Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[aeolium]

Though I am no admirer of Alex Salmond (and especially of his dealings with Trump and Murdoch), this is imo an interesting statement of the pro-independence case:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/alex-salmond-why-should-scotland-let-itself-be-ruled-tories

[french frank]

It's a good argument - and is nearly as strong for Wales (and possibly - just - for N. Ireland). What about the regions of England?

[Flosshilde]

Though I am no admirer of Alex Salmond (and especially of his dealings with Trump and Murdoch), this is imo an interesting statement of the pro-independence case:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/...e-ruled-tories

It's a good argument - and is nearly as strong for Wales (and possibly - just - for N. Ireland). What about the regions of England?

It is an excellent statement of the argument that lies at the heart of the campaign for independence, & has done from the start (of the current campaign).

[aeolium]

It's a good argument - and is nearly as strong for Wales (and possibly - just - for N. Ireland). What about the regions of England?

Here is a case if not for independence at least for greater devolution for Wales. I think peace in Northern Ireland is too fragile to be upset by talk of independence especially when the separatist/unionist cases are so inextricably interwoven with ancient sectarian hostilities. As to English regionalism, I'm not sure there is any kind of regional consciousness (Kernow perhaps?) though proper powers at local government level rather than the central stranglehold we have now would be welcome - I like the German federal system.

[french frank]

I like the German federal system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm

:-)

"People are fed up with being dictated to from Westminster but they don't want a toothless talking shop as offered by the Labour Party."

:-/

[aeolium]

I think English regions are simply too large and amorphous for people to feel any kind of attachment to them (rather than smaller localities, counties or towns) and in the case of that particular referendum they probably thought it was just another layer of powerless local government. And that's the problem with local government - responsibility without much power (or, increasingly, much money) so they get caught in the middle between central government stamping down on them and local people who expect more than they can deliver - as with the flooding.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think English regions are simply too large and amorphous for people to feel any kind of attachment to them (rather than smaller localities, counties or towns) and in the case of that particular referendum they probably thought it was just another layer of powerless local government. And that's the problem with local government - responsibility without much power (or, increasingly, much money) so they get caught in the middle between central government stamping down on them and local people who expect more than they can deliver - as with the flooding.

But what if Parliament were made solely for England (and Wales, initially)? Would not this encourage greater local interest - greater closeness to local and national government - and re-validate the independence question in practical terms?

[aeolium]

But what if Parliament were made solely for England (and Wales, initially)? Would not this encourage greater local interest - greater closeness to local and national government - and re-validate the independence question in practical terms?

No, I don't think Scottish MPs' participation in the Westminster government is of any significance in the way people in English/Welsh constituencies view local and national government. I'm not sure why people are so apathetic about local government but it must have something to do with the sense that they don't have the powers or the resources to improve people's lives (and also a suspicion of corruption which is also justified in some cases). If local government was able to make significant decisions about things like planning and had more control over tax-raising then things might be different.

[MrGongGong]

I'm not sure why people are so apathetic about local government .

Surely its for the same reasons that people are so pissed of with the whole of politics?
Local politics is dominated by the same old nonsense that people find so tedious in Westminster.
It's not that people are apathetic about the real issues but maybe more that they have the sense to realise that none of those involved have any intelligence or ability.
Politicians in the media keep making the same mistakes of thinking that because young people (for example) don't vote FOR political parties that somehow they are uninterested in society as a whole. This is, IMV, a huge misunderstanding of how people think. People in their 20's are more likely to set up a soup kitchen to feed people who are homeless than they are to join a political party to try and change things that way. And it seems to me that acting directly is in many ways is a much more intelligent and sane thing to do.

[Flosshilde]

People in their 20's are more likely to set up a soup kitchen to feed people who are homeless than they are to join a political party to try and change things that way. And it seems to me that acting directly is in many ways is a much more intelligent and sane thing to do.

That's the problem, isn't it? Setting up a soup kitchen doesn't really solve the underlying reason for people being homeless, does it? In the system we have now, imperfect though it might be, the only way to solve that is through parliamentary action; that will only happen if people vote in elections, or stand for election. Setting up soup kitchens, voting, joining (or forming) a political party aren't mutually exclusive. If people say that there's no point in voting then they can't be surprised if people they don't like are elected.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's the problem, isn't it? Setting up a soup kitchen doesn't really solve the underlying reason for people being homeless, does it? In the system we have now, imperfect though it might be, the only way to solve that is through parliamentary action; that will only happen if people vote in elections, or stand for election. Setting up soup kitchens, voting, joining (or forming) a political party aren't mutually exclusive. If people say that there's no point in voting then they can't be surprised if people they don't like are elected.

