Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Scotland,Wales, N.Ireland & England to devolve – careful what u ££wish for.

35 replies

Isitmebut · 19/09/2014 11:22

The Westminster parliament in allowing Scotland more tax raising, spending etc powers, will have to address the wishes of all members of the UK and devolve more powers to those member countries and their citizens.

In effect, if the member states had their way, the UK will become a mini 18 member Eurozone, one currency, one central bank, and member States with different tax, spend, education, NHS and god knows what else, policies.

Westminster’s 3-party finest will hand over powers and taxpayers money and say, ‘off you go, do your best’, while all new ‘Russian Doll’ layers of bureaucrats will emerge; starting with ‘big doll’ Westminster, next member states parliaments/assemblies and their new think tanks, more dolls at the Council level and their new advisors/bean counters/report writers to their parliaments – and right at the end is you, the client recipient, the tiniest doll, cute (lol), but too small to be heard.

My problem with all that is that all tax receipts should be treated as GOLD DUST, whether the next parliament (as will) still have a £90 odd billion a year budget deficit, or god willing one day, a budget SURPLUSS to distribute new sweeties - that don’t ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ and reduce annual budgets furthering paying interest on an ever higher £1.4 trillion national debt.

My problem is that we have only just reduced a big state, tax sucking vampire, that some people NOW SAY IS THE ANSWER to a UK devolved democracy as Westminster is ‘out of touch’ - as if THIS was the type of NON Eatonian/Oxbridge standard of local government sooo ‘in touch’ with ‘the people’ footing a huge inflation plus annual rise in Council Tax, wait until it becomes an individual nation’s pastime.

‘Manufacturing’ new government will reduce unemployment, but is both unsustainable and is‘the wrong kind of growth’.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

In conclusion; Westminster NEEDS to devolve powers to the 4-corners of these Isles, I get that, but Westminster has to remain the financial ‘gate keeper’, the annual bean counter of last resort, as now more than ever , every one of our taxpayer £££’s that can’t get to the front line, means less (or worse) services within a £90 billion plus annual overspend UK economy.

We have had a Scottish Referendum; hopefully next we have an EU one with MORE facts than assumptions, so should we STAY IN, the UK taxpayer (business or citizen) can not afford to support that honking bureaucratic monolith, as well as a smaller version at home. IMO.

OP posts:
Greengrow · 16/10/2014 20:41

Don't worry. It might well mean England will have Conservative majorities for generations and very low taxes which follow. Scotland will have the socialist very high taxes it seems to love. All sorted. The best thing that could ever happen to England - ditch the Scottish labour MPs' votes on all English matters.

Isitmebut · 17/10/2014 11:41

Ah but Greengrow I do worry, as politically not that simple and our futures are very much up in the lap of the gods..

Regarding the Conservatives, no party should be in for a generation, in 1997 their time had seen the UK through some difficult times and it was time for some ‘change’; the lesson there (with old Harry Hindsight) is that ‘change’ has to be thought through, and I’ll leave it as that.

Indeed as you say, UK taxes for all were substantially lower in 1997 than they were1979 and that encouraged personal and national growth, but taxes did not go down in a straight line - as they were raised when the Exchequer needed to - but it was a direction of travel, where the smaller, less intrusive and cost effective government was, the more money businesses had to invest, employees could keep.

The Conservatives, with a vote split by UKIP just having 3% of the share in 2010 forced a minority government/coalition, are clearly no ‘shoe in’ for a majority in 2015.

Although over months I have liken UKIP’s controversial domestic policies to ‘Conservatives on speed’ (when I should have used ‘crack’ lol) - they are in some ways similarly divisive to the U.S. Republican Party’s ‘Tea Party’ causing head-up-bum splits in the Republican vote - but in essence their far right wing nationalist ‘focus’ on the EU and immigration for core votes, are similar to France’s Front National.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

UKIP are a hybrid of the two, who should we leave the EU, they should change their Westminster name to the National Tea Party, ‘the people’ would drink to that, and they’d be in for generations lol.

My point being, is that from 2015, there could be several parties vying to be in a coalition which far from England being “sorted”, the opposite would be true, just thinking of after 2010, when in opposition, seemed to mean ‘oppose everything’.

Re Scotland (finally), while I get your point that Scotland, similar to the parliamentary Labour Party, will get the “socialist very high taxes it seems to love”, I will paraphrase Thatcher, ‘socialism works until you run out of everyone else’s money’.

Scottish politicians headed by Ms Sturgeon, raiding Scottish wealthy voters, could be a different kettle of fish to raiding the south of England, as Mr Balls is apparently finding out with the voter reaction their proposed Mansion Tax.

