UK Devolution

[Winner]

Czechoslovakia dissolved although Czechs and Slovaks were very similar in culture, customs, language etc. I'd go as far as to say that they were closer to each other than the nations of today's Britain are.

What caused the break up were the ambitions of a minority of people who wanted their own country to rule and a deadlocked political system designed by the Communists which couldn't cope with an emerging democracy (you know, under the previous system, all Deputies have always voted for everything the Government came up with ).

Now what does this experience tell us about United Kingdom? I don't want to jump to conclusions, because I admit my knowledge of local sentiments is very limited.

Are there politicians/parties in Wales and Scotland, that would really seek independence just to get themselves a country to rule? Would people support such a move? Would the central government allow it? What about the political system? Could it cope with a broad autonomy of parts of the country?

 

[StarWorms]

I'm a bit undecided but as English people have ended up subsidising Scotland to actually help it get up to standard, I feel we should lose Scotland from the UK. Labour has been pushing it for some years now: Opening a Scottish parliament, when there isn't an English parliament. Giving scots the right to vote on English matters, but not English the right to vote on scottish matters. Labour has been racist against the English.

I think Wales should stay as it is.

Independence means you guys can all vote for each other at Eurovision.

I'm just saying is all.

Why do you think the baltic states are all doing it? We want to join in too!

 

[Figaro]

Now what does this experience tell us about United Kingdom? I don't want to jump to conclusions, because I admit my knowledge of local sentiments is very limited.

Are there politicians/parties in Wales and Scotland, that would really seek independence just to get themselves a country to rule? Would people support such a move? Would the central government allow it? What about the political system? Could it cope with a broad autonomy of parts of the country?

There are indeed, although their motives are not "just to get a country to rule". Something like 31% of Scots support independence, with well over 50% supporting more powers for the Scottish parliament. The figures in Wales are less but are increasing. The policies of both regional governments are advocating an increase in powers.

I'm a bit undecided but as English people have ended up subsidising Scotland to actually help it get up to standard, I feel we should lose Scotland from the UK. Labour has been pushing it for some years now: Opening a Scottish parliament, when there isn't an English parliament. Giving scots the right to vote on English matters, but not English the right to vote on scottish matters. Labour has been racist against the English.

I think Wales should stay as it is.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Labour has been "racist against the English", just that they hadn't properly thought out all of the consequences of Devolution in England. I'm not bothered about funding developement in other parts of the UK, that's part of what taxes are all about - pooling funding so that money can go where it's most needed.

As for Wales staying as it is, well, I'm afraid it looks likely the Welsh Assembly will be gaining legislative powers similar to those of the Scottish parliament in the next few years.

As a side-note, this is one of the reasons why I support full independence - it would stop people complaing about Scots voting for English laws etc.

 

[Virote_Considon]

As a side-note, this is one of the reasons why I support full independence - it would stop people complaing about Scots voting for English laws etc.

So would turning Great Britain into a Unitary state where one law set out by Parliament was set out for all.

And to the argument of "most of Wales support Labourm and when the Conservatives get in it isn't representative of the majority of the Welsh", well, isn't that the same case for everyone who supports the opposition parties? In Dorset (where I live), the county is (apart from the area I live) and always has been a Conservative stronghold. Does this mean that they should should split off from a country and form their own because they don't support the current party in power? And should my small area split off because we support another different party (Labour)? And should the block around the corner split off from my block because they have an independent councilor? And the house next door? They may support the Liberal Democrats! Surely we shouldn't currently be suppressing them under Labour rule!

I believe the answer to that should be "no", because it's just too hectic.

And too the point about the pre-devolution days, did you know that back then, the Scottish and Welsh had smaller (and therefore more) constituencies than the average English constituency, so therefore they were more represented than the average English MP, just to make it look fairer?

 

[Figaro]

So would turning Great Britain into a Unitary state where one law set out by Parliament was set out for all.

