http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...ds-autonomy-in-a-new-different-union.25448349 It is suggesting a middle way between Independence and Devolution which would recognise Scotland's sovereignty and Self Determination while sharing powers on a consensual basis. This would supersede the 1707 Act of Union and instead created a Union of equals. Shared powers would cover the royal succession, defence, shared currency and freedom of movement. Scotland would receive no subsidy from rUK but instead would pay a share for these shared resources. We would still be British, still have British passports, could be part of the British military, use British Embassies and so on. We would have no representation at Westminster but instead would send delegates to Westminster who would only vote on Scottish matters. At the same time the Scottish First Minister would be consulted by the Prime Minister on shared matters - similar to Gibraltar. No future Referendum for a Generation. Source for the above the Herald article linked which I cannot read online. This would probably satisfy the vast majority of Scottish people. In the near immediate future different wishes concerning the EU could cause a problem and how much defence and foreign affairs caused problems would probably depend on how serious the opinion of the Scottish First Minister was taken in these issues. However this looks like it may have the possibility to be acceptable to most people from Scotland. Full details which I have not yet checked are here http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...-the-referendum-by-w-elliot-bulmer.1411845938 which is another Herald article so I cannot at present read What do people think of this idea?
I want to add a little on this. It has been suggested that the election was about money. No, it was not. Further before any kind of Referendum even started there was so much talk about the economy that everyone knew that we would begin being more or less the same as if we stayed with England. It appears that the reason Better Together took on this line was because they learned that this was what would make the difference for don't knows. If they thought the situation would ruin them they would vote NO. The more important aspect is that this was not so much a debate about whether people wanted to stay in the Union, most did not as I shall explain in a moment. The referendum became about whether we could afford to or were about to descend into the situation that Germany was in prior to WW2 as we were told by the Deutsch Bank. Ok why do I say there was not the desire to stay as part of the Union. Simply because only 27% of the No side, none of the Yes, gave as their reason for not voting for Independence, their strong feelings for the Union. That is 27% of 55% of No voters, something like 14% of all voters voted No to Independence because they wanted to be part of the Union. Looking at the Yes side, the strongest reason for wanting Independence was because they did not identify with Westminster politics - that was 70%. That taken along with the very small number of No voters for whom the Union was a priority and the need to terrify the people of Scotland in the two weeks before the Referendum, and they did I was here, they terrified my daughter and scared me for a while. This illustrates what I was reading about last night which is that it would be very unwise to believe that this referendum is the end of the matter or that the Scottish people in general feel part of the Union. This is nothing absolutely nothing against English people. Indeed the North/ North East of England in particular remained much in people's thoughts. At the same time there is unlikely to be another quick referendum unless it is obvious that we would receive a vote of at least 60% of the population preferably more. I was concerned about us wining this referendum with as little as the No's won it, simply because you do need the will of the people to create the new. Some people think differently on this and want the SNP to be put in with a massive majority, which is quite likely anyway, but with a mandate for another referendum. That may happen but not unless there are things happening which get people to change their minds. As it happens such things are happening. We now are told that the life of oil is to be last decades longer than when we voted. We also know that there are deep troubles in the English NHS. And then, we have THE VOW. Now most YES know that the Vow will never be kept. As accounts go it has already fell short of the Timetable. There is a strong likelihood of change of leaders after the election and in any case we have already heard Conservative members on mass saying they will not keep it. The most important part of the Vow was the promise that the Scottish Parliament will become permanent unless the will of the Scottish people decides against that. At the moment being devolved it can be removed by Westminster. This is the part that it is very important to get sorted legally before the general election and work is ahead to do that. The Constitutional Commission's deliberation as stated in the OP suggests or states that the Vow demands the changes it suggests or something around this. There are now suggestions that we have civic people involved in this discussion and I do remember Gordon Brown saying it would be so. The changes in the OP would seem very like the ones which they would want. Should that happen it is likely we would also would want our own broadcasting service and newspapers who speak from the need of Scottish people rather than Westminster's. Indeed funds are already being collected to start our own TV station which would deliver world news not just Scottish. This is why it is not yet over. This was not just a Referendum. It was a referendum with promises attached. It was a Referendum where Gordon Brown promised all we would get and that we would get that in quicker time than Independence. It was a referendum on which 26% of the No voters have said they made their choice on what Gordon Brown said and the three other leaders confirmed would be so. It is a Referendum which must bring what was promised in that Vow or the chances are it will be declared void....and trust me if promises are not kept that would anger people along to the Yes cross very quickly. Cameron has stated that we will be in charge of our own income tax and spending. Only two problems with this. First that this should be made within discussions and second that of course this will include all our resources including our oil. A yes vote covered far more than narrow Nationalists. Intellectuals, artists and entertainers became actively involved as well of course as those wanting Scotland to be expressed as a more socialist country than is possible within the UK. It is not over. I think it will still take something like the OP to settle the situation. Once our Parliament is permanent we will have a lot more power. http://www.newsnetscotland.scot/ind...eignty-for-scotland-but-holyrood-must-fulfill The above fits in with Salmond's earlier claim that we could attain Independence without another Referendum.
