Saintandy666

What would happen to the BBC I wonder...

That's a fair point. I guess it all depends how good a deal an indepdent Scotland would get with the carving up of assets and how they would try to differentiate on fiscal policy.

I think that's a bit harsh, Scotland isn't really poor compared to the rest of the UK... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita Who knows how they would attempt to compete if independent, they could carve out their own niche and survive just fine.

But the BBC is a left wing propaganda machine, right? Labour accused the BBC of Coalition bias a few weeks back actually.

I love the BBC. Absolutely top notch broadcaster.

Paps right on why a lot of people vote SNP and it's backed up by stats. From what I can find this year support for full independence has risen from 23% to 32%, so around the time of the election it was languishing around the mid 20's, yet the SNP gained 45.4% so either those who believe in independence are far more motivated to vote or about 15-20% of those who voted SNP do not believe in their main policy.

Not at all I don't think for reasons already said. I think we have reached the end of this discussion though and all points have been made that are going to be made! Needs a new perspective if this thread is to continue... thanks for the discussion though. Agree to disagree?

A new election would still be needed as a new mandate would be needed. And as it would be a major constitutional change in the way we are run, probably needs a referendum too, so we might as well just have one on the presidential system I proposed

Of course, but I've never had any bad reactions to me obviously being English beyond light hearted banter. Obviously, they get annoyed when people say they can't do it alone style comments though. No-one is all 'English people are bastards' style stuff. I see the analogy, but I think the troubles were perhaps more strongly felt by each side and certainly more serious considering the violence involved(and religious element). Many people would have seen their communities torn apart and friends dead or injured over the issue. But I wasn't alive at the time so I can't really speak much about it beyond what I've read and been told/taught.

It wouldn't be orchestrated though. The coalition agreement which the parties have pledged to stick too would no longer be in function. The mandate which the British people gave Westminster in 2010 would be irrelevant as different voting blocs would be formed. A new election would be needed pronto so people could vote in light of the new 'rules' and even then, it'd still be a constitutional nightmare.

The coalition would cease to function on defence and foreign affairs though. Parliament would HAVE to fall apart and it wouldn't be playing politics at all, parliament would be deadlock and a constitutional hole. I'm not sure how the English would respond. I'd still vote Lib Dem.

Oh, I understood that it was temporary situation, but it just wouldn't work especially with the current coalition government as the Tories would be able to rule with a majority on most votes. The Liberal Democrats would get annoyed, and join Labour in a vote of no confidence bringing the whole government down forcing a general election to be called within weeks(in my opinion).

You are thinking of it at a simple face value level though. How the country is run is more complex than that and your solution could create greater constitutional crisis's than the current way. Don't settle for the crap solution, campaign for an actual proper working system involving the executive being the head of the state(i.e a UK-wide elected President) and then each area of the UK having it's own legislature to deal with internal affairs. That way there is no dogey 'two majority house' and no confusion over who is PM and who is the government.

Nope, because it would create great constitutional issues, not to mention cause an election almost immediately as the coalition would be useless and they wouldn't survive a vote of no confidence. It can't be done within Westminster. A new system needs to be set up to accommodate what you want, it's the only way not to have massive constitutional holes.

You keep editing your post which makes it hard to keep up, but I think I've covered why the solution of two parliaments within a parliament almost isn't sustainable in my prior post when I said about all the weird constitutional crisis's come up. Don't get me wrong, the West Lothian question needs to be solved, but your solution is constitutionally undoable(see my last post again!)

Yes, but the elections are nationwide. Please answer my constitutional points that I raised about different majorities and 'governments'(I use that term loosely as what would really be the executive if say Labour had a majority nationwide and so could force through defence policy and Foreign affairs, but Conservatives had it for England/Welsh issues... because the executive under current rules is pulled from parliaments make up) for different policies within one chamber of parliament! The PM would still be from labour under that scenario btw... but how would that even work given the current system?! I've changed my mind, the best option is probably to kick out the monarchy and have a quasi-USish styleé federal system with a president in to deal with foreign affairs and defence and what not, and then each area of the UK having its own parliament to deal with internal affairs. I'm just musing and thinking at the moment though.

I could easily put the same attack back at you that you are on the right etc etc etc so it's a cheap point in my opinion. What is important though is that the institutions that govern our country and legally and constitutionally tight as they hold sovereignty which is no light matter. It is also of course important that the British public have the faith that they carry out their duties in a fair manner. Obviously there is an issue at the moment with the West Lothian question, but we shouldn't opt for a bad solution because the right solution isn't doable yet. Having a parliament within a parliament raises huge constitutional issues that I addressed earlier, far more pressing than the West Lothian question. We'd need separate parliaments and separate elections as the members would have different functions within Westminster otherwise and the government without a majority, but can't be kicked out scenario I mentioned earlier(you could end up with one government on defence and foreign affairs and one for English/Welsh matters within the same parliament which Westminster can't provide for! It'd be a bizarre situation). The best way on balance is probably two separate institutions if Scotland does do devo-max.

Well, it's nice to see that courtesy and politeness remains.

Ahhahahah, no way, I don't have the balls! I am going up to Edinburgh next month though(to see Pandas mainly!), so I'll report back then

It wouldn't be democratic within the current system though. What we would need is a fully devolved English/Welsh parliament to deal with English/Welsh issues otherwise the General Election in Scotland and the electorate mandate they are elected on get tangled up in sovereignty issues and Westminster to deal with Defence and Foreign Affairs. That could work, though I wouldn't want it.

I don't doubt that. We have obviously both had different experiences, we need to find some sort of survey or statistics to settle this. My family and the area they live in are quite moderate though, which would obviously skew my experience of whom I've met!

This isn't even about growing up though, I've visted Scotland enough times and my family are Scottish and I've met enough Scottish people to know that the Scottish(from my experience) do not 'not like the English'.

That would break the system as MPs are elected on manifestos which include UK-wide manifestos. A Scottish constituency voting in a person for a UK-wide party agrees to a manifesto that includes policies that stem the whole UK. Also, if they didn't vote, it could create a scenario where there is a majority party that can form a government, but can't actually get through any policy because it's not allowed to use its scottish MPs, but it can't be defeated in a no confidence vote. It'd be havoc.

I haven't experienced anything of the sort. Most people I have met, even if they are pro-independence aren't rude about England, just think they want to go it alone. But I have only really been to Edinburgh and the surrounding countryside/areas(which is really nice).

Well, whether they believe that or not is irrelevant to the point I was making re tax raising and distribution. Obviously, richer parts will contribute more to the treasuries funds, though Scotland isn't as 'poor' as some people seem to think. They'd get on fine without England, not that I want that to happen!