300 years of the Union [Matthew's Journal]

But then I believe in One Holistic World Socialist Government. Oh yes!

Please do not write on both sides of the paper at once?

I think that (leaving aside the Irish question for the moment) England, Scotland and Wales would do well as independent countries within the EU.

[link] [reply]

What is Wales' income source going to be without the coal mining industry?

Scotland I can see going it alone, long having had its own legal system, money printing, etc., but Wales isn't really distinct enough to be worth it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Perhaps it could become a tax haven for the English: the Monaco of the North?

[link] [parent] [reply]

The Irish managed to find something to do with themselves.

[link] [parent] [reply]

With the help of wodge-loads of EU cash.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, if this is also topical because Alex Salmond said many Scots want independence from England, then my answer is that the SNP smell of wee and poo and I am happy to muddle along with a union whilst still maintaining my right to be a cultural speshul and unique snowflake/uncivilised boor. ;)

[link] [reply]

The SNP may well smell of wee and poo⁰, but the Scottish Labour Party MPs/MSPs are 97% numpties, and the Conservative and Unionists¹ are mostly fools. And the LibDems are a horrible mixed bag, and can't decide on anything.

My objection to the Union is simply that it infanalises Scotland, and the Scottisn people. Mind you, I'm not religiously oposed to the Union, or thirled to independence; I'd be just as happy with a rather more powerful parliament (with real fiscal control) withing the Union. I remain, of course, a pan-europeanist.

0] Although Alex, personally, doesn't. Or at least he didn't when I last met him.
1] When are the going to drop the "Unionist", given what Daveyboy has been saying of late?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I find it funny that the Conservative and Unionist party seem the most opposed to the Union at the moment. Saying that Gordon Brown should not be prime minister because he is Scottish is really saying, "We can make decisions that affect you, but you are not allowed to make decisions that affect us," and is more likely to push the Scots to break away than anything else I can think of.

[link] [parent] [reply]

While I disagree with the view that Gordon Brown's Scottishness makes him less suitable to be Prime Minister, I think that is an unfair characterisation of it. What is being said is that since the UK Prime Minister is also (in effect) the First Minister of England, he or she should represent an English constituency.

[link] [parent] [reply]

On the other hand, that "solution" denies 10% of the population of the ablility to become, or even vote for, their Prime Minister.

Should Scots representatives also be banned from holding any other high offices of state, too? After all, very little (actually, almost none) of the Home Offices's remit runs to Scottish affairs.

Effectively making the Scots (and the Welsh) second class citizens, and their MPs second class representatives.

Yes, the curent situation is broken, but that "solution" is every bit as broken.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Scottish Labour Party MPs/MSPs are 97% numpties, and the Conservative and Unionists are mostly fools. And the LibDems are a horrible mixed bag, and can't decide on anything.

That sounds like the politicians we have south of the border too. Wanting to be a politician should automatically disqualify someone from being able to be a politician.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Either independance or fix the West Lothian Question.

[link] [reply]

Not that I think the West Lothian question isn't a problem; but recall that English MPs had, quite happily, long voted on laws relating only to Scotland. For about 290 years, in fact...

Oddly, none of the English MPS ever seemed to find that anomalous, or worth fixing, or even getting worked up over.

Brown's defence of the current situation is, of course, untenable. But the Labour party;s fear is that it would never again form a government in Westminster without the Scottish contingent.

[link] [parent] [reply]

"but recall that English MPs had, quite happily, long voted on laws relating only to Scotland. For about 290 years, in fact..."

Could you clarify that please, as I understood it the Union meant one parliament (in London rather than somewhere nicely in the middle, admittedly) and Scots and English MPs (plus those from Wales and Ireland) sat there and voted on all the stuff concerning all the UK.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Scotland still had its own legal system, despite there being one parliament. So you still had legislation that affected only Scotland, or affected only England & Wales.
However, there was some kind of agreement that only those MPs from Scottish would take part in debates or vote on Scotland-only matters. There were also committees consisting solely of Scottish MPs for discussing such legislation.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm aware of the CoS, the "wee frees" etc etc, and the 3 separate minting banks, but have always considered these to be entities outside the control of MPs. Plus I'm from Sussex so Scotland has always been a long way away.

[link] [parent] [reply]

However, there was some kind of agreement that only those MPs from Scottish would take part in debates or vote on Scotland-only matters

Very informal, and largely honoured in the breach. Somewhat inevitably, as Scotland traditionaly returned a Liberal majority, and then, since early last century, a Labour one.

An example from recent memory: the Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland, against the wishes of the vast majority of Scottish MPs (ie all but the one remaining Tory) , several years before was introduced in England.

[link] [parent] [reply]

voted on all the stuff concerning all the UK

I presume, then, that you're unaware that Scotland maintained a quite distinct, and entirely seprate⁰ legal system -- both criminal, and civil -- founded on Roman, rather than, Comon Law principles? As well as a seperate education system, and a different established church? All this is set forth in the Act of Union.

