FREEDOM!!!! [3]

Is there any issue that Cameron has been able to control his backbenchers (or, in this case, even his cabinet ministers) on?

Edit: I should say that I'm not a huge fan of how centralized the Westminster system is -- both in London and in the person of the PM -- but Cameron seems unusually inept at playing the game as it typically is done.

This is exactly why I was asking a few weeks ago if the referendum was binding in any way. As I recall the answer was that a yes vote, while not legally binding, would have to be honored or the backlash would be severe.

So what kind of backlash is likely now to promises not kept? Is it realistic to "throw the bums out"? If not, I'd think civil disobedience would follow fairly naturally. That's what it's for in a democratic society.

Let me see. Why did more Scots vote against freedom than for?

Using Ozhobbit logic, let's see...

1. The Scots don't like being ruled by the English, so there is a perpetual reason to be crabbit.

2. The Scots reckon they could do things better without the English in charge. But having the accountability and responsibility to do things better rather than being crabbit about how things are being done badly is another thing entirely!

3. Petty thought a No vote was a good idea. Sane Scots would be mad to listen to Petty.

Mystery solved.

Petty might disagree with the first part of #3 there.

So what kind of backlash is likely now to promises not kept?- David

I honestly dont know. We have the timetable brown laid out for further powers, so there is breathing space until January.
After that if nothing is forthcoming, or what is is derisory, anything could happen.

'Petty thought a No vote was a good idea.'- Orwell

Well, here is one thing all members of the Uk can rejoice over:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/scottish-independence-referendum-piers-morgan-finally-honours-promise--to-leave-the-uk-now-scotland-has-voted-no-9743545.html

Damn you, NO voters!  Sincerely, America.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29289035

In a speech in Dalgety Bay, Fife, Mr Brown described three "lock ins" which he said demonstrated that pre-referendum promises would be kept:

• a resolution has been signed by David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Mr Brown committing to a timetable of action including draft legislation for a new Scotland Bill by the end of January. The motion will be placed in the House of Commons on Monday.
  
• civil servants were already at work drawing up a timetable and detailed plans so that a "command paper" setting out new powers can be published by the end of October.
  
• a House of Commons debate to be held on Thursday 16 October to ensure the plans are on track.

Gordon Brown in full legacy mode. I bet he's thrilled to have an 11th hour career resurrection like this though. Hopefully he doesn't blow it, both for his own sake and for the sake of the UK's (still questionable) future.

Except Brown has no official position and no power however. And in Westminster no influence any more.
Tory backbenchers are already openly questioning why they are taking instruction from a former discredited Labour PM.

Cameron was apparently consulting with Brown during the last few weeks of the referendum campaign. I'm curious for more details about this resolution that was apparently signed.

Also, despite the fact that I very rarely agree with the Tory back bench, I do have to admit that they have a point that the whole devolution thing hasn't been handled very democratically so far.  I mean, first Cameron keeps it off the ballot in an attempt to scare people into voting NO, and then when that doesn't seem to work, he abruptly switches tactics (during purdah and after vote-by-post had already begun) and offers supposedly extensive new powers (even if he didn't specify them) after closed negotiations with the other senior Westminster party people (but not the Scottish government).

I still think that Scotland should get more devolved powers, of course; particularly since as best as we can tell, it is the most popular option among the Scottish people, but the process so far leaves a lot to be desired.  I'm not blaming Scotland for that, though.

Cameron was apparently consulting with Brown during the last few weeks of the referendum campaign.- Eldo

What happened was Cameron, Clegg and Miliband panicked when the polls showed YES 1% ahead.
But they were in the purdah period and so unable to make any new announcements.
To get round the law they drafted in Brown to put forward the timetable for new powers, thus circumnavigating the election rules as Brown was not officially part of the NO campaign.

Following Browns announcement, rather than make new claims as they were not allowed, the three NO leaders signed a vow, published on the front page of the Daily Record, which endorsed Brown's position.

But none of that is binding beyond their word. Brown wasnt part of the official campaign so its giving Tory backbenchers wriggle room to say they never made the promises in the first place.

