Backtracking on promises just prior to the referendum has begun. Back bench Tories are in revolt about Cameron's Pledge. Milliband is also changing his mind. Brown, the man with nae powers cannot do anything that he promised.
I am interested, do you think that the last minute promises, made by the political party leaders, really made that much difference?
Yes I truly believe that these promises on top of the scare stories terrified many people who are fair to comfortably off and the old age pensioners who were worried they would lose their pensions due to all the nonsense about the currency.. What was interesting from my point of view though, was that the cities which have the highest poverty ratings and particularly Glasgow with highest death rate, were the ones that voted yes.
The Scots are never satisfied, are they? They've already got more powers than each of the other three Home Nations, yet they want more (and more English money). It's time now that attention shifted to the rest of the UK. As Farage said: "It's time to stop the Scottish tail wagging the dog." We now need to start concentrating on the needs and desires of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. The Scots have got enough, and the majority of English people think that way. A new survey shows, amongst other things, that the majority of English people believe Scotland should NOT be given more powers and more English money. The three main party leaders are judged by the English to have been WRONG to make the commitment to devolve more powers to Scotland by a margin of two to one. A total of 70 per cent say it was a ‘panic’ decision against 16 per cent who say it was wise. Despite this, they believe they cannot go back on their word. And if they try to ram through the Scottish reforms after the next General Election in May – as they have promised – they could face a public backlash. A majority of English voters say they want their own referendum before more of their cash is transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh. More than seven in ten English people say the Barnett formula, whereby Scots receive around £1,600 of public money per head more than those in England (even parts of England which are poorer than Scotland), is unfair with only one in six regarding it as fair. The survey also shows that former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considered to have saved the day for the UK – and the chief villain is fellow Scot, tennis player Andy Murray. Some 21 per cent of English voters say Murray’s support for independence (which, ironically, he was not able to vote in as he lives in Surrey where he gets access to the best tennis facilities, so England actually benefits him) means they are less likely to cheer him at Wimbledon. By contrast, the favourite moment for English voters was the Queen’s gentle nudge to Scots to ‘think carefully’ before voting to quit the UK. One in ten English voters say their favourite moment was the photo of a dejected Alex Salmond in his car after the vote. The results suggest solid support in England for David Cameron’s claim that new Home Rule powers for Scotland must be matched by similar measures in the other three Home Nations. The Prime Minister’s ‘English votes for English laws’ proposal, solving the West Lothian Question, struck a chord south of the border, with two in three English voters saying MPs representing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish seats at Westminster should be banned from voting on English-only issues such as health and education. A mere one in five oppose the move. Most English people also believe Scotland will always remain part of the UK, with just a quarter believing it will eventually break away, and 30% of English people are more proud to be British in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Tory MP John Redwood’s call for the creation of an English Parliament is supported by six in ten. But despite the heated controversy over the referendum, English voters are adamant there are far more important matters. Immigration is far and away their biggest worry, followed by the economy, jobs, health and schools and fighting terrorism – with constitutional reform well down the list. The new survey reveals what the English think
There doesn't seem to be any back tracking. Though Cameron tying Scottish devolution to the west lothian question and possible english devolution does seem to be an attempt to both delay change and to steal a march on UKIP. Labour still firmly supports further devolution for scotland. They also support devolution for England.The question there is not around scottish powers but what form if any should english devolution take.
Well if the statistics Sixteen String Jack has presented are correct they won the No vote. 26% said they voted No on Gordon Brown and he was the person who brought these ideas in. If those statistics are correct without this there would have been a strong Yes win.
It does look like they are backtracking. They quite simply do not have time to do this in the time. In addition Scotland was promised the Barnet formula would stay in and that is now looking very unlikely.....and it is believed that we are about to hit major austerity. Billions of cuts for Scotland alone is what I have heard. Apart from what I said as need due to geographical space, the Barnet Formula last year returned Scotland her oil. If that is not forthcoming there may well be a call for a new Referendum. Without an assurance that that would not be cut I suspect many No votes would have been yes. I also think we should all keep google eyes on this new constitution and make sure it is not taking away rather than giving liberties. Labour may well be heading the way of the Conservatives in Scotland.
I thought it would backfire badly and be seen as a pathetic attempt by Westminster to bribe the Scots. All this nationalism has made my mind up, i'm heading back to the valleys, much as I love Cornwall there is no place like home.
