General Politics Thread

[Mortar Bored]

As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution clearly provides that permitting of limited fracking and prioritising extraction towards weaning off US shale in the petrochemical industry should now be our priority.

As far as Willie is concerned, Policy Committee have overruled Conference and we are against fracking "on climate change grounds" because of a general statement in the pre-manifesto that says we want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. This is despite the fact that our argument was allowing limited fracking would achieve that goal, marginally faster.

The Scottish Party has a different policy from the Federal Party, who speak only for England on the issue of fracking. The Welsh Lib Dems speak for themselves. The current policy of the Federal Party is cautiously in favour of fracking but heavily critical of the attempts by the Tories since May to relax rules that would have allowed local authorities to force important safeguards and local consent for any schemes.

The issue is coming up at Federal Conference in York next week, where some have put forward a motion to ban fracking outright, a lot of the justifications being flatly contradicted by the evidence in, among other reports, the one the Scottish Government commissioned in 2014. There are two attempts to amend that motion by, among others, Ed Davey, the former Secretary of State for the Environment, to hold the line at the Federal Party's current policy, and the motion may be "referred back" if they can't get a hearing on the amendments. The internal party group the Alliance of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists is particularly anxious to see that the motion at Federal Conference does not pass as moved.

So I guess next week is a gauge of the federal parties views, assuming the amendments are looked at?

What (if anything) can the Scottish Lib Dems do about Rennies apparent disregard for democracy, does the party constitution allow for votes of no confidence in the appointed leader or is it a case of -"suck it up"?

[Ad Lib]

but surely as the UK is one country the English party should have the last say and decide the issue.

The English Party opts to allow Federal Conference to set policy for England.

So I guess next week is a gauge of the federal parties views, assuming the amendments are looked at?

What (if anything) can the Scottish Lib Dems do about Rennies apparent disregard for democracy, does the party constitution allow for votes of no confidence in the appointed leader or is it a case of -"suck it up"?

There has been a reference to the party President on the question of the constitutionality of the behaviour of the leadership and Policy Committee.

[Mark Connolly]

The English Party opts to allow Federal Conference to set policy for England.

There has been a reference to the party President on the question of the constitutionality of the behaviour of the leadership and Policy Committee.

I presume that means someone has complained about it to the high heid yins?

[strichener]

A lot of people that would normally give Willie the benefit of the doubt have really lost patience over this. Including, I might add, some who oppose fracking.

What is the "sovereign will" when referring to members of a political party? Rather OTT.

[Ad Lib]

What is the "sovereign will" when referring to members of a political party? Rather OTT.

I'm only using the words contained in our Constitutions. Conference is the sovereign body of the Liberal Democrats.

[Fide]

Pleasing to see that Ad Lib has finally came round to sharing the rest of Scotland's viewpoint that Willie Rennie is a vaccuous simpleton.

[Wee Willie]

 

Okay Wee Willie, I'll entertain your drivel.

I hope I’m in the audience if you are ever at a husting trying tae convince people tae vote for you and your party.

I’ll ask the same questions and I hope ye give the same answer.

That’s bound tae get ye votes.

 

I do not, "in a wider context" "want English politicians to decide the UK/Scotlands place in the world".

I want British politicians to decide the UK's place in the world and for Scottish politicians to have an active role in shaping those decisions.

and how does that work?

No matter how ye tart it up it IS still English politicians who decide foreign policy or any policy involving the big bad world.

The only way for Scottish politicians to have an active role is if their policies/votes coincide with English ones.

 

I don't care if Scottish MPs voted not to bomb ISIS.

What a disgraceful statement.

In other words you don’t care how Scottish MP’s vote.

I hope you stand up and say that at your next Lib party convention.

Sadly, in a way, you are correct, Scottish MP’s are irrelevant in a UK environment.

 

When we deal with defence we have pooled sovereignty. We have chosen to do that.

Why do you accept that we (as a people) chose to stay part of the UK but you don’t accept when the same people chose (through our MP’s) NOT to bomb ISIS and NOT to have nuclear submarines in Scotland.

Is that your brand of democracy?

 

The only virtuous reasons for having Scotland not pool sovereignty with others is if you think that it would make better decisions and decisions that make the world a better place.

You as a quasi Scottish politician should ken better that than tae make that statement.

The point is that the decisions (and buck) should stop with Scottish politicians and no politicians from South Britain.

 

Surely if I were content that "England" decides that would make me an AngloNat and not a BritNat?

Whichever cap fits.

England has roughly ten times the politicians that Scotland has.

Please tell me how England does NOT decide UK policy.

 

Ad Lib I'd love to read your reply to these questions.

Especially the ones in bigger text.

Ta 

[Ad Lib]

Ad Lib I'd love to read your reply to these questions.

Especially the ones in bigger text.

Ta

It has an active role in shaping them by having MPs that can speak in Parliamentary debates, an elected devolved assembly that can pass motions approving or condemning specific actions, a devolved government that can make representations to the UK Parliament and Government and the right of Scottish MPs to participate in any Parliamentary vote.

English MPs do not decide UK policies in isolation. Scottish MPs participate and consult and vote. Just because their larger majority means they get their way more of the time doesn't mean they're uniquely and exclusively deciding.

