Off Topic Political Debate

Am wondering where all the outcry has gone. Pre-election, politicians and press alike were complaining long and loudly about the probability, and unfairness, of the Scottish tail wagging the British dog. Call me a cynic, but isn't what Cameron doing exactly the same thing - the English tail wagging the European dog?

And I say 'English' advisedly...

 

because it is not an issue needing much debate - MPs and parties have made up their own minds already and will probably vote on party lines if there is a vote to be had. This was one of the "false" issues at the election. Zero hour contracts are good in many instances for employees and employers - but abuse of them is wrong. The SNP unfortunately for them cannot slope of to offices they have not yet been given or to home / other business so are stuck wasting their time in a chamber debating nothing

 

There is not a European dog though. It is the attempt to create one that is causing much of the issue. In 1975 the UK ratified an economic club - nobody in Britain ever signed up to a European Super State.
In fact there is a unity of purpose in both issues. The English do not see why the Scots - who have their own assembly for Scottish affairs - need to vote on English only matters - sounds reasonable to me. We need an English Assembly for English issues and the Parliament at Westminster for UK affairs. Similarly the British (possibly mainly English) do not see why Europeans should tell us how to run our justice system to name just one bone of contention as we are talking dogs.

 

Removed

 

I am not sure there is as much division in British society as it may appear from the outside. After all the Scots had the chance to vote for Independence but soundly defeated the idea. English regions have sought special status and economic aid for decades - and going back as far as the 60's had special incentives directed to move industry there. The North South divide has certainly been talked about all my adult life. The proliferation of political parties has come about because Labour and Conservatives now seem to be two sides of the same coin. They huff and puff and pretend each other are disastrous but nearly all their policies are pretty similar. BOth support membership of the EU; both support "improving" forever the NHS, neither claim to privatise the NHS - but both have used private firms to help, it is hard to define any policy on education from either of them, both support Trident, Warmongering and "our boys", defence and foreign policy are nearly identical. We are back to tax rates andeven here paradoxically the last Labour Lot put tax rates down (even for the top earners) while the Tory Mob (sorry - Coalition) put them up (even for high earners). Welfare payments are probably now the only area that has a decisive difference in policy with the Tories (as they have forever) decrying benefit cheats and whingers and Labour wanting to give everyone else's money to every "good cause" they can unearth - no change there then.
No surprise then that as most people are bored with the two main parties, they will vote for one of the fringe elements as their protest - these come and go but do not last.
As for the EU - spoiler alert - the Yes campaign will win whatever Cameroooon negotiates.

 

I read somewhere that taking our economy as a whole the difference between the two parties in terms of both how they approach it and what they actually can change in real terms is very small indeed.

 

It would sound reasonable to me too - if an English Assembly existed. But it doesn't, so the bone of contention with Scots is not only what constitutes 'English only matters', but who is the arbiter of such. At the moment, that appears to be Cameron, who, history has proven, simply can't be trusted. SNP MPs, although few in numbers, have traditionally withheld from voting on English only matters anyway, so Scottish suspicion is entirely warranted when Cameron is telling them what they can or can't vote on.

As to Europeans running your justice system, anecdotally I'd say you're right - it is mostly English who are against it. I really know extremely little about the legal systems - simply that the Scottish system is separate from the English system. Again anecdotally, there doesn't appear to be much opposition in Scotland to ECHR - the number of cases where ECHR has been involved seems to run at around 150 a year, and it does seem to be an accepted part of the legal process. So Cameron interfering on behalf of England may well have a detrimental effect on Scotland. Presumably in his eyes that would constitute an English only matter?

 

I wish I shared the confidence of those who think the yes campaign will win in the European referendum. I really have my doubts - I hope this is just as a result of my glass half empty nature...

 

I'd say that is entirely debatable.Sadly, though, and in similar fashion to the Chilcott and Westminster *****phile Inquiries, the report on the inquiry into postal vote fraud will probably only see the light of day in around thirty years time - and even then heavily redacted.