0] Only the House of Lords, as court of final ppeal is shared, and even that is constituted slightly differently. Legal qualifications are not transferable between systems, without further examination.

The "reverse" West Lothian question was always built into the Act of Union.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I knew that Scotand had verdicts like "not proven" and different names for positions within the courts but was not aware that the legal system was so separate. Likewise I knew that the Scots had Highers rather than A-Levels and took 4 year degrees, but my view (when thinking about it at all) was that this was a regional variation along the lines of one LEA setting different school hours to those of its neighbours.

The existence of the Church of Scotland, and the other minor churches, was not new to me but have always considered religion to be outside the purview of MPs.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The state has some control over both the CofE and the CofS. There are a range of legal differences; e.g. there is no such thing as common land in Scotland.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, but then I had considered which is different from known ... [a difference that have been relevant on Saturday last ;-)]

[link] [parent] [reply]

No, the state has does not have any control over the CofS -- it is the Church By law Established, but it encatrs its on statutes, in the General Assembly whereas those for the CofE pass through Parliament.

As Wikipedia puts it: "Under its constitution, which is recognised by acts of Parliament, the Kirk enjoys complete independence from the state in spiritual matters. It is thus both established and free."

[link] [parent] [reply]

I thought the head of state was head of the CofS?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Absolutely not; there is no "head" of the CofS; it's an insanely democratic organisation.

[link] [parent] [reply]

According to the Church of Scotland's own website, its head is "the Lord God". Trump that!

[link] [parent] [reply]

The Queen is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has no head; its elected spokesperson (elected by the representatives of the Elders of each parish) is the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and may not even be a minister.

[link] [parent] [reply]

have always considered religion to be outside the purview of MPs

You'd think, yet all forms of worhsip in the CofE (ie the prayer book) must be authorised by Act of Parliament -- the 1922 prayer book failed to acheive this -- and the Prime Ministed appoints all CofE bishopes. And the Church Commisioners are appointed by the PM, as well, and are answerable to Parliament.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I didn't think all episcopates were Crown appointments; I know some of them are (the archipiscopates, for example).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Nope, they are all Crown appoinments. AIUI, normally, three names go to 10 Downing St, from the church, for the PM to chose from. Thatcher was notiorious for objecting to "lefty" nominees - despite being a Methodist!

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think all diocesan bishops are Crown appointments as are many deans.

[link] [parent] [reply]

But, in fairness, during the same period Scottish MPs voted on laws relating only to England and Wales, so there was symmetry. Of course, the symmetry was more theoretical than actual, because English and Welsh MPs have always drastically outnumbered Scottish ones.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Quite so; the situation has always been rather odd, and the constitutional confusion has always been there, and is not new, just slightly altered.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Everything I've seen on this has devolved (heh) into a question of "Us" and "Them". Especially everything I've seen from those who want independance or an English parliament.

Every time someone says "Us", or "We", in this kind of context, they should be kicked fiercely in the shin. That way, they'll only use it with some kind of thought.

I dislike nations. I dislike the concept of barriers between people. I especially dislike the "what's innifo me" attitude that goes along with it.

It has always been true, but it is probably truer now, that the lives of everyone on this planet are interconnected. Our insistence on dragging up seperations - especially artificial ones - is a childish throwback to a bygone feudalism. We should be more mature than that. Our infatuation with "land" - and worse, with "homeland" (anyone using that word should be taken out and...well, not shot, because that would rather be anti the flow of my comment, but made to tidy up Central Park with the cameras watching) is something we should be working to get rid of, not attempting to draw lines to pander to.

[link] [reply]

How do you feel about Irish independance?

[link] [parent] [reply]

You seem to have missed the point.

Independance is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. Ireland is no more independant from the UK than I am independent from the man who lives next door.

The amount of interdependance varies according to other factors as well as geographical proximity, but the interdependance is unquestionably there. The question I'm asking is "can we come up with structures that recognise this, and work more efficiently than nation-states".

[link] [parent] [reply]

I dislike nations. I dislike the concept of barriers between people. I especially dislike the "what's innifo me" attitude that goes along with it.

I do not think that nations are necessarily linked to a `what's innifo me' attitude. Nor do I think that nations are necessarily about barriers between people but recognition of differing cultures. I agree we need to work together, but that is why I'm pro-Europe as well as pro-devolution (independence).

[link] [parent] [reply]

I do not think that nations are necessarily linked to a `what's innifo me' attitude.

Sorry, that's a lack of clarity on my part. The discussion about nationhood devolves into a "what's innifo me" with monotonous regularity. The one on this post has.

Nor do I think that nations are necessarily about barriers between people but recognition of differing cultures.

I don't really see that the difference between my culture, as a southerner, and that of a Glasweigan is particularly greater than the difference between me someone from Newcastle.

