To start a thread inspired by, but not about, indyref?

[StatisticallyChallenged]

In the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, we had some fabulous, spirited, enlightening and enthusiastic debates on this board. I know I learned a lot from talking with so many politically aware people, and a few people have suggested that we start a thread to try and continue some of the best parts of the discussions.

So this is a thread for us to discuss what we feel is wrong with our country, some possible solutions and how we can do something about it. It's not a thread for debating independence, justifying our votes or for recriminations and anger; more somewhere to chat about some of the underlying issues such as our constitution/political structure, welfare, social justice and equality which concerned people on both sides of the independence debate. I'm also not proposing this as an exclusively Scottish debate although I suspect it will be dominated by us, as many of these are UK-wide issues.

So, what needs to change? How can we make our individual countries and union better?

Sorry for starting a thread and running folks, I'm currently suffering the time honoured Sunday tradition of a visit to ikea. If I get out alive I will be on soon!

Pacific Dogwood which section is the thread about political engagement in? haven't spotted it yet.

Ah found it in Chat!

Unless it's a country like Oz or NZ who understand the nuances, I found everyone called us England or the UK. When I tried to explain the four nation thing everyone just looked blankly at me and carried on calling it England

Livingzuid, going by your nic-name - can I assume a Dutch angle in there somewhere? If so, I have been horrified this week by Dutch journalists repeatedly calling Alex S the "Prime Minister" of Scotland. I have been told (repeatedly) that I am wrong when I say David Cameron is our prime minister.

I so understand that blank look, lol. The Dutch just kind of humour me, like they listen to me say "No Alex S is not our prime minister, David C is". The nod like they're talking to a simpleton, vaguely agree, then after my back is turned they say "poor lass, she doesn't even know who her own prime minister is".

I don't find the concept of 4 united countries in 1 kingdom that difficult to explain, but I can totally agree you're more often than not on a hiding to nothing trying to explain, and get that concept understood, in Europe.

Checking in - I posted this elsewhere, thought it might be worth repeating here.

I think the fallout from the referendum result will go quite some way to having a significant impact at the GE. Milliband is screwed, he's going to lose a lot of labour support in previously 'safe' seats in Scotland because he's baulking on his 'vow' as Cameron has out manoeuvred him. My MP is labour & didn't have to do much pre-election to gain his seat, and has been virtually invisible since he was elected. Managed to demonstrate his incompetence by failing to understand an issue I wrote to him about, clearly didn't even research it (as he didn't have a clue) and simply passed my letter onto the minister involved in the issue with no expression of understanding or support - she then wrote back the most extraordinary bullshit letter ignoring my concern & was able to do so with gusto seeing as my own MP was clueless. He's in an area that most likely voted overwhelmingly yes too.

Milliband's naivety in this whole situation doesn't reflect well on someone who is trying to appear prime ministerial. And if the articles today about both him & Douglas Alexander not even taking his calls/email are true, then it also demonstrates that what Scotland needs/wants isn't too high up on his agenda - even if they had no time for brown, they should not have simply ignored his input. Listen to it first, weigh it up & then disregard if you are sure it's bad advice. But to ignore it completely, without listening? He's had his eye on the GE & thought he could bullshit his way thru this with a vague vow without even thinking what the outcome would be. That's no prime minister in waiting IMO.

Cameron has played a great move tbf, and it now makes the likelihood of another Tory government, coalition if not on a proper majority, very likely IMO. He'll be able to either push through the English votes for English issues alongside the Scottish powers, or campaign on it while making Milliband look bad. Milliband is left trying to appear everything to all parts of the UK while at the same time resisting what Cameron is trying to do. Tories getting back in, in some capacity, is a big factor for many in Scotland who fear for the future - the outcome of the GE will likely have a huge impact on the SE not long afterwards. I believe that will fuel further support for SNP and others who predicted another Tory government of some kind. But, there's also a strong possibility that the GE will be hugely affected even before we get to the SE, in terms of support for Scottish Labour MPs. Towing the party line, when it's been exposed quite vividly as simply needing Scotland's votes for strategic benefit, while not actually listening to/understanding what the Scottish electorate are expressing they want/need, isn't going to cut it much longer IMO. When the support that Labour have banked on for years, disappears, as I expect it will, then that vacuum is opportunity not just for SNP but others who were visible & vocal in their support for independence.

I'm keen to see how this all plays out because for the 1st time in years, those standing for election are actually going to have to really work for their seat, more than ever before, and woe betide anyone who just tows the party line instead of listening to their (potential) constituents.

I agree Tension. The biggest casualty of this referendum is the Labour Party.
I think ed milliband is in a very sticky situation.
But I think we need to remember that this is will all play into ukip's hands.
I'm not sure we will gave an outright victory at the next election - the question will then be who will be the best of the rest ?
I think that most people have recognised nick clegg for what he is now, and so it is a worry that any future coalition will not actually include the lib dems.

Agreed, the labour party could be in serious trouble -between English people annoyed at them not supporting English votes and a boycott labour movement getting going amongst Scottish yes voters..

Long term lurker here, thanks for this and previous threads.