British nationalist Ruth Davidson has said she will make sure we do not get Devo Max, regardless of that being promised to us and indeed being what 2/3rd of the Scottish people wanted before the Referendum, which was not allowed on the ballot but was promised in the last week. "Gordon Brown is asking folk to sign a petition demanding he and his colleagues keep a promise they made! - You couldn't make it up" Nicola Sturgeon on twitter.
No surprises there then Alexa. If anyone expected better they must be kind of gullible. Ruth Davidson, that new firebrand of Scottish Toryism who is going to rally the Scottish people to Conservatism, to quote Cameron. What a laugh. She should be run out of Scotland along with JoLa for betrayal of the Scottish people and going along with Westminster's promises. I don't think we'll need another referendum, we can just sit back and watch the big boys in the south do it for us.
Yes, I think she should be a Westminster MP because whether you agree with Independence or not, if you are in the Scottish Parliament your first loyalty ought to be to the Scottish people. She was going quite orgasmic at how she was going to reduce Scottish income tax to almost nothing and, she believes the Scottish Parliament will then be full of Tories - no free Higher education even for the most poor of course and bigger bedroom tax and reducing jsa to a flat £20 a week food card, £10 a week for heating and that is it - of course I made that bit up but in reducing taxes even more she would have to do that. She believes that all the No voters were Conservatives in hiding, that they all feel like her that Scotland should remain with the UK as an inferior partner and that we can become a divided country where no one cares about the underclass as they are living it up so much on their tax relief. She is a traitor to the Scottish people because her first interest in Conservatism and Unionism not to serve the Scottish people who she has been bad mouthing and she should as I said join the Westminster Government. If she had any conscience she would have applied for there not here. She doesn't want Devo Max as she believes it is a back door to Independence. Instead she wants us to collect all our own tax and be responsible for our own spending, thus she will have solved the problem for her brothers and sisters in England of the Barnet Formula and unless we take control of the oil we will suffer financially - this idea she seems to love no end. However Gordon Brown believes her idea of Scotland itself being responsible for all tax and spending is a 'Tory Trap' and is itself the route to the end of the Union. A few reasons here. It will mean virtually no need for Scottish Westminster MP's so they will lose their jobs. There will never again be the possibility of a Scottish PM or Chancellor in what is called a Union. More importantly his whole argument against Independence, indeed Darlings too was basically that we needed to be part of the Union to share resources, that resources should go where they are most needed. Under Davidson's intention this would no longer be the case. Another instance of voters voting on misinformation and in this respect massively so. People were terrified and then told the only safe way was to say No. Her wishes for those awake even who voted No would indeed lead to a demand for another Referendum. We would simply be a second cousin of Westminster, doing their bidding and receiving nothing in return. I think the only workable solution is the OP. That allows the English to still have the big state and Faslain and allows Scotland her autonomy. If this came with the footnote that another referendum of Independence could not happen for 15 years, it would give some security and time for people to prepare for the future - it does at this time seem likely Scotland would then go for full Independence but not definite. England might make significant changes re it's love of war. The two most important things that must be adhered to is that the Scottish Parliament is recognised as permanent and that her right to be self determining also be so. England will have these. We will need them to. No inferior cousin status. Both of those were promised and Brown does at least have the Permanence of the Scottish Parliament among his 14 points needed for resolution. Did not Jola fail to even get her district to vote No. There is talk of her being replaced by Jim Murphy. Even worse.
Imagine Murphy as first minister and Boris as prime minister aghrrrr. Unbelievably, I think things could actually get worse Alexa.