I'm equally unconvinced that cultural differences require the amount of seperation that nationhood seems to require. If it isn't about "us" and "them", then what is it about?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Strictly the Union of the the United Kingdom is that between Britain – not so much of the Great, please (which was originally a translation of a cautionary epithet applied by the French to distinguish Grande Bretagne from Bretagne) – and Ireland (now represented only by six northern counties, part of the historic province of Ulster).

Scotland has had two more-or-less forced unions: Union of the Crowns in 1603 under James I and VI and then Union of the Parliaments in 1707.

There's a nice anecdote about the Brahan Seer, who predicted after 1707 that Scotland would have her own parliament again "when men can walk dry-shod from England to France". At the time this was taken to mean that it would never happen. When a sponsored walk took place through the new Channel Tunnel (before the rails were laid) in the Channel Tunnel, the way was clear for the prophecy to be fulfilled in an unexpected way.

The West Lothian question has a worse counterpart in the West Belfast question: New Labour is quite happy to rule Northern Ireland directly from Westminster although its candidates do not stand in the province, nor are residents there allowed to join the party.

Let's replace the Untied Kingdom by a free federation of the north Atlantic islands, with a federal capital in Liverpool (geographically central) and national parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin. And let's move the capital of England to Birmingham or Coventry, leaving London as a theme park for tourists and shoppers.

[link] [reply]

That gets my vote!

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'd be interested to know if Scotland is a net source of money or a net drain on our money.

I suppose if it's earning more money than it's costing, I'd be in favour of keeping the union because it's logical for us! It would also be extremely convenient in terms of travel/holidays and so on.

But if it's costing more money than it's earning then, considering some of the unexpected anti-English sentiment I've come across from some people north of the border (who I assume are a minority, but I don't have enough information to generalise), perhaps we'd be better off "divorcing" Scotland and letting them do their own thing. I think Scotland's a great place, and I hope large numbers of people don't actually hate me/think I'm stupid just because of my nationality!

(Having said that, my opinion on Northern Ireland is pretty much the same - I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn'd save us a lot of headaches to just give them independence, cut off ties and let them get on with Northern Irish stuff whilst we get on with English stuff. But once again, I started out neutral on the subject - I've been forming more of an opinion on that since encountering some rather extreme anti-English comments from people over there, and they were claiming (truthfully or otherwise) that that is a majority opinion and a reasonable one at that.)

[link] [reply]

It's a moot point who pays for what, given the way taxes are raised on a unitary-state basis. You can find economists, inside, and outside, the government, who will tell you that Scotland either more than pays its way, breaks even, or is a total subsidy basket case.

Similar to the variety of views you can hear expressed on whether London is in the same situation, or not.

However, I have to ask: would you take the same view of London Vs the rest of Enlasn, or the North of England vs the South?

If not, why not?

And yes, the anti-English feeling is a tiny minority. My father in law, an Englishman, with an English wife (both of whom still sound English) has lived in Scotland for 45 years, claims never tohave encoutered it. Indeed, he's now a member of the SNP!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Aah, hooray for tiny minority. *grumbles that she typically manages to come across them*

In general, I'd probably take the same view for sections of England - if I get the impression that the people in Foo County/Region don't like me and think the place I'm living in is stupid, then I'd rather not be connected to them, thanks!

Of course, there's a risk you could end up fragmenting the whole of the UK like this, but I'm sure most places would conclude that the benefits derived from getting along in a neighbourly fashion outweigh the urge to not be associated with another region!

I admit I'd be a little disappointed if the North of England decided to go independent, as it would be a pain having to go through passport control each time I visited my parents. Not to mention the way it would make it harder to go to the other end of the island to go to university - I guess they'd have to work out some sort of arrangement for "Former British Isles International Students" otherwise loads and loads of students would end up with a choice between staying unacceptably close to parents or being hit with full-whack international fees!

Actually, now I consider it...can we disown Derbyshire and Bedfordshire?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I reckon the union to have been a good thing, though perhaps to different degrees, for all involved, at least on average. However I don't think that the present halfway house is long term sustainable, nor yet is it fair to all concerned. (Also I am an unrealistic idealist who prefers friendly links between different areas to unfriendly rivalry.)

Either we need complete independence, or perhaps better (though probably beyond the maturity of politicians) separate governments for each country covering everything except those things that genuinely need to be dealt with communally. That would perhaps be foreign policy, policy about resources (water etc affecting all), and perhaps a very few other things. Then the over-government could be a relatively small body with carefully circumscribed powers and a modest bureaucracy. This might be very limited or completely redundant soon because the EU is set to take over defence and foreign policy in the next ten years or so. There is no sense paying for extra layers of snouts in the trough if avoidable.

I can't imagine a way to get to this system, in practice, from where we are now, so I guess a total breakup is almost unavoidable, even if not in the long term interest of any of the areas involved. After all, our politicians have a clear priority; with all the problems affecting us, a large pay rise for them is important. With that attitude, what hope for well considered reforms?

[link] [reply]

I like the tickybox option. They are fun. :-)

[link] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

October