 

I love Conspiracy Theoroes

 

I believe that Westminster is outdated. All four countries need to be able to run affairs for themselves that do not need them to provide a "united" front. Unfortunately defence - and hence Trident - does need to be "Federal" UK. 4 Assemblies / Parliaments and then they send delegates to the UK Federal Parliaments for matters needing to be discussed at that level. We are only one Assembly short of that - England needs an Assembly to enable real freedom for the other 3.
The Scots cannot feel very differently from the English in wanting to preserve their own Justice system - after all they have maintained one independent from the rest of the UK for centuries - they surely do not believe that a Brussels manikin should dictate on Law to them?

 

1. That's simply not true.

2. Define 'criminal'. If you mean 'someone that has committed a crime', then a fair few people on here would qualify. Streaming football online isn't legal...

 

That's the puzzling thing really. All this posturing by Cameron is needless and can only be for some un-named political gain - England does have the right to preserve its own justice system. Domestic courts are under no compunction to follow ECHR edicts - it's the judges within the system who take the view that if there is a principle arising from a consistent line of cases in the Strasbourg court and there is no particular conflict with UK law, they will follow it. If Cameron wants to change things, he need only keep his judges in line, it would appear.

 

[QUOTE. If Cameron wants to change things, he need only keep his judges in line,.[/QUOTE]

That is very dangerous. Once politicians start keeping the judiciary in line you begin to break down the freedoms that have been fought for for centuries. The judiciary MUST base their judgments on law and precedent NOT on the dictat of some politician. The law is above politicians.

 

That is very dangerous. Once politicians start keeping the judiciary in line you begin to break down the freedoms that have been fought for for centuries. The judiciary MUST base their judgments on law and precedent NOT on the dictat of some politician. The law is above politicians.[/QUOTE]

Yes - but why can other countries within the EU effectively ignore ECHR without any apparent problems? The issue is not one of following dictats from politicians, rather it's one of following existing precedents within a country's own legal system or setting precedents where none exist - which, after all, was what they were doing before ECHR came into existence. It must surely be within Westminster's powers to insist on that.

 

As I am still, just, in Corsica, I cannot help but notice the similar debates and arguments that go on between the national French government and the regional one of the island and the ones between Scotland and the UK one. Since I was last here more devolution has happened regarding tax, allowing the Island leaders to charge differently to the mainland. Some rates have reduced while others have increased. Over the last 50 years the population has decreased, in part because many Africans who had settled here felt unwelcome so went home. This has increased the strain on the budget and while the nationalists want to see the population grow, they only want native born people here. Hence there were second homes destroyed, and the owners, usually French were driven away. Tourism is a huge part of the budget, but the region would prefer that to stop and be replaced with industrial production. Support for more powers is thought to be higher than 50% of the population, yet when push came to shove in the regional elections this year only 12% voted for the nationalist candidates.

 

I think you give Cameron too much respect BB - in truth he is just another average politician. Both Labour and Conservative governments have complained about and been frustrated by Euro Laws. Just because some other Euro countries ignore it does not make it legal - the UK does tend to follow legal rules even wehere they do not want to

 

Yes - but why can other countries within the EU effectively ignore ECHR without any apparent problems? The issue is not one of following dictats from politicians, rather it's one of following existing precedents within a country's own legal system or setting precedents where none exist - which, after all, was what they were doing before ECHR came into existence. It must surely be within Westminster's powers to insist on that.[/QUOTE]

Surely the ECHR is connected with the member states of the Council of Europe (including Russia) and not with the EU - withdrawal from the EU would not change Britain's commitment to this.

 

I'm not quite sure that there's any similarity to that within the Scotland:UK debate. Scotland's population has certainly increased every year this century - the number native-born Scots has reduced by around 4%, meaning 17% of the country were born elsewhere - nearly 9% from England. The current Government has made it quite clear that immigrants are welcome - as have the bulk of the population - and have expressed outrage at Cameron's edict that only those born in the UK will be able to vote in any EU referendum.

 

"Scotland's population has certainly increased every year this century"

please log in to view this image

I don't think you are correct BB going by the graph above. The problem here is that many of the population are older, with the younger ones leaving for work elsewhere. In the independence debate it was frequently mentioned that Scotland had the same problem, indeed some blamed the older people for voting it down. As our friend from elsewhere admitted after the vote was lost, the SNP couldn't put together a viable economic plan to convince people to take a further step. The same could be said for Corsica.