I was surprised to hear Ed Miliband rule out Gordon Browns return to front line politics (on Andrew Marr programme). I thought Brown really helped to save a floundering No campaign and I think he would be a great addition to the Scottish Parliament if he was to stand for it.

The thing is, the UKIP threat isn't something that Scotland has much sway over. The referendum has exposed Scotland's concerns over being out of the EU but England's views (if the support for UKIP is stemming from the desire to leave the EU) are in contrast to that position. I'd like to think that the debate in Scotland has highlighted the trouble with exiting the EU & how that impacts trade, free movement etc. but when the outcome of the referendum is reframed as being an issue for English people still being short changed, I suspect that the arguments that have gone on over the importance of EU membership will be lost in the focus over labour/Tory/lib dem being seen as weak/enabling of Scotland's perceived improved position at a financial cost to the rest of the UK.

HappyScotProudBrit Livingzuid, going by your nic-name - can I assume a Dutch angle in there somewhere? If so, I have been horrified this week by Dutch journalists repeatedly calling Alex S the "Prime Minister" of Scotland. I have been told (repeatedly) that I am wrong when I say David Cameron is our prime minister.

Whats the problem? I've worked in Brussels and understand Flemish pretty well. The distinction between "first minister" and "prime minister" doesn't really translate that well into Dutch, because its based on a concept rather than a clear difference in terminology.

I don't think its a problem of the citizens of another country struggling to understand why another country has a country within that which has both a Prime Minister and a First Minister, two governments and two sets of parliamentary members of parliament much less still claims to be unrepresented by democracy

The reframing of the debate to focus on the 55m-odd English/Welsh concerns is happening now and I worry it will out-shout Scottish issues.

On the other hand I think on balance the rest of the UK wanted Scotland to remain part of the UK, so presumably they will also accept that Scotland can raise more of its own taxes but should also receive a share of UK-wide tax revenues, so a share of UK corporation tax, oil revenues, etc.

If Ed Milliband really is rejecting any involvement from Gordon Brown, he is a muppet

Just checking in.

I'm another who hopes Gordon Brown returns. Now I'm wondering if it needs to be to UK politics. To the Scottish parliament perhaps?

I know he is cantankerous but he is one of the few I feel is decent.

I don't dislike Miliband but he isn't a leader.

Just found this interesting Guardian article re. federalism, writtten before the referendum.

I need to read and digest, with Guardian-bias specs on, natch, but perhaps worth a look

I always felt GB would have made a great PM, and saw in him the integrity missing from the likes of Blair. I was gutted at how disappointing he was in the end - he is definitely 'old school' in terms of politics & doesn't filter well thru the pr/spin machine, to his detriment. He had more substance but little style & modern politics is quite unforgiving on that being a weakness.

Trouble is, Milliband ignoring that substance behind the cantankerous facade is a sure sign that, even though he's grown into a political leader thru studious theorising & debating, while working in the political machine in WM, he has been exposed in this referendum as spectacularly naive & continuing to dismiss GB as irrelevant when he's nailed the situation in Scotland in 2 blistering, rousing speeches, is a fatal flaw in someone who wants to be PM. Where else in UK/global politics will he be outmanoeuvred so easily? I don't think he can recover from this tbh. I understand he doesn't want to be seen associating with GB as he's still seen as pretty toxic to many in terms of English voters but that doesn't mean he simply cuts himself off from the extensive knowledge & experience GB has because he doesn't want to be associated with him.

I think for me, one of the biggest question is

How much devolution do we all want to see?

On one hand I think we are 4 separate countries so should be run as such and on the other hand I think we are UNITED and at what point does that actually not mean much at all if we devolve everything other than the Bank of England and Defence?

Scotlands current list of Devolved v Reserved matters.

Devolved matters
Devolved matters include:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

Reserved matters
Reserved matters include:
benefits and social security

immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution

I admit, I didn't realise just how much had already been devolved. I thought a lot more of the 'matters' were UK wide. I felt we were much more 'One Big Country' than we are.

Do we want our countries to be vastly different within the UK or do we want to be more United?

WooWoo

The government needs to ensure that it provides very high quality basics. We need better healthcare, better social services, better education. The postcode lottery surrounding those things needs to stop. When the government can adequately meet the needs of people who have mental health issues, and make sure that people who have disabilities aren't left struggling to achieve the basics, and they can guarantee that every child will receive a good education as long as their parents support them, then they turn it back on individuals and have an expectation that they, on the whole will make sensible choices for their lives. Obviously the government also needs to ensure a decent economy so that jobs are available to everyone, and people need to be prepared to take any work available even when it's not their ideal. I feel like at the moment we have people blaming the government for their misfortunes, and government blaming individuals for the situations they find themselves in. That needs to change on both sides

I agree with you and I thought that was something we could achieve as a Union, but with so much already devolved how can we?

Whatever happens Ed Miliband has to go, there's just no way we can allow him to become PM.

Scotland's perceived improved position at a financial cost to the rest of the UK

OK - this really is a white elephant and I think it needs to be discussed.