And to the argument of "most of Wales support Labourm and when the Conservatives get in it isn't representative of the majority of the Welsh", well, isn't that the same case for everyone who supports the opposition parties? In Dorset (where I live), the county is (apart from the area I live) and always has been a Conservative stronghold. Does this mean that they should should split off from a country and form their own because they don't support the current party in power? And should my small area split off because we support another different party (Labour)? And should the block around the corner split off from my block because they have an independent councilor? And the house next door? They may support the Liberal Democrats! Surely we shouldn't currently be suppressing them under Labour rule!

I wasn't complaing about the UK governments in general not being representative of Wales - ob course, the whole of the UK has to be taken into account assuming we are not independent.

What I was complaining about was that the *Secretary of State for Wales* (1 man) should be representative of whichever party the majority of Wales supports. Just like a representative for Dorset should be a Conservative (presumably your MP is conservative), the block around your corner an independent, and the house next door a Liberal democrat. However, under a conservative government, the secretary of state for Wales was (obviously) a Conservative. This is like having every single MP given to whichever party gets the most votes nationwide in an election - not very democratic, is it?

This is no longer the case because the Secretary of State's powers have largely been given to the First Minister: I was using the point to illustrate another reason why devolution is a good thing.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The problem with the Welsh devolution is that it is some sort of wishy-washy attempt that has no tax-raising powers ubnlike the Scottish one. Then again, the referendum only just squeaked through, although the low power of the assembly probably contributed to the apathy.

But you say they will increase the powers? That sounds more like it. Otherwise it is just an expensive waste of money.

Proper independence for Wales isn't going to work since they haven't got the resources to make it on their own and neither have Scotland really especially once the North Sea oil starts to run out or become too expensive to extract.

 

[StarWorms]

So would turning Great Britain into a Unitary state where one law set out by Parliament was set out for all.

Scotland has been far more vocal than Wales. I think the cause is quite obvious: In the past some areas have been adopted into England more than others. Cornwall, although it does have nationalists, it has been fully adopted into England and I think it has been drowned out. Wales on the other hand, has been adopted a bit less: It's a principality and another area belonging to England, but less so than a county is, which is an area that is part of England. Then there's Scotland, which hasn't been adopted into England at all: England and Scotland are united kingdoms (hence the name). The problem is that the issue was never properly addressed in the past. It should have been nipped in the bud, but it wasn't.

When laws are made, they apply to England and Wales. We often find that Scotland gets different laws. For example: Student top up fees: very controversial. They were adopted in England and Wales (although I think in Wales they came in a year later). However what caused the law to pass was Scots being able to vote on it. Had they not been able to vote, it would not have passed. Guess what? In Scotland they rejected the top up fees, so it's cheaper to go to University there. I think the problem is that Scotland has had to have a lot of money pumped into it to try and get it to the standard of living that England has, and they've tried passing new laws to try and make it more equal, but that's just unfair on the rest of the UK.

What would happen to the UK is Scotland left? Well without Scotland, it's no longer a united kingdom: The only kingdom is England. So then would Northern Ireland become independent or stick with England and Wales?

I feel Scottish and Welsh people feel like the minorities in the UK, which they are. England is 83% of the population. However I think Labour have given into their demands too easily, with the Welsh parliament and the Scottish parliament. You can't give two areas parliaments and not the other. Does society as a whole not believe that discrimination doesn't have to be against a minority, or is it just the government that thinks that?

 

[Figaro]

Proper independence for Wales isn't going to work since they haven't got the resources to make it on their own and neither have Scotland really especially once the North Sea oil starts to run out or become too expensive to extract.

People often say things like this - but what exactly does England have that we don't? There certainly aren't hidden oil reserves beneath the cotswolds or something. Sure, we lack the massive commercial centre that is London, but then again our populations are significantly smaller. The population of Cardiff relative to Wales, and Glasgow* relative to Scotland, is roughly that of London relative to the UK. Certainly the farmland isn't as good as in England, but then again we have greater potential for Water (deemed to be an important resource in the future) and wind power than England does - a significant percentage of the UK's Water supplies come from within Wales and Scotland.

