The beginning of a federal Britain?

pinno
pinno Posts: 52,511
edited December 2014 in The cake stop
Now that Salmond looks like he got the third option omitted from the referendum - 'devo max', are we heading for a Federal Britain? It works for Germany.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!
«1

Comments

  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    There may be a demand for devolution of powers amongst those running our big cities but elsewhere and amongst the English public I don't see it. Really any movement towards regional federalism in England is being driven by Scotland. If that's how it has to be it's time that not only the West Lothian question is addressed but also the Barnett Formula - which even Barnett himself thinks is now overly generous towards the Scots.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    There may be a demand for devolution of powers amongst those running our big cities but elsewhere and amongst the English public I don't see it. Really any movement towards regional federalism in England is being driven by Scotland. If that's how it has to be it's time that not only the West Lothian question is addressed but also the Barnett Formula - which even Barnett himself thinks is now overly generous towards the Scots.


    Salmond has managed to fcuk Scotland with his referendum. If he had won, his sums for the economy just didn't add up.
    Now he's lost, focus has been drawn to The West Lothian question and the seeming inequality of Barnett. Well done Alex!
  • bdu98252
    bdu98252 Posts: 171
    Salmond has not done anything to Scotland other than enliven its population in the purpose of politics which is to make a countries population better represented in a fairer society. The Scottish people have screwed themselves by not voting yes. This has resulted in the current situation. As for Barnett formula re-evaluation I am sure the Scots will be happy to renegotiate on the complete package. However it is Westminster aim to renegotiate small sections of the budget whilst making Scotland essentially poorer.

    It will go something like this. You keep giving us the oil wealth and all your taxes and we will give you less back. Given the referendum result i am sure the 55% will be happy to vote for this given this is what they were obviously walking into the way the voted.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:55 pm


    Ballysmate wrote:
    A country that raises £53 Bn (Including oil revenue) and gets to spend £65 Bn is shouting that it is being treated unfairly.


    Scottish Govt figures.

    http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:06 pm

    IIRC the expenditure plans for iScotland assumed a $110 per barrel price for oil. (Sorry, can't find the link.)
    Today Brent Crude is $97.70 and falling.
    Quite a volatile market to account for 15% of your revenue would you say?

    Brent Crude is trading at $72.25
    http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/


    As I said, Indy Scotland would be impoverished and given the Scots Govt figures, I can't see how Westminster/The English steal the oil revenue.
    After Salmond's anti English campaign, people south of the border have at last woken up to the imbalance of Barnett.
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    I personally hope that we are. The present situation is a complete mess with Scotland able to decide things for itself but England governed centrally and Wales able to decide somethings but not all things.

    A federal system where each part has the same devolved powers is the best solution. It might involve breaking England up into regions which I wouldn't have issue with.
  • RDW
    RDW Posts: 1,900
    I suggest we revert to the traditional system:

    6a0177449d1b30970d017ee650eca8970d-800wi
    http://thehistoryofwales.typepad.com/t/2012/12/

    Not quite sure how the tribal warlords will be selected - we could use first past the post, single transferable vote, mixed member proportional representation, or the tried and tested most violent/biggest sword ('join me or die') system.
  • bdu98252
    bdu98252 Posts: 171
    As all financial adviser will tell you past performance is no indicator of future performance and a countries economy is no different. Post independence there are a number of avenues that a Scottish government could have taken to at a minimum break even. Independence was never about oil revenues it was a reaction to a long period of rule by people who have no clear plan as to how the majority of the UK is going to have a better existence.

    If every area had to rely purely on its input then large parts of England would also be cut adrift such as the North as uncompetitive crap holes with no worth and their pouplation fed to the dogs. Of course the South East would have no energy, food or water but i am sure you can buy them from say France with all of Londons financial amazingness.

