FREEDOM!!!! [4]

halfwise wrote:um?

Yeah, I tried googling to figure out what Mrs Figg was talking about but the singer was all I came up with.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And now Corbyn. Will he make a difference? He did make me laugh today when I read he had appointed Sarah Champion to the newly invented lefty grass-eating sounding job (also gets the female quota up inventing new posts) of Minster For Preventing Abuse- which is like having a cabinet position for Minister of Making Bad things not Happen.

Only semi-related to your earlier post (though it was very interesting; I always enjoy getting your perspective on these things) ... what is Corbyn's position on the whole Scotland/West Lothian issue. I know he is/was in favor of a United Ireland but I haven't heard much said about him and Scotland, which seems kinda weird now that I think about it. I know he was a backbencher during the referendum debate but has he commented on it at all?

what is Corbyn's position on the whole Scotland/West Lothian issue.- Eldo

Good question- he sat out the Independence debate preferring to remain in London where he said he had 'better things to do' which probably wont play to well here.

But on a related and very intriguing matter the new leader of Scottish Labour has said this-

'she would not "shut down" party debate about independence.
She said: "I want people who voted both Yes and No to see that the Labour party is the vehicle for progressive change in this country, which is why I am completely comfortable and, in fact, would encourage people who voted Yes in the past to take a look at our party and see that it has changed."
When asked if Labour's MP and MSPs should be allowed to campaign against party policy, as they did in the 1979 devolution referendum, Ms Dugdale said: "Yes. Many Labour members, in fact almost 30% of Labour Party supporters, voted Yes. We know that now from all the evidence and I respect that.
"I'm not going to shut down my party's renewal and debate in my party because people hold a different position on independence."
She added: "If somebody holds that view on the question of independence, I'm not going to try to shut down the debate."- BBC

Now this has put the cat right among the pigeons, the last referendum was not won by NO by a huge margin, and if Labour had not been a pro-union party things may have gone differently.

Naturally its got some heat, firstly form the main suspect Ruth Davidson leader fo the Scottish Conservatives who says Labour as supposed to be a Unionist party.

But its also got heat from Scottish Labour grandee's, former First Minister Henry Mcleish-

Mr McLeish told the BBC more clarity was needed on the matter.
He added that a debate in the party was not the same as saying to the country "you can vote however you wish"...a free vote for Labour MSPs would have "huge implications on the very idea of Scotland staying within the union".

However in her defence-

'former Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said it was "self-evident" that some people within the Labour movement had accepted that Scotland could be independent. '

The SNP might have lost the batlle, but they seem to have their opponents sacrificing all the ground.

Eldorion wrote:

halfwise wrote:um?

Yeah, I tried googling to figure out what Mrs Figg was talking about but the singer was all I came up with.

oh sorry. I mean Chuka Umunna. the so called British Obama, labour MP, was going to run for Labour leader but wimped out I think its because he has some dodgy relatives.

The Lib-Dems are now saying they too will allow members to campaign and vote as they please if there is another referendum.
Way things are going if there is another referendum only the Tories will be left on the NO side!

Thanks for the information, Petty. Another thing I wonder about is whether the Westminster parties will give their Scottish affiliates greater autonomy. You see this sometimes in federal systems -- state parties in the US can be rather different from their national affiliates, though of course all parties here have less power over their members/candidates -- and it seems to me like a good first step towards trying to win back the trust of Scottish voters. But it might be seen as too much of a concession to the idea of Scotland as separate.

I wonder about is whether the Westminster parties will give their Scottish affiliates greater autonomy- Eldo

The issue has come up several times in the Labour party, and on occasion form senior figures, one of those standing for Leadership of the Scottish Party had proposed an entirely autonomous Scottish Labour Party. But they lost and the new leader Dugdale is not in favour of the idea.

However Sturgeon is not letting them off with their latest notions of trying to attract YES voters back by saying they can vote as they want in a referendum.
An ongoing recent argument has been over the notion of a second referendum- opposition parties taking the attack line is a never-endum and the SNP are taking their eye of domestic issue as they are consumed with having referendum.
Its this combined with the recent announcements of vote as you will Sturgeon has combined into her response-

Sturgeon- "If they [Ms Dugdale and Mr Rennie] are to be taken seriously and if what they have said is to be credible, and if what they have said is to be coherent, then they have to take it to its logical conclusion.
It's not going to cut much ice with supporters of independence in their parties to say in one breath to them 'if there's another referendum you can stand up for what you believe in' and in the next breath to say 'we think a referendum should be ruled out forever and a day'.
My challenge to Kez and Willie is this, and I say it quite clearly, if opinion doesn't significantly shift from the referendum last year or if there's no material change in circumstances from the ones that prevailed last year, it wouldn't be right to propose a second referendum.
But the challenge is, do they agree with me on the converse - if we do see opinion shift or if we do see a material change in circumstances surely they must agree it would be equally wrong for any one politician to rule out a referendum indefinitely."