*I realise Glasgow is not the capital of Scotland; it is however the largest city and the one that produces the most capita. It's also comparatively close to Edinburgh.

Scotland has been far more vocal than Wales. I think the cause is quite obvious: In the past some areas have been adopted into England more than others. Cornwall, although it does have nationalists, it has been fully adopted into England and I think it has been drowned out. Wales on the other hand, has been adopted a bit less: It's a principality and another area belonging to England, but less so than a county is, which is an area that is part of England. Then there's Scotland, which hasn't been adopted into England at all: England and Scotland are united kingdoms (hence the name). The problem is that the issue was never properly addressed in the past. It should have been nipped in the bud, but it wasn't.

When laws are made, they apply to England and Wales. We often find that Scotland gets different laws. For example: Student top up fees: very controversial. They were adopted in England and Wales (although I think in Wales they came in a year later). However what caused the law to pass was Scots being able to vote on it. Had they not been able to vote, it would not have passed. Guess what? In Scotland they rejected the top up fees, so it's cheaper to go to University there. I think the problem is that Scotland has had to have a lot of money pumped into it to try and get it to the standard of living that England has, and they've tried passing new laws to try and make it more equal, but that's just unfair on the rest of the UK.

What would happen to the UK is Scotland left? Well without Scotland, it's no longer a united kingdom: The only kingdom is England. So then would Northern Ireland become independent or stick with England and Wales?

I feel Scottish and Welsh people feel like the minorities in the UK, which they are. England is 83% of the population. However I think Labour have given into their demands too easily, with the Welsh parliament and the Scottish parliament. You can't give two areas parliaments and not the other. Does society as a whole not believe that discrimination doesn't have to be against a minority, or is it just the government that thinks that?

Actually, it's only cheaper for Scottish students to study in Scotland, not for all students. And it's exactly the same for Welsh students in Wales, so clearly the Welsh Assembly has *some* kind of powers (now that Plaid Cymru are (partially) in power they are pushing for legislative powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament).

When Wales and Scotland were given their devolved institutions, part of the agreement is that the number of MPs they had in Westminster was reduced, to reflect their roles being less important now that many laws affecting their constituencies were being passed elsewhere. This is obviously not enough however as there is a popular consensus that the current system is biased against the English. I fully support some kind of English assembly or some limiting on the powers of Welsh/Scottish MPs, as I believe it would be hypocritical of me to do so.

As a side note, I think that Scotland and Wales will secede from the UK long before Northern Ireland does. Support for remaining in the UK has been as strong as ever in Northern Ireland, despite the Republic's existence for so many years and all the attempts of Republican parties to change the situation.

 

[Brighteye]

So why isn't it cheaper for English students to study in England?

 

[Disenfrancised]

People often say things like this - but what exactly does England have that we don't? There certainly aren't hidden oil reserves beneath the cotswolds or something. Sure, we lack the massive commercial centre that is London, but then again our populations are significantly smaller. The population of Cardiff relative to Wales, and Glasgow* relative to Scotland, is roughly that of London relative to the UK. Certainly the farmland isn't as good as in England, but then again we have greater potential for Water (deemed to be an important resource in the future) and wind power than England does - a significant percentage of the UK's Water supplies come from within Wales and Scotland.

*I realise Glasgow is not the capital of Scotland; it is however the largest city and the one that produces the most capita. It's also comparatively close to Edinburgh.

Well firstly your wrong on the relative proportions bit:

London:England is 20%
Glasgow:Scotland is 40%
Cardiff:Wales is 50%

(Taking the greater urban area in all cases).

I think the nationalist rural Scots and Welsh are going to be in for an interesting shock in any possible independence when they discover how much the big cities are going to dominate and dictate policies .