I get that Cameron has to appease his backbenchers, but he can't really expect that excuse to fly with moderate/swing voters in the general election next year, can he? (Should he? )

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I'm glad I wasn't given the opportunity to vote-it's just to much to deal with, although as an ignorant Englishman living on the South Coast I was more inclined to the 'No' campaign, having seen the results, and the in fighting already in Westminister, I'm not entirely sure whether this was the best result for the wider UK, even with the status quo guaranteed for the time being, and fruther devolution across the Uk 'promised' in the moths to come...the people have Scotland have spoken, and I'm not entirely convinced the rest of The UK, or those in Westminster can deal, or except the ramification.

Everything I have read about the results, even the pro-union pieces are worrying to degree or other...United Kingdom for how long and to what degree?

I think the UK has been crumbling round the edges for a very long time. No matter what the Hooray Henry's tell you, its the man & woman on the street that are living the REAL life & there has been heard so much negativity & divide. Im embarrassed that 'we' still this island GREAT Britain ? or even United Kingdom ? United in who's eyes I wonder ? Ordinary people just knuckle down & under, they get on with it albeit moaning about their 'lot' , wishing for better, but, there is descention, its a 'see-saw' of hope & no hope. I dont feel theres solidarity here.There is cut & divide. I think this business Of Scotland raising the issue of breaking away has put a chink in the armour, a little ray of sunlight peeping thru the dark grey cloud of uncertainty.

I think a big part of the problem is the extent of centralization in London.  England and Wales didn't even have Mayors until the 2000s.

azriel wrote:I think the UK has been crumbling round the edges for a very long time. No matter what the Hooray Henry's tell you, its the man & woman on the street that are living the REAL life & there has been heard so much negativity & divide. Im embarrassed that 'we' still this island GREAT Britain ? or even United Kingdom ? United in who's eyes I wonder ?Ordinary people just knuckle down & under, they get on with it albeit moaning about their 'lot' , wishing for better, but, there is descention, its a 'see-saw' of hope & no hopeThat's one of the things I think we can all be proud of it, it was great to see so many younger Scots engaging with Politics, it puts my peers to shame-very few of my friends know or care what happens. I dont feel theres solidarity here.There is cut & divide. I think this business Of Scotland raising the issue of breaking away has put a chink in the armour, a little ray of sunlight peeping thru the dark grey cloud of uncertaintyYes and No...but it's certainly given Westminister the kick up the Arse its long deserved.

I think I'm the youngest Brit who posts here...I'm certain the UK will split apart in my lifetime, I just hope the Politicians can do enough in the meantime to make it as amicable and beneficial to everyone when the time comes, when the time does come hopefully the Scots have given the rest us the push we needed to make it work...

frankly I am flabbergasted at all the negativity. I for one have experienced another Southern European country and compared to most places, living in the UK is paradise. There is the NHS, benefit system and I think all the moaning is a load of 1st world problems. Its laughable.

Eldorion wrote:I think a big part of the problem is the extent of centralization in London.  England and Wales didn't even have Mayors until the 2000s.

You seem to know a great deal more about UK politics than I do...are you sure you are a teenager?

But yes, 100% agreed, London is essentially a separate country to the rest of the UK, and many of us in England resent the priority and coverage it gets in financing, decision making, investment, even the bloody news...

I've lived in England my whole life, and I've never spent more than nine hours in the Capital...

Mrs Figg wrote:frankly I am flabbergasted at all the negativity. I for one have experienced another Southern European country and compared to most places, living in the UK is paradise. There is the NHS, benefit system and I think all the moaning is a load of 1st world problems. Its laughable.

I love living in England, and I'm proud of many of our achievements as a Union, It's not moaning, I don't really know enough about the issues at hand to comment in any real depth, it's just a sudden realisation on my part that major change might be coming, and many people won't be happy whatever happens.

malickfan wrote:You seem to know a great deal more about UK politics than I do...are you sure you are a teenager?