    The Barnett formula is a reality of sparse populations but given all of the above comes from these sparse areas i would tread carefully if I were you. Plenty of food, water and energy up here in the North West of England. We could of course sell you this in the free market, free from central government subsidies albeit if you could afford it after the 1% at the top take their cut from londons economy.
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:55 pm


    Ballysmate wrote:
    A country that raises £53 Bn (Including oil revenue) and gets to spend £65 Bn is shouting that it is being treated unfairly.


    Scottish Govt figures.

    http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:06 pm

    IIRC the expenditure plans for iScotland assumed a $110 per barrel price for oil. (Sorry, can't find the link.)
    Today Brent Crude is $97.70 and falling.
    Quite a volatile market to account for 15% of your revenue would you say?

    Brent Crude is trading at $72.25
    http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/


    As I said, Indy Scotland would be impoverished and given the Scots Govt figures, I can't see how Westminster/The English steal the oil revenue.
    After Salmond's anti English campaign, people south of the border have at last woken up to the imbalance of Barnett.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    RDW wrote:
    I suggest we revert to the traditional system:

    6a0177449d1b30970d017ee650eca8970d-800wi
    http://thehistoryofwales.typepad.com/t/2012/12/

    Not quite sure how the tribal warlords will be selected - we could use first past the post, single transferable vote, mixed member proportional representation, or the tried and tested most violent/biggest sword ('join me or die') system.

    Go back to pre-Roman times before all those bloody foreigners came invading our shores and taking our jobs.

    pre-roman-britain.gif
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    johnfinch wrote:

    Go back to pre-Roman times before all those bloody foreigners came invading our shores and taking our jobs.

    Cant agree with you there Finchy. Saxon Britain was a lot fairer. All our problems started when the f*cking Normans came here in 1066 and brought in the feudal system.

    Those Normans got a bit fed up of things back home and changed everything with a revolution. We are going down the federal route because of a bunch of belligerent Scots, well done.
    Politics in Scotland has become much more involved and is on the lips of everyone whilst in dear old Engerland, UKIP are making xenophobic strides and Cameroon's bunch are pandering to them. It is a very very worrying trend. If there is a rise of the Euro sceptics and a blind push towards an exit, I could well see a Yes vote in Scotland given another referendum in a few years time.
    All the major parties were groveling for us to stay - if you don't like the powers we were given and the Barnett formula, you shouldn't have voted for them :P
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    bdu98252 wrote:
    As all financial adviser will tell you past performance is no indicator of future performance and a countries economy is no different. Post independence there are a number of avenues that a Scottish government could have taken to at a minimum break even. Independence was never about oil revenues it was a reaction to a long period of rule by people who have no clear plan as to how the majority of the UK is going to have a better existence.

    If every area had to rely purely on its input then large parts of England would also be cut adrift such as the North as uncompetitive crap holes with no worth and their pouplation fed to the dogs. Of course the South East would have no energy, food or water but i am sure you can buy them from say France with all of Londons financial amazingness.

    The Barnett formula is a reality of sparse populations but given all of the above comes from these sparse areas i would tread carefully if I were you. Plenty of food, water and energy up here in the North West of England. We could have course sell you this in the free market, free from central government subsidies albeit if you could afford it after the 1% at the top take their cut from londons economy.



    Ballysmate wrote:
    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:55 pm


    Ballysmate wrote:
    A country that raises £53 Bn (Including oil revenue) and gets to spend £65 Bn is shouting that it is being treated unfairly.


    Scottish Govt figures.

    http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

    Re: Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...
    Postby Ballysmate » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:06 pm

    IIRC the expenditure plans for iScotland assumed a $110 per barrel price for oil. (Sorry, can't find the link.)
    Today Brent Crude is $97.70 and falling.
    Quite a volatile market to account for 15% of your revenue would you say?

    Brent Crude is trading at $72.25
    http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/


    As I said, Indy Scotland would be impoverished and given the Scots Govt figures, I can't see how Westminster/The English steal the oil revenue.
    After Salmond's anti English campaign, people south of the border have at last woken up to the imbalance of Barnett.