As to what they get:

-Scotland gets a hell of a lot from the English, considering they've been subsidized since right at the start - one of the premier reasons for the 1707 Act of Union was to bail out the Scottish Parliment appalling finances. Money has flowed north ever since.
-The Benefits of being a larger economic unit are manifold, hence the drive towards the EU, and the increase in red tape and beaurocracy that a seperate state would entail would drive up costs, to scotland and wales loss far more than England.
-In terms of wind and water - you do realise that a) Wales won't use those resources up itself and b) the only potential customer is England anyway? The only thing independence would offer would be petty tariff and price bickerings ala the US and Canada (and we know how the smaller nation did there ). Better IMO to remain one state and sort these things out within the overall parliment.

Plus the populations are way too interrelated to be amputated in such a manner, just because some nationalists want to lord over their own tiny estate - do you want devolution for Brixton too ?

Are there politicians/parties in Wales and Scotland, that would really seek independence just to get themselves a country to rule? Would people support such a move? Would the central government allow it? What about the political system? Could it cope with a broad autonomy of parts of the country?

Yes. Some would, I don't think the majority would. Doubtful. Its an ancient and changable beast the British Parliment, it probably could cope, but witht he well developed democracy we have goign on why should it have too?

 

[Figaro]

I think the nationalist rural Scots and Welsh are going to be in for an interesting shock in any possible independence when they discover how much the big cities are going to dominate and dictate policies .

No, I think people are well aware. London and the South-East already dominate and dictate UK policies; it would actually be an improvement for them.

As to what they get:

-Scotland gets a hell of a lot from the English, considering they've been subsidized since right at the start - one of the premier reasons for the 1707 Act of Union was to bail out the Scottish Parliment appalling finances. Money has flowed north ever since.
-The Benefits of being a larger economic unit are manifold, hence the drive towards the EU, and the increase in red tape and beaurocracy that a seperate state would entail would drive up costs, to scotland and wales loss far more than England.
-In terms of wind and water - you do realise that a) Wales won't use those resources up itself and b) the only potential customer is England anyway? The only thing independence would offer would be petty tariff and price bickerings ala the US and Canada (and we know how the smaller nation did there ). Better IMO to remain one state and sort these things out within the overall parliment.

An independent Wales would quite easilly be able to run at near Carbon-Neutral within a few years. Something like 50% of UK wind farms are in Wales (or off the Welsh coast). And there is plenty of water in Wales for Welsh needs, many parts of England near the border already rely on Welsh water (and the British government is not averse to flooding populated Welsh valleys in order to get it, either). Wales and Scotland would presumably join the EU, and the situation in Ireland has clearly proven that small countries benefit greatly from that institution.

Plus the populations are way too interrelated to be amputated in such a manner, just because some nationalists want to lord over their own tiny estate - do you want devolution for Brixton too ?

People often ask me things like this. It's not for me to decide whether or not the people of Brixton want devolved government, it's for the people there to decide. If, in a referendum, they voted in favour of it, then it would be the part of the UK government to give it to them. That's what Democracy is about, right?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Londons influence is actually greatly countered by rural England and the other big urban conglomerations (like glasgow and cardiff), without them I think two big cities of Wales and Scotland will have no rivals and greater influnence. You should hear the complaints by london politicans over the rest of the country.

People often ask me things like this. It's not for me to decide whether or not the people of Brixton want devolved government, it's for the people there to decide. If, in a referendum, they voted in favour of it, then it would be the part of the UK government to give it to them. That's what Democracy is about, right?

Nope, if the entirity of the democracy voted for independence then it should be given to them, but it is a representitive government of the people, collective, owning the communial funds and lands. I'd only be for independence if a) the entirity of the UK got a vote in the referendom b) We have further referendoms down the line to see if people are happy with the new arrangement.

An independent Wales would quite easilly be able to run at near Carbon-Neutral within a few years. Something like 50% of UK wind farms are in Wales (or off the Welsh coast). And there is plenty of water in Wales for Welsh needs, many parts of England near the border already rely on Welsh water (and the British government is not averse to flooding populated Welsh valleys in order to get it, either). Wales and Scotland would presumably join the EU, and the situation in Ireland has clearly proven that small countries benefit greatly from that institution.