The Barnett formula was never intended to be anything other than a temporary fix to get rid of a few MP's. Barnett himself explains that very well and why & how we still have it.

Why do many people in Scotland state it's a perceived improved position when it is actually an improved and unfair position?

Thank you for that Freddie it's really interesting.

I like what GB has said here...

a union based simply on the crown, the pound, the military or Team GB is not, in the end, as democratic or as emotionally valid as a union of common social interests between and among peoples and nations

My question is how do we achieve a union of common social interests between and among peoples and nations if we end up with an essentially federal system?

The Barnett formula gives more money to Scotland for no reason at all, Lord Barnett himself has said that. There is no reason for us to receive more money. It will need to be changed to be fair to the whole of the UK.

Whats the problem? I've worked in Brussels and understand Flemish pretty well. The distinction between "first minister" and "prime minister" doesn't really translate that well into Dutch, because its based on a concept rather than a clear difference in terminology.

It is FAR more than just terminology, try explaining to average Dutch people, that I am not English and they are wrong to call me English. That the only correct way to refer to me is Scottish or British. Most don't get it. At all. And I am referring to Dutch here, but I could just as easily say a few other Euro nationalities too, including Belgians.

I wish I could buy "it's just terminology they don't get", but it's not. Those few who think that think Scotland is a country in it's own right, automatically think Alex S is our PM. They don't just think Alex S is the PM of Scotland, they think he has the powers that go along with PM too. They think David C is a non-entity and plays no relevance in day to day life in Scotland.

The rest think Scotland is just a part of England. In much the same way Manchester or NE England is a part of England.

I don't think its a problem of the citizens of another country struggling to understand why another country has a country within that which has both a Prime Minister and a First Minister, two governments and two sets of parliamentary members of parliament much less still claims to be unrepresented by democracy.

I am actually told repeatedly, lol, by Dutch people, that I can't have it both ways, I am either

a) Scottish, in which case Alex S is my PM

or

b) English, in which case David C is my PM.

very few people realise that the actual reality is

I am

c) British or Scottish and David C is my PM.

They don't understand the prime minister/first minister nuances, because they don't understand the very basics of the union of Great Britain.

This confusion has been around for decades here, but it's only increased as reporting of the referendum has increased.

They think me saying "I am Scottish, not English" is the exact same as someone from Leeuwarden in Friesland saying "I am Fries/Frisian not Dutch". Fries/Frisian people are Dutch. I am not English. I am British or Scottish. They don't get that. Because they don't get the union.

Re the Barnett formula. I'm guessing that it was the starting point that was far off rather than the subsequent increases which is what the Barnett formula actually does. The proportions that are stated in the last spending review aren't wildly off - they have Scotland at 10.03% of the English population. It looks like in reality it's just under 10 but not by much. But historically spending had been considerably higher in Scotland.

Or have I missed something? I've seen what Barnett has said but it doesn't seem to add up to me.

HappyScotProudBrit LOL if its that irritating, maybe you shouldn't stay there!

As far as I'm aware, both Prime Minister and First Minister translate into the same word in Dutch - "premier". They could say "het eerst Minister" and "het Prime Minister" but I wouldn't be surprised if people thought they were the same thing. As its a separate country.

And I have sympathy for the Dutch on this - they are constantly told that they live in two small provinces in the west of their country - Noord and Zuid Holland, and take it in good part. And we confuse their language with German when were refer to it in English - "Duits" is German in Dutch, "Deutsch" is German in German, but in English "Dutch" means Dutch, not the entirely different language of het Nederlandse taal.

Its also a difference of culture. Dutch tend to be outspoken and their sense of humour can appear different to people from other countries.

Maybe the rest of the world isn't all that interested in Scotland as the Scots are?

Chippingin - I think whether Scotland has a true improved position or a perceived improved position as a tricky issue and, more than anything, depends on how the oil is considered. If it's just considered as "British" and Scotland only got a per capita share then we get back, % wise, more than we put in. If its a geographical split then Scotland has historically paid in a larger % than it has got back, although because oil revenues have fallen in 2012/13 the proportion paid in including geo share was 9.1% of revenues and we got back 9.3% of expenditure (in total spending, not as block grant) and it looks like 2013/14 was similar.

Of course, if you look in absolute terms we get back more than we put in anyway because of the huge deficit across the country!

Chelsy,

Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think I said how annoying, if at all, I find it. Or that I ever said I live in Holland. ?

I merely responded to the points you made about it but "just being a language nuance".

It has far more to do with a total lack of knowledge on the union of GB than it does with the misunderstanding around the translation of the word "premier".

And I really don't think you can tell me much that I don't already know, intimately and in great detail, about the culture or outspoken nature or sense of humour of the Dutch.

Happy Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think I said how annoying, if at all, I find it. Or that I ever said I live in Holland. ?

What on earth have you got in for the Dutch then?

How on earth did they ever get drawn into this?

It has far more to do with a total lack of knowledge on the union of GB than it does with the misunderstanding around the translation of the word "premier".

Maybe the rest of the world just isn't that interested in Scotland? Are you an expert on, say, Rumania and the Moldovan/Transyllvanian issues?