[renton]

It has an active role in shaping them by having MPs that can speak in Parliamentary debates, an elected devolved assembly that can pass motions approving or condemning specific actions, a devolved government that can make representations to the UK Parliament and Government and the right of Scottish MPs to participate in any Parliamentary vote.

English MPs do not decide UK policies in isolation. Scottish MPs participate and consult and vote. Just because their larger majority means they get their way more of the time doesn't mean they're uniquely and exclusively deciding.

 

Just 99.5% of the time.

[Wee Willie]

It has an active role in shaping them by having MPs that can speak in Parliamentary debates, an elected devolved assembly that can pass motions approving or condemning specific actions, a devolved government that can make representations to the UK Parliament and Government and the right of Scottish MPs to participate in any Parliamentary vote.

English MPs do not decide UK policies in isolation. Scottish MPs participate and consult and vote. Just because their larger majority means they get their way more of the time doesn't mean they're uniquely and exclusively deciding.

You sound like Pontius Pilot Pilate.

It’s okay for these troublesome Scots tae legislate in their devolved government and can even speak and vote in the big hoose but thankfully the English MP’s will keep them in their place.

Do you accept that the English MP’s ALWAYS make the decisions on UK international policies.

If you don’t, then could you give one example where an English majority lost a vote on any foreign policy.

 

Let's face it (although you wont), there are roughly ten times the politicians in England than there are in Scotland.

Only a fool would deny that having ten times the voting power means you win every argument.*

You say but it’s no just England it’s the UK that decides but at the end of the day it’s still English votes that decide who we are and what we do internationally speaking.

 

When we deal with defence we have pooled sovereignty. We have chosen to do that.

Why do you accept that we (as a people) chose to stay part of the UK but you don’t accept when the same people chose (through our MP’s) NOT to bomb ISIS and NOT to have nuclear submarines in Scotland.

Is that your brand of democracy where you don’t care how Scots MP’s vote because English MP’s will deny them.

 

* I've re-read that sentence umpteen times and I cannae decide if it makes sense.

Just 99.5% of the time.

I disagree as I think it is 100% but if you are right he should be able to give as an example at least one time the English MP's lost a vote.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Wee Willie

[Ad Lib]

I disagree as I think it is 100% but if you are right he should be able to give as an example at least one time the English MP's lost a vote.

Foundation hospitals and tuition fees under the last Labour government.

[Wee Willie]

Foundation hospitals and tuition fees under the last Labour government.

Jeezuz Christ!

 

Do you accept that the English MP’s ALWAYS make the decisions on UK international policies.

If you don’t, then could you give one example where an English majority lost a vote on any foreign policy.

[Wee Willie]

Just 99.5% of the time.

 

Nope. I think I won.

[Ad Lib]

Jeezuz Christ!

 

Do you accept that the English MP’s ALWAYS make the decisions on UK international policies.

If you don’t, then could you give one example where an English majority lost a vote on any foreign policy.

Not off the top of my head, no. Scottish MPs haven't often lost either though.

[Fide]

Not off the top of my head, no. Scottish MPs haven't often lost either though.

 

That's clearly just a bare faced lie.

 

Do you giggle while you type?

[renton]

Nope. I think I won.

 

Someone did a study showing that since 1997, Scottish votes made a difference (i.e. would have changed the outcome rather than the margin of victory) in a grand total of 21 out of 5000 votes - so about 0.5% of the time.  Granted that's been during a time of majority governments - and one stable coalition. That would be different under times of minority or unstable coalition governments where a non aligned (i.e. not Labour, not Tories) Scottish bloc probably could swing more than a few votes. However, our FPTP system isn't designed to create those types of government, so they are relatively rare.

 

The point is the same however, the preponderance of English MPs means that Scottish votes are almost always useless in deciding the outcome of parliamentary votes, denying Scotland any leverage in getting itself a better deal from any Westminster deliberations.

Edited March 9, 2016 by renton

[Antlion]

This is why I find the screeching about Scotland apparently getting "more money" than parts of England (and getting told it should have no benefit or detriment in comparison) so absolutely farcical.

If you're going to expect a country to accept a minor position in another state, and to sacrifice all the sovereign benefits of statehood (such as carrying political decisions on the back of a majority of its elected representatives), then you should damn well be showering it with compensatory financial perks.

This seems to have passed many people by, as they think Scotland should accept minority status within the UK; be bound by the political decisions of England's MPs on the majority of issues; have no statehood; and simply accept all of this out of sheer, misty-eyed affection for London rule (because it's been our capital for 300 years and Gordon Broon was born in Scotland don't you know!)

[Fide]

Scotland should accept minority status within the UK; be bound by the political decisions of England's MPs on the majority of issues; have no statehood; and simply accept all of this out of sheer, misty-eyed affection for London rule

 

I find it genuinely sad that there are swathes of Scottish people who have exactly this mindset.

[Antlion]

I find it genuinely sad that there are swathes of Scottish people who have exactly this mindset.

Sad but I guess unsurprising that people would see the UK as their nation rather than Scotland (given they've never known anything else, and have potentially lived with heavily jingoistic British nationalism).

Now if only they would admit it rather than pretending that they are "patriotic" about the Scottish nation, and that the status (and the raft of political sacrifices and democratic norms) this type of union results in is a great thing for a country.

[Baxter Parp]

GERS will be in the news today