You've got to hand it to her, at the game of politics she is good.

I have been quite impressed by Sturgeon since she took over from Salmond. I liked Salmond too but having two such leaders back to back is a rare gift for a political party.

Has she defined what exactly she means by "material change in circumstances"? I recall this phrase coming up in the context of the UK voting out (but Scotland in) in the EU referendum. Are there any other scenarios that have been discussed?

Eldorion wrote:I have been quite impressed by Sturgeon since she took over from Salmond.  I liked Salmond too but having two such leaders back to back is a rare gift for a political party.

Has she defined what exactly she means by "material change in circumstances"?  I recall this phrase coming up in the context of the UK voting out (but Scotland in) in the EU referendum.  Are there any other scenarios that have been discussed?

you LIKED Salmond??????

Has she defined what exactly she means by "material change in circumstances"?- Eldo

She has given examples of material changes- being voted out of the EU by England against our wishes is one example, another is the EVEL policy of the Tories (its not even doublespeak, its single speak!) in which as it stands members of Parliament from all other devolved parliaments would have second class status in Westminster to English MP's (this is the thing Gordon Brown said was most likely to break up the Union and thought it was madness of Cameron to come up with).

But what she says she thinks is most likely to happen is a combination of events- Labour failing to be electable under Corbyn so Scotland faces the likelihood of another term after this one of a majority Tory government, and one of the other things to happen as well.
I will put money on their being no referendum promise in the party manifesto, but it will say the government has the right to call one if there is a material change (in reality its much simpler, Sturgeon wont hold it until she is sure she is going to win it).


OOh and I finally found out Labour policy on Trident renewal- they dont have a policy!
Apparently Corbyn is waiting for a vote on it at party Conference- whats interesting here is that Labour Conference nearly always votes against Trident, but the vote has never been enforceable on the leadership- they can and always have ignored it till now.
My guess here is Corbyn cant get his Cabinet onside in a majority to back voting against Trident, and his going to use the Conference Vote as leverage- challenge them to publicly come out and say they are ignoring the democratic will of the Conference- this has never been in issue in the past as the Leader was onside for Trident.
Its a risky strategy as it might lead to resignations from his new Cabinet if some feel strongly enough they cant publicly back the policy as part of Cabinet Collective Responsibility.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:She has given examples of material changes- being voted out of the EU by England against our wishes is one example, another is the EVEL policy of the Tories (its not even doublespeak, its single speak!) in which as it stands members of Parliament from all other devolved parliaments would have second class status in Westminster to English MP's (this is the thing Gordon Brown said was most likely to break up the Union and thought it was madness of Cameron to come up with).

I have to admit that I don't understand the strident opposition to EVEL.  Personally I think a fully federal UK would be better, but the West Lothian question is a genuine defect in democracy, even if it's an unintentional and relatively minor one.  Certainly it was worth establishing the devolved parliaments, but the sorta-kinda-not-really federal system that currently exists is not sustainable.  I don't necessarily think EVEL is a great long-term solution either but I don't see how it makes Welsh, Scottish, and NI MPs second-class.  England deserves a forum of its own as well, and since the regional assemblies are off the table it's either EVEL or a full English Parliament.  But again, I think the latter would be better.

But what she says she thinks is most likely to happen is a combination of events- Labour failing to be electable under Corbyn so Scotland faces the likelihood of another term after this one of a majority Tory government, and one of the other things to happen as well.
I will put money on their being no referendum promise in the party manifesto, but it will say the government has the right to call one if there is a material change (in reality its much simpler, Sturgeon wont hold it until she is sure she is going to win it).

Yeah, this all makes sense.  Corbyn's swing back to the left might pick up some support in Scotland but the most recent election proved Scotland is not enough to keep the Tories out of power (even if Labour had won every SNP seat it still would be in a minority), and the prospect of a Labour-SNP coalition is apparently really off-putting to a lot of English voters.  And Corbyn has swung so far that I don't see him succeeding in England; and frankly he's probably swung too far for most Scots as well, given the success of the relatively pro-business SNP.

Mrs Figg wrote:you LIKED Salmond??????

I thought he was egotistical but I agreed with him on a lot of the issues surrounding the referendum plus he was entertaining to watch.

