He really isn't stupid. He's an idiot, which is slightly different
General / Off-Topic Scottish Referendum Result. Post your thoughts here.
- Thread starter Andy Kappa
- Start date
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
He really isn't stupid. He's an idiot, which is slightly different
Understand. But name calling aside, we take this man lightly at our pearl.
English politics is in serious trouble and has been since Thatcher resigned and cause a split in the Tory party.
That split is ostensibly over Europe, but in reality is about England being great, ruling the world ect.
The split has been contained by compromises and dishonesty.
Currently, there is a de facto split with the emergence of UKIP. UKIP is essentially the Tory party's SDP.
Johnson, if he gets the chance, will almost certainly bring UKIP back by backing an exit from Europe.
Leaving Europe will be economic suicide for the UK. Johnson and UKIP both know that, because they aren't stupid. They both hope that they can rebuild the international strength of the UK economy by building better ties with the US.
But the US isn't interested. Its policy since the 19th century and President Monroe has been to control the Americas against the rest of the world.
A trade agreement with the US would allow the UK access to US markets. The US has a long history of protecting its markets. There isn't the political will there for that to change.
So, eventually, the UK will be forced back to Europe, cap in hand. Almost certainly asking for an association agreement which will give Europe, especially the Gaulists in France a strong hand to demand almost anything.
Johnson isn't a fool, or an idiot. He is very dangerous.
I'd accept this. It's a public persona though; whatever people might think of him, it would be unwise to discount him on account of this buffoonery. He's a shrewd politician, and whatever agenda he might have will be well thought out.I prefer buffoon.
Anybody know his full name without checking BTW? Edit: I didn't!
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
Last edited:
He's a dangerous idiot
I think he's made some really stupid statements and exercised some ludicrously bad political judgement. What he has going in his favour is that he's intelligent, and good at projecting a cuddly image. That's what makes him dangerous. Try and imagine William Hague with Boris Johnson's brain. He wouldn't get far
Originally from the other thread, slightly tweaked for context
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.
Debates and votes on purely national matters would happen in the appropriate Parliament building. Union debates would be "hosted" at Westminster, but members (via video conferencing tech) could debate from their national Parliament.
When voting on Union matters, votes could be cast by MPs at their national Parliament. This should cut down on travelling to London as MPs could do the majority of their work from the National parliament site.
There would be 3 tiers of vote:
The split between the 3 tiers of would be decided in the carve up of responsibilities, but the 3rd tier would be for the serious things like war etc. Maybe this is where the House of Lords could come in, one of the HoL powers could be to "escalate" a vote from a normal Union vote to Important Union vote.
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".
This method would mean the current devolved assemblies and parliaments would be superseded (and dissolved). Some might see that as a bad thing and "Westminster" centralising power again. The other way to think of it is the "Westminster" MPs being superseded and dissolved and the devolved MPs getting a bigger say in "Westminster" (the Union) parliament. This would be further reinforced by adding to the numbers of MP in the Union parliament for the smaller nations e.g. Scottish MPs 59, Scottish Parliament MPs 129, so Scotland would get more say in the union if the 59 MPs were replaced by 129 Scottish MPs. The same would go for Wales and NI.
What about the House of Lords? I think an unelected second house is important. Not having to be popular with the electorate allows the peers to take unpopular but necessary decisions. This can help act as a damper against popular "firebrand" causes. Clearly hereditary peers should go (we just wait for them to die). Elevation to the HoL as a life peer would be via nomination from the National governments, with stricter criteria than now. For example no government could nominate a person who had donated more than (say) £30k to the party nominating them. Emphasis would be placed on not just business and politics, but also the arts, and sciences as well as "everyman" peers (e.g. Doreen Lawrence). peers could be ejected by the HoL (not the Commons) voting them out.
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 all 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.
Debates and votes on purely national matters would happen in the appropriate Parliament building. Union debates would be "hosted" at Westminster, but members (via video conferencing tech) could debate from their national Parliament.
When voting on Union matters, votes could be cast by MPs at their national Parliament. This should cut down on travelling to London as MPs could do the majority of their work from the National parliament site.
There would be 3 tiers of vote:
- National matters: Debated on and voted on by national parliaments, simple majority vote.
- Union matters: Debated on and voted on by Union parliament, simple majority vote.
- Important Union matters: Debated on and voted on by national parliaments, Requires majority in each national parliament.
The split between the 3 tiers of would be decided in the carve up of responsibilities, but the 3rd tier would be for the serious things like war etc. Maybe this is where the House of Lords could come in, one of the HoL powers could be to "escalate" a vote from a normal Union vote to Important Union vote.
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".
This method would mean the current devolved assemblies and parliaments would be superseded (and dissolved). Some might see that as a bad thing and "Westminster" centralising power again. The other way to think of it is the "Westminster" MPs being superseded and dissolved and the devolved MPs getting a bigger say in "Westminster" (the Union) parliament. This would be further reinforced by adding to the numbers of MP in the Union parliament for the smaller nations e.g. Scottish MPs 59, Scottish Parliament MPs 129, so Scotland would get more say in the union if the 59 MPs were replaced by 129 Scottish MPs. The same would go for Wales and NI.
What about the House of Lords? I think an unelected second house is important. Not having to be popular with the electorate allows the peers to take unpopular but necessary decisions. This can help act as a damper against popular "firebrand" causes. Clearly hereditary peers should go (we just wait for them to die). Elevation to the HoL as a life peer would be via nomination from the National governments, with stricter criteria than now. For example no government could nominate a person who had donated more than (say) £30k to the party nominating them. Emphasis would be placed on not just business and politics, but also the arts, and sciences as well as "everyman" peers (e.g. Doreen Lawrence). peers could be ejected by the HoL (not the Commons) voting them out.
Can't help but feel pretty sure there'll be another referendum - probably well within 10 years time.
Having 45% wanting to leave the union is pretty untenable long term IMO, and in all honesty, if the frighteners had not been fully applied in the last few weeks, the 'yes' vote would probably have won.
It just seems inevitable now that the whole devolution thing is rolling forward both north and south of the border.
Having 45% wanting to leave the union is pretty untenable long term IMO, and in all honesty, if the frighteners had not been fully applied in the last few weeks, the 'yes' vote would probably have won.
It just seems inevitable now that the whole devolution thing is rolling forward both north and south of the border.
I'd say its a virtual certainty. But first they will need another SNP majority in the Parliament.
What they really need now is to split into partys of different hew, each with different policies, left wing, worker control, republican ect through to right wing, pro business ect. But each would have a policy in common, another referendum leading to independence.
That would make it much more difficult to divide them among themselves, to label them one way or the other or even to attack their polices since there would be other policies in other independence parties.
Salmond is already planning to take a back seat. Any apparent commitment he may or may not have made to put the issue aside for a generation remains his own. Other are not bound by it.
The thing is, the only way to win against Westminster is to fight their way. That means dirty, Gloves off. Be absolutely serious.
What they really need now is to split into partys of different hew, each with different policies, left wing, worker control, republican ect through to right wing, pro business ect. But each would have a policy in common, another referendum leading to independence.
That would make it much more difficult to divide them among themselves, to label them one way or the other or even to attack their polices since there would be other policies in other independence parties.
Salmond is already planning to take a back seat. Any apparent commitment he may or may not have made to put the issue aside for a generation remains his own. Other are not bound by it.
The thing is, the only way to win against Westminster is to fight their way. That means dirty, Gloves off. Be absolutely serious.
Petition already has over 91,000 signatures on Change.org.
I said before the vote that this was not just going to simply go away. The fact that there may have been vote rigging involved, together with the messages coming out of London that it's trying to de-prioritise the "cig packet vow" has simply stoked the fire.
Ultimately, at least 45% of the people of Scotland are deadly serious about this. Make no mistake.
I said before the vote that this was not just going to simply go away. The fact that there may have been vote rigging involved, together with the messages coming out of London that it's trying to de-prioritise the "cig packet vow" has simply stoked the fire.
Ultimately, at least 45% of the people of Scotland are deadly serious about this. Make no mistake.
People love a conspiracy theory, pretty pathetic really.
And people love to dismiss it, even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
Anyway, the point is this is going to rumble on and on.
Surely if there was any evidence of impropriety then all that would be needed is a re-count.
If there was another vote then it should also include everyone else affected by the outcome of this whole debacle and "cig packet vow".
Yeah, but that's the problem. Prior to the referendum, the rules were set (by Westminster and agreed by the Scottish gov) that NO recounts would be allowed on a national level. Since the ballot papers have now likely been destroyed, the only option now would be a revote. Ain't nobody got time for that...
I predict here and now if the SNP win the next election in Scotland and the Scottish Greens make significant gains (the other pro-Yes party), there will be another referendum within 5 years. Not "a generation" as Salmond originally suggested.