There is still a lack of windpower - 50% of 0.5% (or 10% if we just count wales) isn't that great you know, and you'd be spoiling that lovely landscape we are all so fond off.
You misunderstand my point on water - i)you suggested Wales would well as it had ample water resources, ii) I agree, but then said that won't give you much outside cash as you can only sell it to england anyway. Also are you happy condemning the English to droughts and water shortages? Not very neighbourly of you...
Scotland and Wales could mimic irelands growth except that
a) Irelnad has used the statisitcal cheat of starting off with a low baseline
b) Irelands growth within the EU has been mainly due to its amazing corporate and economic policies and easy immigration - from the looks of their platforms neither the Scotish or Welsh nationalists want to institue anythign like that.
c)Ireland got loads of EU money, Wales and Scotland already have high standards of living and the new eastern members are soaking up a lot of the development cash
d)There already is an Ireland-like economy in the region; Ireland. To gain their growth and trade Wales would have to underbid them.
e)[Semi-joke] Who says Wales will be let in the EU ? Such a devolution would worry France, Spain, Sweden et al - all who have seperatist movements they don't want to give precident too. Plus England could be pretty mean if you start hoarding water .

 

[Spearthrower]

I personally think that ultimate devolution will be the economic death of all the countries concerned.... really, only England has much of a chance to pull through it thanks to the mass of foreign investment.

People that want devolution have a nationalist pride that doesn't address modern economic reality.

In today's age, we need to create bigger and bigger blocks to remain competitive.... forming city states would definitely be counter to progress.

I hope that people look to their future more than their past.

 

[Figaro]

Wind and Water aren't the only resources available to Wales - like I said, the main economic boost is the tourist industry, but back to Wind, it's not even the only source of renewable energy in Wales. The severn Estuary is the region wit the second highest tide variance in the world; the only reason some kind of tidal Tames BArrier-esque generator hasn't been installed yet is that the technology hasn't been perfected yet. Plus Wales's mountainous terrain has plenty of potential for various hydroelectric systems (and there actually are quite a few of those here).

As a historical side-note, the severn ports were once the largest exporters of coal in the world. Wales saw comparatively little of the money made from it, at least, the ordinary people of Wales didn't. The world's first £1,000,000 deal was made in Cardiff.

I don't think we'd start hoarding water. If, as you say, the only customer would be England, then that would only increase the importance of exporting it to them. Water is water; England's not going to get water shortages just because Wales is no longer ruled from Westminster. The only difference is that rather than lining the pockets of the Anglo-Welsh water companies, they'll be lining the pockets of Welsh water companies (or, more likely, given Wales's generally more leftwing-tendancies, nationalised Welsh water companies). The way it works at the moment is that Wales produces far more Water than it needs; but any profits made from that Water go to the water companies who don't care where the water comes from nor where it goes as long as they make a profit. This is beginning to sound more like an argument for nationalisation than independence, so let's say that it's lining the pockets of a Welsh water company in Wales instead - well even then at least it's staying in Wales, rather than going to the South-East like everything else.

I suspect Wales would be allowed into the EU on the grounds that it is in at the moment - as part of the UK, but it's still in. It's generally Plaid Cymru policy (and I assume the same of the SNP in Scotland) that, if independent, the countries would be part of the EU. And remember - all these countries have seperatist movements, yes, but they have representatives in the EU parliament (as do Plaid Cymru and the SNP). So actually I suspect we would get a lot of support from Europe.

 

[Perfection]

Scotland should be independant, Wales should be nuked into oblivion.

 

[Figaro]

I personally think that ultimate devolution will be the economic death of all the countries concerned.... really, only England has much of a chance to pull through it thanks to the mass of foreign investment.

People that want devolution have a nationalist pride that doesn't address modern economic reality.

In today's age, we need to create bigger and bigger blocks to remain competitive.... forming city states would definitely be counter to progress.

I hope that people look to their future more than their past.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that people in small countries can enjoy lives as comfortable as anyone else - just look at Luxembourg, which has the world's highest GDP per capita. And Liechtenstein - both smaller than Wales. Belgium is not much bigger than Wales and they do fine. Minority nationalism is NOT nostalgic or idealistic or backward looking.

