pursue a different regime.
All taxes would be collected by HMRC and then "block grants" to the national parliaments given, based on the take from their constituents.
So a person in England would pay all the same Union taxes (NI, VAT etc) that a person in Scotland would pay, but their tax code would be different (due to the income tax regime being different), so they might end up paying less (or more) tax.
When a person went to collect benefits, their place of residence (as determined by the electoral roll) would be used determine their benefits under the rules of the appropriate Nation i.e. registered as living in Scotland - pay Scottish taxes, get Scottish benefits.
Some problems
One of the disadvantages of this is that the MPs will have to wear two hats and be dashing back and forth between London and their National parliament. One possible solution to this would be to allow votes on Union matters to be cast either at London or at a National parliament.
This system may result in National and Union parliaments being opposed to one and other. Realistically speaking, England will tend to dominate the Union parliament, although with the tweaking of the number of MPs from the smaller nations this could be slightly counterbalanced. An additional counterbalance would be for some areas (e.g. use of Union troops outside the Union borders) to have a National government veto attached i.e. the vote is only passed if all 4 National Govs vote "yes".
Possible alternative to the "pantomime" of the current Parliament
TLDR
Get rid of debates in the chamber as a method of scrutinising legislation.
Replace with online forums similar to (not the same as) Frontier forums
The Long Version
What's the problem now?
TLDR
Get rid of debates in the chamber as a method of scrutinising legislation.
Replace with online forums similar to (not the same as) Frontier forums
The Long Version
What's the problem now?
Parliament was an advance on the old method of a King deciding things with zero transparency. Having a debate in an open "forum" is a good way of doing things, but somewhere along the way things have gone a bit wrong and the advent of the modern media and the "sound bite" has really pushed things over the edge.
It's particularly bad during PMQ, you can practically hear the pre written sound bites being stuffed into the speeches. PMQ should not be about a "winner", it should be about the government being scrutinized by MPs. We should come away clearer understanding of government policy and thinking. Instead we get some sort of middle class rap battle with insults and boasts being thrown around (this is appropriate I think).
This is more than a cosmetic problem. Politics and politicians have lost the respect of the people. This is a bad thing, when politicians fail things get ugly.
What is needed is a way for the electorate to access the debate and for that debate to be clear and measured, based on facts and understanding, and less dependent on rhetoric and sound bites.
OK, how else could we do it?It's particularly bad during PMQ, you can practically hear the pre written sound bites being stuffed into the speeches. PMQ should not be about a "winner", it should be about the government being scrutinized by MPs. We should come away clearer understanding of government policy and thinking. Instead we get some sort of middle class rap battle with insults and boasts being thrown around (this is appropriate I think).
This is more than a cosmetic problem. Politics and politicians have lost the respect of the people. This is a bad thing, when politicians fail things get ugly.
What is needed is a way for the electorate to access the debate and for that debate to be clear and measured, based on facts and understanding, and less dependent on rhetoric and sound bites.
What if Parliamentary debate moved online? To a modern Forum, like this one?
Granted, sometimes the threads degenerate into name calling and flaming, but FD have shown that with a good team of mods, things can be kept on track. As an example, this thread, which on so many other sites I have seen degenerate into name calling and threats, seems to have been very civil with both sides actually showing their though processes. As a result of this I have gained a better understanding of the YES camp's position (I'm still NO but understand why people may vote YES).
How would it work?Granted, sometimes the threads degenerate into name calling and flaming, but FD have shown that with a good team of mods, things can be kept on track. As an example, this thread, which on so many other sites I have seen degenerate into name calling and threats, seems to have been very civil with both sides actually showing their though processes. As a result of this I have gained a better understanding of the YES camp's position (I'm still NO but understand why people may vote YES).
First a "Parliament" forum would be set up with MPs as members (the only ones who can actually post) but viewable and searchable by the public.
An MP's posts can be rep'd or commented upon by other MPs. These would be available for public scrutiny but would not be on the main "timeline" of the debate posts.
There would be three main areas,
Open discussion
PMQs
Some thoughtsAn MP's posts can be rep'd or commented upon by other MPs. These would be available for public scrutiny but would not be on the main "timeline" of the debate posts.
There would be three main areas,
- the open discussion
- PMQs
- the "Chamber"
Open discussion
The open discussion would be just that MPs discussing and debating stuff but mainly on the pre legislation side of things. Threads would be started by any MP, so kind of like the FD forum at the moment. The "Moderator of the House" (the equivalent of the Speaker) would police this in a general manner, but the rules would generally be fairly loose.
Committee and sub committee threads would go here, their posting rights would be restricted to the MPs on the committee but the ability to rep or comment on the committee member posts would be open to all MPs.
Committee and sub committee threads would go here, their posting rights would be restricted to the MPs on the committee but the ability to rep or comment on the committee member posts would be open to all MPs.
PMQs
PMQs would be handled a bit like Reddit AMAs or DBOBEs answer sessions. MPs would put forward questions beforehand and the PM would answer. The public could ask questions either via their MP or by emailing the PM('s office) directly. Each answer would effectively be thread in it's own right, and MP could post follow ups and the PM could reply and clarify/rebut etc.