England deserves a forum of its own as well- Eldo

The SNP position is simple on this- England should have a devolved Parliament- and all the members of all the Parliaments should meet at Westminster a couple days a week to vote on all the issues which are still shared- like defence, foreign policy, budget ect

But Cameron doesn't want that- the problem with EVEL is it excludes devolved members from voting on seemingly all English issues which arent- and the reason they arent is the Barnett Formula- its what used to work out how much money the devolved parliaments get to spend every year- and that figure is based on spending in England per head.
So if say England slash spending on education, then even though each devolved administration controls education, their budget would be slashed anyway for it, no matter how different their policies on education were from Englands. And more crucially the members of the devolved Parliament have no say or vote on the matter, even though it has a direct effect on their constituencies.
And when you get onto the figures it turns out very few things, because of Barnett, really are English only matters.

That seems to be more a problem with the Barnett formula than the concept of EVEL.  I guess it kinda goes without saying to me that budgetary issues (or at least, the divvying up of the budget to each constituent country) should be a UK-wide thing.

Having the central Westminster parliament consist of members of each devolved parliament is an intriguing idea, and not one I've considered before.

Well the notion is there is a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so why shouldn't the English have one too? That seems fair.
UK wide things would still get debated in Westminster with all MP's on equal voting rights.

Barnett is not going anywhere soon and so the EVEL thing cant help but reduce the input of evolved members at Westminster on crucial matters hich have a direct knock on effect on their devolved budgets (and remember everyones taxes would still be going into a big central pot at the Treasury to be divided back out).
So I cant see how EVEL can work and be fair, its a stitch-up to reduce the influence of non-English MP's at Westminster (ie non-Tories).
Problem for Cameron is he is not a good enough politician to pull it off.

wee krankie and this constant obsession about another referendum, (when we have just had one, and the answer was NO), is wearing a bit thin. somebody has to have a quiet word that you cant have a referendum each year until you get the result you want. It doesn't work like that.

lil bit of lil bit of

somebody has to have a quiet word that you cant have a referendum each year until you get the result you want. It doesn't work like that.- Figg

The SNP are not advocating a referendum every year- they expressly stood at the general election on a promise of it not being a mandate for a referendum- which they have stuck to- and there will be no pledge to hold one in their manifesto either unless there is a material change in circumstances- and even then the people have to vote for it by returning a SNP majority to the Scottish Parliament- otherwise it would get voted down anyway by the other parties (well it did in the past- frankly god knows now with Labour and libs)


In Corbyn news-

'Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he is willing to work with the SNP to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland.
"My position on Trident has been very clear all of my life," he said.
"I think Trident should go. I do not believe that it is a form of defence. I do not believe it is something that anyone in their proper mind would ever want to use, so I ask the question is it really sensible to commit such a vast proportion of our assets - £100bn over 25 years - to this when we could be spending it on developing our industrial infrastructure?"
Asked if it was an issue he could work with the SNP on, Mr Corbyn said: "In the House of Commons I was chair of the CND group and one of the vice chairs is from the SNP and yes we will be voting with them on this, or they will be voting with us, whichever way you want to put it."


But here's the snag its still not official Labour party policy.

and never will be.

That depends, if it comes up for a vote at Conference and passes Corbyn says he will take that as party policy. And its his cabinet- I foresee resignations if he goes ahead with it- but he was elected by those who voted for him on just this platform, and as he says he has campaigned for it his whole life- I don't see him just giving it up now. He doesn't strike me as that sort, he doesn't exactly have a history of compromising his positions.

he wasn't elected by fellow MPs so much.

Not at all. But he is still Leader and he has a massive mandate from the party membership the party cannot ignore- larger even than Blairs was at the time of his election.

but without a mandate from the party he is limited to what he can push forward. nobody in their right mind is going to propose leaving NATO, or losing Trident. obviously Corbyn has a long standing stance on this which he will never change, but he has to moderate his more extreme demands and concentrate on what people are most concerned about like helping the most vulnerable in society, which I give him my wholehearted support.

Mrs Figg wrote:but without a mandate from the party he is limited to what he can push forward. nobody in their right mind is going to propose leaving NATO, or losing Trident. obviously Corbyn has a long standing stance on this which he will never change, but he has to moderate his more extreme demands and concentrate on what people are most concerned about like helping the most vulnerable in society, which I give him my wholehearted support.

You know a country is off the rails when perfectly sensible opinions gets labeled as extreme..

That's not a slur against you, Figg. Just your country.. your politicians.. and media..

like helping the most vulnerable in society, which I give him my wholehearted support.- Figg

And Corbyn (and me for that matter) believe spending 100billion on renewing a useless weapons system thats no good in practical terms against any actual threat we face, or will face is not a good idea, when you could spend a large chunk of that helping the most vulnerable in society- you cant have both, you cant prioritise weaponry and the vulnerable, the pot of money isn't big enough for both. And Trident is a massive, massive chunk of the pot. And for what? A dick-waving competition?