    No problem with areas being given the resourses they need. But bilge like
    "You keep giving us the oil wealth and all your taxes and we will give you less back. "

    I find irritating.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    edited November 2014
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bdu98252 wrote:
    As all...economy.
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Re...A country that raises £53 Bn (Including oil revenue) and gets to spend £65 Bn is shouting that it is being treated unfairly.

    Scottish Govt figures....7888
    Re: Last...Barnett.

    No problem with areas being given the resourses they need. But bilge like
    "You...back. "

    I find irritating.

    What, worse than that flea outbreak you had?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Boom boom!
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    bompington wrote:
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Boom boom!

    Still alive?! Thought you might have got food poisoning. :wink:
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bdu98252 wrote:
    As all...economy.
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Re...A country that raises £53 Bn (Including oil revenue) and gets to spend £65 Bn is shouting that it is being treated unfairly.

    Scottish Govt figures....7888
    Re: Last...Barnett.

    No problem with areas being given the resourses they need. But bilge like
    "You...back. "

    I find irritating.

    What, worse than that flea outbreak you had?

    I'll have you know that my brush is pristine.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Cant agree with you there Finchy. Saxon Britain was a lot fairer. All our problems started when the f*cking Normans came here in 1066 and brought in the feudal system.

    I just can't stand the Romans. What did they ever do for us?
  • RDW
    RDW Posts: 1,900
    The aqueduct?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    The day the loons in Cardiff Bay start setting taxes for Wales will be the first day I've ever considered moving over the bridge!
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    johnfinch wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Cant agree with you there Finchy. Saxon Britain was a lot fairer. All our problems started when the f*cking Normans came here in 1066 and brought in the feudal system.

    I just can't stand the Romans. What did they ever do for us?

    Are you the people's front of Judea?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    pinarello001 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Boom boom!

    Still alive?! Thought you might have got food poisoning. :wink:
    Oh no, not me - it was just Mrs Bomp and the kids, you don't think I would go anywhere you recommended myself do you? And I'm sure it's totally unrelated coincidence that Bompetta has been sick non-stop since they arrived in NI.









    Actually they went somewhere else
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    pinarello001 wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Cant agree with you there Finchy. Saxon Britain was a lot fairer. All our problems started when the f*cking Normans came here in 1066 and brought in the feudal system.

    I just can't stand the Romans. What did they ever do for us?

    Are you the people's front of Judea?

    Those splitters? F**k off.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    RDW wrote:
    The aqueduct?

    Oh yeah, well obviously the aqueduct.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    My humblest apologies Finchy, I didn't realise that you were part of the more progressive Judean People's Front.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • RDW
    RDW Posts: 1,900
    johnfinch wrote:
    RDW wrote:
    The aqueduct?

    Oh yeah, well obviously the aqueduct.

    And the sanitation.
  • florerider
    florerider Posts: 1,112
    And they built a wall to keep Piña out.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    ..and they sorted out that itinerant wench Boudica.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    pinarello001 wrote:
    ..and they sorted out that itinerant wench Boudica.

    Allegedly her daughters had a night out with a couple of pro footballers.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    Ballysmate wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    ..and they sorted out that itinerant wench Boudica.

    Allegedly her daughters had a night out with a couple of pro footballers.

    Not Chedius Evanius and his mate, surely?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    ..and they sorted out that itinerant wench Boudica.

    Allegedly her daughters had a night out with a couple of pro footballers.

    Not Chedius Evanius and his mate, surely?

    Some might say that, but I could not possibly comment. :lol:
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,511
    Ballysmate wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    ..and they sorted out that itinerant wench Boudica.

    Allegedly her daughters had a night out with a couple of pro footballers.

    Not Chedius Evanius and his mate, surely?

    Some might say that, but I could not possibly comment. :lol:

    Were they dogging in the back of a chariot after too many amphora's of the then best seller 'Veni vidi vice' ?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    All those Yessers in Scotland have the chance to see the future they could have had.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30491801

    Oil $59 / barrel

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rency.html

    Interest rate hike. Oh dear!!

Categories