It didn't backfire because it was presented by Gordon Brown. He was making speeches like he used to 30 years ago with passion on and on about creating the Welfare State and social justice and that should not be thrown away by going along with those 'narrow nationalists' forgetting to say that Labour has moved well aware from this and that that kind of thinking is what has come up during the Referendum conversation particularly by grass root Yes groups not necessarily related to the SNP. What I suspect you are picking up on is that Scotland has become Politically alive again. We dare to tread where the UK in general has fallen asleep. It is good. I recommend.
The Backbench Mps never promised anything so they can hardly backtrack can they? Why should Scottish MPs get to vote on purely English issues? We should have full devo max for all four countries. Keep defence,currency, foriegn policy, trade etc under National government and send everything else to the local parliaments. Labour, of course, wants top keep scottish MPs in an English parliament
Tbf ryann I am waiting for this Vow to fall apart. Probably not fair but promised to Referendum voters if they voted No.
Of course and at the time I said that as we are not an autocratic country things would need to go through Parliament. Nonetheless Labour, Conservative and LibDems gave their word it would happen. See the second part of my signature for what Unionist papers were apparently saying in Scotland today. If what was promised is not produced, then it is a new Referendum. I found this article by a Labour Party Scottish MP a few minutes ago. See what you think of it. http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-lie-wont-fly/#more-61925
The Scots NHS funding is about to hit the fan anyway, on present Edinburgh parliament policy " ...Addressing a BMA gathering in Harrogate, he said doctors should be thankful that NHS Scotland had avoided wholesale reorganisation as witnessed south of the Border. But he added: "What we have in common with the rest of the United Kingdom is a crisis of health provision where the current philosophy seems to be to squeeze more and more from the same resources." The Herald has been running a campaign, NHS Time for Action, calling for a debate about health funding. Mr Keighley said the independence referendum was a "crucial vote" for Scots but they faced a "far greater decision" over funding the NHS. Looking back on his five years as BMA chairman in Scotland, he told colleagues: "My main regret is that I have not been able to do more than act as a deckchair attendant on the good ship NHS Titanic.".. " http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/doctor-warns-of-nhs-crisis.24587608
an interestingt piece Alexa. Like many Tories I think Cameron is Pathetic- And I am from the liberal side of the party. We need West Lothian solved and Labour will do anything not to do so.
But how would restricting english votes to english laws work in practice? What happens if the UK goverment does not have an english majority? How are ministers decided? Would you have an english first minister? Would english debates happen 2/3 days a week with that party acting as government and the UK government party acting as opposition and switch benches? Does devolved government for england, either regionally or nationally not make more sense?
Sad thing to my mind, and I sincerely believe it, is that all the hassle which will now follow could have been avoided with a yes vote and commonsense agreements on all sides. In effect a devolution could have taken place without threats and scares and fears and tit for tat bickering. Compromises could have won the day if arrogance and stupidity had stayed away on all sides. Well, now the UK will surely be torn asunder with rashes of promises and divided opinions. Westminster will display riotous behaviour and friends will become enemies and in the meantime the people of all parties will suffer..
It would have been torn asunder whatever happened, but I agree Salmond lied about more or less everything that would happen in an independent Scotland, then accused the government of bullying when all it was simply point out his claims were wrong.
I think it doesn;t work in any long term solution without an English Parliament. Separately elected.regionally or nationally
I am not a Unionist Sab but if I were I would stop with that idea. It gives England far too heavy a hand. An England divided into several regions with them and Scotland, Wales and NI all having their own say on Foreign Affairs and defence, particularly war would be more likely to be workable.
I think the whole idea is doomed. Yes, I believe in English only votes in Westminster for English laws but I also believe in Scottish votes only for Scottish laws. Welsh votes etc and NI votes ditto. That will make no difference to anything which affects the UK as a whole, because the number of English votes will overall still b e able to outweigh the will of the other three parts of the UK
All four countries having their own say on foriegn affairs and defence? Are you out of your mind? We need a united foriegn and defence policy from a direclt elected federal government I have no objection to regionalising England. Indeed It would mean my home area- the South East would never have to see Labour ever again
You have possibly misunderstood me. I do know that a reason for being in a union is common foreign policy. However now it is too London based. In a Union which was a democracy all areas ought to have a think and then an equal say about important matters, Better allow inner London to have it's own assembly then with full powers! From what I hear regional Assemblies is a dead horse and as such is it's own death toll to any union.