Fine as far as it goes. Real change can only come about if such legislation is backed up by a strong power base, and action outside. The problem is in saying, vote every four or however many years, then leaving it up to them to legislate change: it engenders passivity.

[Flosshilde]

Agreed - but in its way so does the 'voting doesn't change anything but opening a soup kitchen/camping outside St Paul's Cathedral does' idea. They have to be part of a larger whole. In its way the hard slog of lobbying & campaigning with parliament & MPs etc that does change things.

[french frank]

People in their 20's are more likely to set up a soup kitchen to feed people who are homeless than they are to join a political party to try and change things that way.

I'll believe that when I see verified statistics. I'd say there are more members on the Young Labour Exec than there are soup kitchens set up by 20-somethings.

And it seems to me that acting directly is in many ways is a much more intelligent and sane thing to do.

It can alleviate some problems on a small scale: it doesn't go to the root cause. But it's chicken-and-egg situation: my guess is that the majority of the people who moan about the rottenness of the system don't want to make any real effort to tackle problems from inside.

But throwing eggs at people in stocks is much more fun than being one of the tiny minority trudging away trying to improve matters. Especially when such people get no enouragement for doing so, but are lumped in with all the rest of the rottenness. Whereas IF everyone joined a party - or even invented one of their own - and spent a substantial part of their free time trying to create change, things might happen. But that isn't of any interest to most people - even those who would benefit from help.

[aeolium]

The thing is that there are huge numbers of clubs, societies, voluntary organisations all over the country where people are working to improve different aspects of the community - that has been going on for ages and long predates Cameron's "Big Society" idea. Sadly people don't generally see political parties as being vehicles for the improvement of society and that is why their membership has declined so precipitously. There are several reasons for this. One is the centralisation of control which has massively increased in every political party, partly for media management, and local members have far less influence on policy. Another is the homogenisation of political parties which all gravitate towards that mythical centre ground, though in practice it has resulted in all the major ones subscribing to an economic philosophy which is not particularly attractive to the general public: privatisation, a lightly regulated free market, tolerance of high levels of inequality and support for "welfare reform" which is a euphemism for very regressive policies harming the poor and vulnerable. And of course there is the image of local and national politicians on the make: the expenses scandal, private enrichment of local councillors, the revolving door, the lobbying scandals, the politicians putting themselves up for hire. These all, perhaps disproportionately and unfairly, debase the image of the local and national politician but it's understandable why relatively few people of talent and integrity are attracted to the political world.

[MrGongGong]

That's the problem, isn't it? Setting up a soup kitchen doesn't really solve the underlying reason for people being homeless, does it? In the system we have now, imperfect though it might be, the only way to solve that is through parliamentary action; that will only happen if people vote in elections, or stand for election. Setting up soup kitchens, voting, joining (or forming) a political party aren't mutually exclusive. If people say that there's no point in voting then they can't be surprised if people they don't like are elected.

I think you (like most politicians and those involved in parties) miss the point completely
People are fed up with the WHOLE THING
it doesn't work

There really is no point in voting because the system has evolved in such a way that only people with a particular world view will ever get elected. THAT'S what so many people are pissed off about.

The argument that so often comes out that if you don't vote you have no right to complain is ridiculous. Where I (and many other people) live there is NO choice, there's nothing to be done and even if I moved or decided to waste my life trying to be a politician there is nothing you can do against the tide that really controls things.
It's not even (as some might imagine) a case of Capitalism vs Socialism

People are fed up with the whole charade because they can see it for what it is.

To use the parlance of the teenagers I was making music with today "it's fucked"
which means that one has to simply get on with doing what one does as well as possible rather than despair

But throwing eggs at people in stocks is much more fun than being one of the tiny minority trudging away trying to improve matters

In my experience the people who are trying to improve things are more likely to grow wings and fly than get involved in a political party. I have met some extraordinary organisations working with the most disillusioned and disenfranchised people who have an ethos that goes beyond the superficial crap that politicians spout.