Your solution seems markedly similar to the Cold War to me, and that was a roaring success for all involved, wasn't it?

 

[Jesus Civs]

Scotland should be independant, Wales should be nuked into oblivion.

Why?

_________________

 

[Spearthrower]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that people in small countries can enjoy lives as comfortable as anyone else - just look at Luxembourg, which has the world's highest GDP per capita. And Liechtenstein - both smaller than Wales. Belgium is not much bigger than Wales and they do fine. Minority nationalism is NOT nostalgic or idealistic or backward looking.

Your solution seems markedly similar to the Cold War to me, and that was a roaring success for all involved, wasn't it?

Comparisons to Luxembourg is not really balanced considering all factors.

Wales and Scotland both would have a lot of difficulty with their economy.... let alone Devon which is a bit of a joke really to consider it separating from the UK. While I have only appreciation for their unique history and culture, it's simply unrealistic to assume that they can prosper alone.

I also didnt mean it was "backwards" - I mean that with the world becoming a more globalised place, the challenge to small countries is mounting rapidly and across the world larger and larger economic blocks are forming. At such a time, it seems ridiculous to contemplate breaking into smaller national blocks. looking forwards means riding the wave of present trends, not falling into older systems of minor states.

I also disagree, it is nothing like the Cold War... we are not looking at creating blocks by force here but by economic treaties.... I'm not entirely convinced of any European Union.... but it is a necessary evil in the modern world to remain competitive.

 

[GinandTonic]

How would we decide who got what passport? I mean I could have an English, Welsh or Scottish passport. Would dual passports be allowed? If so almost every 18 year old in the country would opt for dual or tripple nationality to get the benefits of free university tuition. Wales and Scotland would end up paying the uni fees for every English kid.

This exposes a more serious issue about the interlinked economies. Wales and Scotland would want a more generious social security system, while the majority of high earning Scots and Welsh earn that money in London. And that tax would pay to the English coffers, while the burden of the improved social security would be bourn by those paying tax in Wales and Scotland. Scotland and Wales would be forced to raise their tax rates which would in turn move more investment and high earners to England.

The EU is not in a position to bail Wales and Scotland out in the way they did to Ireland - there are newer and poorer nations now. Perhaps Wales and Scotland would expect England to pump cash into them to aid their development? Rather defeats the point of independence though doesnt it.

 

[Figaro]

I don't think you understand - A) University tuition is not free for anyone in the UK. The citizens of Wales and Scotland benefit from having their fees partially subsidised (not waived altogether) IF they go to university in their home countries. I have plenty of Welsh friends in English universities who pay the full price for their tuition. So, even assuming everyone in the UK were granted multipule nationalities, Scotland/Wales would only end up paying everyone's fees if everyone went to university in Scotland/Wales.

So while what you're saying is theoretically possible, it wouldn't happen because universities in Scotland and Wales have limited capacities, like all universities. This means they would have to reject the vast majority of students, so they wouldn't be, as you say, "paying the uni fees for every English kid", simply because they don't have enough unis to educate every English kid.

And if they wanted a more generous social security system, they might not neceserialy need to pay more taxes overall because the priorities of people in Scotland & Wales are different to those in England, and it's therefore unreasonable to assume that everything would be spent in the same way. For example, we wouldn't be paying anywhere near as much towards inner-city development because the populations are much more rural. Water would be cheaper, because of the local abundance in both countries - currently Water prices are not relative to where the Water comes from (it's actually on average more expensive in Wales for some reason) because water is pumped all over the country - we pay more that we should for our water so that you pay less. An independent Wales would be pay less for their own water because distribution would no longer need to be to such a wide area.

I'm not saying so much that an independent Wales & Scotland would be significantly economically better off, merely waiving the arguments that they'd be worse off. In return, we'd gain the right to legislate for ourselves laws more relevant to the demographics in our own countries.