Getting worse is certainly Westminster's Intention. I noticed I think Cameron trying to include both Wales and NI in the anti Scotland group today. The other day I noticed Boris degrading Salmond unaware possibly that he was degrading almost half the people of Scotland. I hear the English are told that Salmond has bewitched us and that is the reason behind the Yes vote, unaware that the Yes vote took the idea of Independence away from the SNP and made it into many different grass roots groups - though of course now the SNP is benefiting. Westminster has no more interest in the people of Scotland than she has in the people of England. Her only interest in Scotland is her resources and keeping that bit of land so that she can still play at being an Imperial power. Scotland's Conservatives and Labour only want Westminster seats so that they stay with the possibility of getting great power within this. They do not care for Scotland. Sadly Scotland's first First Minister also had his first loyalty to Westminster not Scotland. What Labour and the Conservatives want to do is to find a way whereby there can never be another referendum - because we are going on the next referendum and secondly to destroy the SNP. The SNP rose to prominence in Scotland because Labour followed the Conservatives and became neo Liberal giving up Labour - of course they called themselves New Labour which meant neo liberal Labour. What must be more concerning to them now is the awakening of political thought and energy in Scotland. Anyway it would appear the intent is to present us with intense austerity. The SNP will need to deal with this. Given that raising taxes to the extent which would be necessary to do this would result in people moving to England, the SNP would have no choice but to destroy Public spending. End of free higher education, end of free prescriptions, massive reductions in health and education, transport, Green Energy basically all spending and double the bedroom tax. The disabled and unemployed will become beggars and the working poor will only survive on food banks. By this they hope to sicken people of the SNP and then Labour can come back in to it's 'rightful place' having created NeoLiberalism philosophy in Scotland. They will have 'showed' that that was the only way forward just like they did in England. Labour will then sort out the 'bad management' of the SNP. Funnily enough this story which is the one that is working out was first detected as the likely approach of Westminster to a No vote in 2012 by Wings Over Scotland. Thing is the Conservatives have got a bit greedy. They want to get rid of Labour as well so that they can be the Autocratic power in England - well them and UKIP. This has led to Gordon Brown complaining about the conservatives wanting to give income tax powers to Scotland - (I think England is taking other taxes to better herself though not sure. If she left them, including oil it all could be all right for Scotland but you do not need to be one of the 45, to see that would never happen!! ) The Conservatives have gone too far for Gordon Brown. Is he complaining about the austerity this will bring to Scotland when it was promised to be the solution to possible temporary austerity of Independence? Not a bit of it. He is only worried about no Scottish people being Westminster MP's. He believes that this will bother the Scottish people. Believe me being lied to, having terror used to get you to vote in a direction which will be bad for you and your children is going to anger people a great deal more. Someone on twitter said recently that Westminster was somewhat naive to imagine that they could get away with what they have planned when 45% voted for Independence and are watching their every step. Such a number can make for formidable civil disobedience they said. The thought had crossed my mind too. Although some have seen the mistake of their vote already we need to make sure sufficient do for us move - calling the referendum null and void due to the lies etc..but that can only be done when we know for certain we will have a majority something like the 65% the SNP was hoping for this time. 60% would be enough but people need to be informed....which brings me to another issue Whatever happened to England - once a hive of active democracy and now the best they can rebel is voting UKIP. May have something to do with this. Remember in the 80's when the Times in particular was being bought up by Murdoch and people were protesting and making clear that free information was going to be the loser. This doesn't necessarily mean blatant bias like you for instance would find in the Mail. It can be simply omissions or being economical with the truth. I can see that at the moment with the information I find in the Herald which is not available anywhere else - and people need that information to come to their informed decisions. During the build up to the Referendum I think it was the Constitution Commission took don't knows and gave them information. They gave them several bits on both sides and found that most people on being given the information became a Yes. I am going to be giving a donation to the New TV station for Scotland and am considering stopping my payment to the BBC and giving the entire lot over to the Scottish one. In such a way we would have the opportunity of informing Scottish people so that they are not fooled.
Great po Alexa and by the way I have stopped donating an extra tax to the EBC. I will do like wise and donate instead to the new television Scotland.
I should have given this link to Bella concerning this - also with a link to contribute. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/30/a-better-media-is-possible/ Hopefully be interesting not just to Scottish people but also to others interested in a bottom up type of news service which does not simply recreate the others with a different bias. article by George Monbiot about the media during the Referendum http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists
