The referendum was won because people realised that leaving the union would cause considerable chaos, not because of any promises from Westminster. The UK should, and probably will, keep a significant amount of its promises, but it doesn’t have to, and neither does it have to allow any chaos in Scotland.
The vote was a resounding NO to independence, despite the form of the question and all the rhetoric supporting YES. This was not a vote for further devolution, this was a vote for continued Union. The Scots should make their opinions known on devolution to their MPs and MSPs, who should then represent those views at the respective parliaments. Those parliaments should then vote on what’s best for the UK and Scotland respectively, negotiate where there’s conflict, and act accordingly.
Not just decide something should happen based on headline-grabbing statements around the time of a vote on something else entirely. If you, or anyone else, based their vote on devolution not independence, that vote was wasted.
Which is all well and good, until the general election. If he claims it’s binding past that point, he’s simply wrong. That’s not how the UK (or any democracy) works.
One trick pony again. Everybody knows that one administration cannot bind another, but there are practical and pragmatic limits. Scotland elects a new parliament in 2016. Nothing can stop them demanding a referendum again because of reneging on the Vow.
Pjen, to give an English perspective on this, the general tone of conversation around me over the last day has been that additional powers for Scotland are fine but that doing so without removing the influence of Scottish MP’s over purely English matters will not wash. This in a fairly well mixed group of differing political flavours.
I think they absolutely have to happen at the same time and any party seen to duck this issue will be in for a serious kicking at the next election. The Labour party may well be about to get spit-roasted on this if they can’t come up with an imaginative manifesto that can deal with it.
I agree that it needs sorted but rushing at it without consideration may not be the best idea. However, the Vow is being taken very seriously along with its timescale.
There has been a discussion on the BBC today suggesting that the Labour Party could be persuaded to withdraw its MPs from English matters as SNP members do voluntarily. The only exception would be on Confidence issues where the results of English legislation threatened the continuity of th government. During this interlude there could be a constitutional convention to decide a semi- federal or other permanent answer.
Brown confirms that Government civil servants are already drawing up a white/green paper to be published by the end of next month and that a debate on the Vow set for 16th October. Both of these actions will have required direction by Cameron.
welcomes the result of the Scottish independence referendum and the decision of the people of Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom;
recognises that people across Scotland voted for a Union based on the pooling and sharing of resources and for the continuation of devolution inside the United Kingdom;
notes the statement by the prime minister, deputy prime minister and leader of the opposition regarding the guarantee of and timetable for further devolution to Scotland;
calls on the government to lay before Parliament a Command Paper including the proposals of all three UK political parties by 30th October and to consult widely with the Scottish people, civic Scotland and the Scottish Parliament on these proposals;
further calls on the government to publish heads of agreement by the end of November and draft clauses for the new Scotland Bill by the end of January 2015.
Although you’d never know it from the “Rob Roy” style posts in this thread, Pjen actually is English and he/she has lived in Scotland for less than ten years, according to previous posts.
I was also educated in the USA through high school and college. Neither experience changes the logic behind my statements about politicians making statements and keeping their word. I also support English laws for English people but this has been avoided for various reasons leading to the current impasse.
And the devil is very much in that detail. “threatens the continuity of the government” what a slippery beast that is!
Imagine that a Labour government is returned in May and there is a voluntary agreement not to vote on English matters but with the caveat you’ve stated.
We then perhaps get purely English legislation…central to the Labour manifesto pledges…that cannot get passed without the weight of the labour Scottish MP’s.
What do Labour do then? allow the bill to fail and so allow cries of “no confidence”? or use their labour MP’s and so leave themselves open to (legitimate) criticism that they have no mandate to do so?
It really is a conundrum for them, far more so than it is for the Tories and Lib-dems and if they can’t work out a realistic approach that the public trust I think they will get rightly crucified in the polls.
Also, one wonders how well Ed Miliband is looking in all of this, Gordon Brown has reminded the Labour voters what a strong leader feels like and it’ll be interesting to see how Ed’s popularity holds up in the coming months, especially if Gordon stays at the forefront of the “Vow” progress.
For those of us with an interest in politics and no real affiliation to any party it is a fascinating time. Many a doctoral thesis will be based on the period 2012/15 that’s for sure.
Devolution as put forth by Tony Blair was and is a garbled mess. For me, as a foreigner, studying English law in the UK in the aftermath of devolution, it was clear that it was a good idea, but it was done with cynical party political purposes.
Now a great chance. A chance for a clean slate. Get a written constitution, with strong fundamental rights. Create a Federal UK, with a dozen or so regions, with vast autonomy. It’s not that hard, in fact this was pretty much the recipe for what the UK did when it gave self governance to its colonies.
If it’s done haphazardly it will be a bigger disaster.
Not necessarily. All health, education, local government, non-‘federal’’ taxation, welfare, and so on- all totally devolved matters. Anything that is border line would need to be considered by the UK parliament. We are quite used up here to being clear what is a UK and what is a Scottish matter.
:rolleyes: awe so cute. It’s already difficult enough currently and that when the is just the Scottish Parliament. Where Westminster’s laws have precedence and where the Courts can properly decide if a matter was within the Scots competence. Over here, you have a decision to be made at a time when a bill is being introduced. If there is a disagreement, who will decide. The Courts? It’s a political matter. But, hey, these are British not American courts, they don’t shy away from these things if it’s necessary. But, then they become politicised. And subject to criticism. Not to mention , if it goes the UKSC, then Scottish judges could decide. What happens to English votes for English laws then?
As it is, when they passed the Scotland Act 1998, they ended up accidently creating a right of appeal to UK courts in Scottish criminal cases, which was supposed to not be allowed under the Act of Union.