But yes, 100% agreed, London is essentially a separate country to the rest of the UK, and many of us in England resent the priority and coverage it gets in financing, decision making, investment, even the bloody news...

I've lived in England my whole life, and I've never spent more than nine hours in the Capital...

No longer a teenager as of six weeks ago.

A sense of separation -- often even alienation -- between different areas in the same country (and even within smaller areas) is inevitable.  It's just how human societies work.  The state I live in, Maryland, is nearly cut in half by the Chesapeake Bay, which was not bridged until the mid-20th century, and the part of the state on the eastern side of the bay is still culturally and politically distinct from the main popular centers to the west.  Then if you go even farther west, you end up in the mountains, which is a whole other can of worms.  There is a fair bit of resentment of the fact that state-wide politics are controlled by the population-heavy urban belt in the middle of the state.  But the state is divided into about 24 counties, which have considerably say in their policing, education, and to some extent even tax policies.  None of the counties is more than ~40 miles wide but the inhabitants of each get to elect their own local leaders who are able to pass laws on certain areas.  This has been the norm for ages and it goes a long way towards alleviating the worst effects of political alienation.

I do need to point out that county and city governments exist at the whim of the state government (much like the situation with UK devolution existing at the whim of Westminster), and the state is heavily involved in local areas, so there are still plenty of alienation issues.  This is especially pronounced in states like Illinois or New York which are rather large, but have such massive cities in them (Chicago and NYC, respectively) that the state's politics is dominated by a relatively tiny region.  But this is somewhat alleviated by many state capitals being located in smaller cities, not the ones that already call the shots in the economic and cultural realms.

Beyond local government, you have a better analogy to Scottish, Welsh, or English devolution in the state governments.  The US was, like the UK, created by formerly independent states joining together to form a single state.  Ironically, very old countries of the UK surrendered almost all of their power to a highly centralized government, while the original 13 US states, which were independent of each other for all of like 11 years, protected their autonomy fiercely.  (Of course some people took this way too far when they didn't get their way at the federal level, but that's been gradually reigned in over the centuries.)  Unlike local government, the states have rights that are protected by the Constitution (though there has been some erosion out of necessity as the country became both larger and more integrated).  The states have a ton of power over taxes, they can pass laws on most any domestic matter, although they are constrained by some federal provisions.  While most state politics doesn't attract much attention from other states -- certainly not the way that Washington goings-on do -- they are in many ways more relevant to the everyday lives of most people than the federal government is.

I'm sure that my perspective is limited by having lived in a federal country for my entire life, but I have a hard time imagining how surrendering nearly all political power to the national government would be an improvement.  Keep in mind that by American standards, I'm actually in favor of a relatively strong federal government that is actively engaged in state-level matters (mainly to keep certain states from falling too far behind, though attempts at this can backfire big time; cf. No Child Left Behind).  I identify as an American first and a Marylander second.  But I think that the federal system (and also healthy levels of local government) offers a lot of benefits.  I know some people think that the overlapping levels of authority would create too much bureaucracy, but I think that the increased responsiveness and stronger knowledge base for local affairs outweighs that.

Sorry for this post being really wordy and poorly organized, but I'm exhausted and in no place to edit it.

I wasnt directing my comments at one person , but generally I think we dont realize how good we have it in the UK. its not perfect by a long way, but anyone lucky enough to be born here who hasnt experienced at first hand other parts probably doesnt really just know how bad it is in other parts of Europe let alone outside.

That's certainly a reasonable point, Mrs Figg. I think it's a natural human phenomenon to start complaining again after achieving a certain level of comfort, and there's surely always room for improvement. But keeping things in perspective is good too.

yes we do live in relatively comfortable, safe places of the world, I appreciate it a lot as I have lived in places where theres nothing to save you if you become unemployed. if you dont have family, its the street. thats scary.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'Petty thought a No vote was a good idea.'- Orwell

My mistake! That should have been "Petty thought a Yes vote was a good idea."  

The important thing is the Scots aren't Free.  Imagine if the Scots were Free and not just Inexpensive? What next? Free and Easy?