Instead of the current shouting and groaning to register approval, disapproval it would simply be a similar rep system to now (only MP's allowed to rep). However, as approval or disapproval reps would have to have a reason post attached and this would be available for scrutiny it should clamp down on the senseless "barracking".
The "Chamber"Instead of the current shouting and groaning to register approval, disapproval it would simply be a similar rep system to now (only MP's allowed to rep). However, as approval or disapproval reps would have to have a reason post attached and this would be available for scrutiny it should clamp down on the senseless "barracking".
This would be where debates on actual legislation and decisions happen. It would be policed by the "Moderator of the House" under much more formal and strict rules (no off topic, no flames etc). Only government ministers can start a thread and it would work in a similar fashion to the DDFs or open software development forums.
The relevant Minister would start with post outlining the legislation with a link to the actual draft and some summary of it.
MPs would then post, making statements, recommendations, asking for clarification etc.
The minister would then reply, clarify etc. The legislation may be changed by the debate. In which case the minister puts forward the update, the Mods alter the original post to indicate an update was made and link to the new document, and it carries on. At some point the Minister can "freeze" the debate and a vote is then taken on the legislation as frozen (a poll). If successful then it goes forward as it does now and the thread is closed
If unsuccessful the thread is closed and the government has to try again.
The relevant Minister would start with post outlining the legislation with a link to the actual draft and some summary of it.
MPs would then post, making statements, recommendations, asking for clarification etc.
The minister would then reply, clarify etc. The legislation may be changed by the debate. In which case the minister puts forward the update, the Mods alter the original post to indicate an update was made and link to the new document, and it carries on. At some point the Minister can "freeze" the debate and a vote is then taken on the legislation as frozen (a poll). If successful then it goes forward as it does now and the thread is closed
If unsuccessful the thread is closed and the government has to try again.
Clearly some form of ID technology and sign in verification would be vital to this. It's bad enough when someone's twitter account is hijacked, Imagine the PM's account being hijacked! However, this is not insurmountable or even wildly expensive (although I'm sure, being a government project, they'll mange to make it cost a fortune)
Hopefully this process would result in higher quality debate. The "Moderator" would be able to issue infractions to MPs, which would be visible to the public.
Keeping threads coherent may be an issue, maybe some sort of threading within a thread may be needed to see which posts a post is answering/addressing. Again the quote system here is a reasonable starting point.
Obviously, editing of a post would be limited to spelling and grammar (probably via mods). Clarification would be via "attached" follow up posts, so MP's can't back peddle on what they say.
Although I say the PM or Minister posts it would often be a minion from their office who posts on their behalf, particularly with answers to PMQs. However a point of protocol would mean that anything posted under an MP or minsters name is regarded as having been from their lips (or finger tips). No exceptions (except obvious and proven hacks). MP's would have to be responsible for whoever they allow to post on their behalf. When it comes to voting in the Chamber, only the MP would be able to vote (i.e. they have to "push the button" themselves.
The poll method of voting would mean that MPs did not have to physically be in Parliament, allowing them to spend more time in their constituency, and maybe not need an expensive London home.
This remote debating and voting would fit really well with a more "federal" UK, with National parliaments deciding national stuff and the Union parliament handling "external" and Union stuff.
Hopefully this process would result in higher quality debate. The "Moderator" would be able to issue infractions to MPs, which would be visible to the public.
Keeping threads coherent may be an issue, maybe some sort of threading within a thread may be needed to see which posts a post is answering/addressing. Again the quote system here is a reasonable starting point.
Obviously, editing of a post would be limited to spelling and grammar (probably via mods). Clarification would be via "attached" follow up posts, so MP's can't back peddle on what they say.
Although I say the PM or Minister posts it would often be a minion from their office who posts on their behalf, particularly with answers to PMQs. However a point of protocol would mean that anything posted under an MP or minsters name is regarded as having been from their lips (or finger tips). No exceptions (except obvious and proven hacks). MP's would have to be responsible for whoever they allow to post on their behalf. When it comes to voting in the Chamber, only the MP would be able to vote (i.e. they have to "push the button" themselves.
The poll method of voting would mean that MPs did not have to physically be in Parliament, allowing them to spend more time in their constituency, and maybe not need an expensive London home.
This remote debating and voting would fit really well with a more "federal" UK, with National parliaments deciding national stuff and the Union parliament handling "external" and Union stuff.
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Nothing - they're called the Saltires already.
We are extremely crap at cricket at the moment and still will be if we get independence.........
Speaking as a resident of S England, passionately in favour of breaking up the union, I suggest that, either way:
Abolish the House of Lords. Parliament should do a proper job in the first place, not rely upon a nominated second chamber to spot any mistakes,
Abolish the Monarchy. We don't need a separate head of state. The PM, appointed by Parliament, from among their number, is enough.
Have rotating elections for seats, so while every member must stand for re-election every 4 years, MPs will be divided up into 4, group 1, stands in the first year, group 2 the second and so on.
Fix MPs pay, to a proportion of the average national salary. They can pay for their own offices.