Which of course is the aim of Labour’s post general election Constitutional Convention, where they are not planning to ask ‘the people’ north of Watford ‘how can we better spend the money we haven’t got’, called an annual budget deficit – they are looking for a mandate for fat Labour regional government to siphon money from the south in the name of the majority democracy, collecting heartland votes along the way.

I suggest Scotland’s SNP Sturgeon, unbelievably rubbing our ‘English MPs for English votes’ noses it, claiming A RIGHT to speak at the 2015 General Election Leadership Debate, is waking up to the fact RAISING Scottish taxes to penal rates may be an ideological wet dream, if it’s in your own bed, you alone have to clean up the economic and electoral consequences – but that won’t be before the next general election, when a new UK Labour government could offer Scottish voters electoral sweeties for 2010.

In conclusion; being a closet English nationalist and taxpayer with 3 children in their 20s, worried about all our futures, between the ‘Kippers and the Sturgeon, heading up the Thames to Westminster – nothing will be “sorted’, salted or smoked, until after that 2015 general election. IMO.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 17/10/2014 13:09

....sorry to make any sense of it, , the 2nd to last para should end ... sweeties for 2020.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 02/11/2014 00:40

From the party that their leader/PM investigated by the police in Downing Street for 'cash for Lords' appointments - and regional job growth meant increasing the Public Sector by over 1 million and transferring Public Sector jobs of of London and the south east to their voting heartlands.

“Elected senate would replace House of Lords under Labour”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849

“Labour would replace the House of Lords with an elected senate if the party won next May's general election, party leader Ed Miliband has said.”

Can't 'create' anything, just 'fiddle' with what is, to be seen doing SOMETHING - as fat, expensive government, will ALWAYS make work for itself.

"Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office"
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 01/12/2014 14:09

Come the General Election in 2015, with neither main political party expected to get a majority, we could go back to a 4-main party political system, as in the 1920's, when we had the political chaos of several general elections over several years.

All the headlines nowadays is about more regions/shires wanting more power and money.

Taken separately, whether tax receipts were falling or not, there will be no more money from central government worth talking about, so what POWER do we dare give local authorities?

I get that if various cities/towns pool their policies and buying power, it could both reduce the cost of government and supply better services - but historically that is not how they work as the INCREASE the cost of government and Council Taxes to pay for them.

If memory serves Local Authorities in the mid 2000's were asked to put together comprehensive Housing plans for their areas and despite rockets-up-arse over this parliament, many still have not done so.

Moreover, how much harder is it now (and in the future) for local authorities with several political parties/ideologies being represented within, to IMPLEMENT timely, coherent, structural plans?

So come 2015, how can it make sense to think that a cash strapped and chaotic Westminster, give any new money and power to equally chaotic local authorities - usually more interested in growing themselves - who may not have the intellect to use those powers wisely?

At least with a single party government directing the main policies, the council tax payers know roughly where they stand, but if council by council left to various policy 'melting pots', who can be responsible/accountable at the end of the day?

OP posts:
DontPushTheButton · 01/12/2014 14:19

Do you know, I would love to be more educated on these types of topics. I know there are a lot of intelligent members of mn who could explain it all clearly to me. But these posts from itsme just confuse me. Is there any way you can dot point the issues, without bias or hyperbole so that I can form an informed opinion?

Isitmebut · 01/12/2014 14:48

DPTB ....Not really, as if my Mumsnet provided "hyperboles" etc confuses you and does not allow you to get the gist, then you should not bother reading my posts, and maybe do your own research.

As to bias, I'd suggest you look at other headlines, I may not be alone - and my previous post is directed at ANY PARTY looking to give regions more power, now or in the future.

OP posts:
PigletInABlanketJohn · 19/12/2014 01:03

I was just wondering if Scotland will benef from still being part of the Union this year.

North Sea oil industry 'close to collapse'

Isitmebut · 19/12/2014 13:54

Scotland should feel rather pleased they remain with the Barnett Formula, as half of their (2013/4 prices) £5 billion a year oil revenue was going to go on an independent Scotland defenses, as many large businesses (tax revenue) 'broke for the border - so now half that oil revenue has GONE, Scotland's first Budget (and defenses) would have been shot to pieces by now.

No Trident, no army, no airforce - a gold plated invitation for Mr Putin. lol

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 06/02/2015 13:02

I've just seen the Daily Politics, with various northern stories about various local government/authorities, talking about their record on child abuse, an inability to take action, an inability to take responsibility, internal in-fighting, inter party bullying, a 'North Korean' cited style of local governance.

A point I've made before to WHICHEVER party feels we need to 'devolve' taxpayers money, local short/long term planning & strategies on behalf of those they represent - COUNTRYWIDE, why do Westminster MP's feel comfortable that a gaggle of locals, admitted elected, have the ways and means, never mind the intellect, to successfully undertake that huge responsibility when GOVERNMENTS full of reasonably bright people screw up???

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page