Manufacturing an unnecessary argument
When the Prime Minister responded to the Scottish referendum result, he said that we should not look at a fair constitutional settlement for all four parts of the United Kingdon.
He was right to do so.
However, the promises made to the Scottish people must be hunoured.
These two views are not imcompatible, and those people who are starting to suggest there might be a danger that the promises made during the referendum might not be honoured are jumping the gun.
Downing Street sources told the BBC's political correspondent Ross Hawkins that although Mr Cameron had said that devolution over the whole UK should be discussed on the same timetable as that for Scotland, implementation of the promises made to Scotland would not be held up by progress on devolution for the rest of the UK: 10 sources made clear that "the one is not conditional upon the other".
David Cameron wants to give the peoples of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and, yes, England more control of their own affairs without breaking up the British family of nations and it is surely right that we look at the picture of the UK as a whole in doing so. Don't lets forget that DC had a fundamentally sound reason for not making "Devo-max" part of the Scottish referendum and it was this.
The decision on whether Scotland left the UK had to be a matter for the people of Scotland. The decision on what level of devolution exists within the UK has to be a decision for the whole of the UK.
A Scot who does not support devolution pointed out to me this morning with a great deal of justice that people like him feel totally marginalised by what has just happened - there was no way to vote for the status quo even if you lived in Scotland, and no way for anyone else to express any view at all about what kind of UK we want. That is a genuine problem.
The fact remains that all three UK party leaders made a set of solemn promises, they had good reasons to make those promises, and they have to honoured if the political system is to retain any credibility. I believe they will be.
We can, and should discuss how the new structure for the whole of the UK will work at the same time as we discuss how to implement the promises made to Scotland without making good faith on the implementation of those promises conditional on reaching agreement on how to provide similar reform in England.
One of the other things my Scottish friend said to me this morning is that we all ought to calm down and proceed on the basis of sober reflection. I think that is very good advice indeed.
He was right to do so.
However, the promises made to the Scottish people must be hunoured.
These two views are not imcompatible, and those people who are starting to suggest there might be a danger that the promises made during the referendum might not be honoured are jumping the gun.
Downing Street sources told the BBC's political correspondent Ross Hawkins that although Mr Cameron had said that devolution over the whole UK should be discussed on the same timetable as that for Scotland, implementation of the promises made to Scotland would not be held up by progress on devolution for the rest of the UK: 10 sources made clear that "the one is not conditional upon the other".
David Cameron wants to give the peoples of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and, yes, England more control of their own affairs without breaking up the British family of nations and it is surely right that we look at the picture of the UK as a whole in doing so. Don't lets forget that DC had a fundamentally sound reason for not making "Devo-max" part of the Scottish referendum and it was this.
The decision on whether Scotland left the UK had to be a matter for the people of Scotland. The decision on what level of devolution exists within the UK has to be a decision for the whole of the UK.
A Scot who does not support devolution pointed out to me this morning with a great deal of justice that people like him feel totally marginalised by what has just happened - there was no way to vote for the status quo even if you lived in Scotland, and no way for anyone else to express any view at all about what kind of UK we want. That is a genuine problem.
The fact remains that all three UK party leaders made a set of solemn promises, they had good reasons to make those promises, and they have to honoured if the political system is to retain any credibility. I believe they will be.
We can, and should discuss how the new structure for the whole of the UK will work at the same time as we discuss how to implement the promises made to Scotland without making good faith on the implementation of those promises conditional on reaching agreement on how to provide similar reform in England.
One of the other things my Scottish friend said to me this morning is that we all ought to calm down and proceed on the basis of sober reflection. I think that is very good advice indeed.
Comments
Devo-Max is effectively what was offered, with no consent or mandate from the bill payers in England, Wales or Northern Ireland at all. The question was changed in the final few days from Status Quo - Salmond's plan? into Devo Max - Salmaonds Plan?, I think this was a knee jerk reaction from those Salmond was calling "team Westminster".
A lot of the promises seemed to becoming from an individual whom shall not be named, Just showing the amazing mandate of such promises.
The fact of the matter is not so much "should the promises be honored?" - As the only answer is yes, I guess they will have to be now.
The real sting is the tail is "should the promises have ever been made in the first place?" and to that there is a resounding NO, at least not without asking the people of the UK affected by these promises, which of course is all of them.
I'm all for devolution, but I mean devolution to the people, Not power passing from a a top down layer of politicians, to another lot of top down politicans (all may they sit in a more "local" building.
If an assisant shop keeper in B&Q decided to say "ok, now I know you are looking at the blue lawnmower, but if you buy the red one i will throw in this Hedge trimmer, this strimmer and this Gazebo" I have a feeling the manager at the B&Q store my be rightly a bit upset at this. Would the customer get the deal? - well very probably to keep the customer and for business reputation.
Though i have a feeling the assistent shop keeper may be in more than a little bit of trouble.
in the same way, I think many people have every right to be upset with the knee jerk antics of the "No campaign" be those English, Welsh, Northern Ireland or indeed those in Scotland who had their preferential vote removed at the last minute.
The reason I mentioned above on the handling of the Scotland referendum campaign, also one of the key promises of the Tory party is to hold an In/Out referendum on continued membership of the EU.
This may well influence a lot of voters, however, its based on a re-negotiation tactic. The thing is though, the GE dawns ever closer and as yet the has not been any sort of comment on exactly "what will be negotiated" I.e - Specifically what powers need to be re-repatriated to the UK. What is are to be the Key areas of negotiation, and where is the line between a negotiation being successful or not, And if its not successful will the party move to campaign for OUT?
of course. until we know what the re-negotiation is to involve, then how can voters think to make a desision on this key peice of Conservative policy.
Its not going to give voters much confidence if its not announced soon, before the run up to the GE.
Just in my opinion DC ran scared in the run up to the Scottish referendum, so offered tax powers and things as a panic measure, what will he do when facing the EU commission?, walk away with a slight tweak to the packaging of Breakfast Cereals directive and call that a successful re-negotiation of "Europe"?
Trust in politicians is currently at an all time low, so, in the next few weeks my advise would be to start putting meat on the bones of the promises made, and a clear statement that these demands will not change at the last minute
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1462090.ece
looks like the cabinet had no idea about it either
I agree that we must give the public before the election a good idea of what sort of reform a Conservative government would try to negotiate. The challenge is to do that without giving away so much detail of our negotiating position as to compromise our chances of getting the best deal on offer.
Now is that the best man to get the deal the UK needs? when up against 27 member states and the EU commission?
You can almost see them now, sitting smiling and thinging come on Britain, send forth your lamb to the slaughter.
this could cost the General Election, which wont destroy the referendum, only postpone it. Unless we get a clear idea of what must be returned to the UK, and what will happen if they are not (ie the Conservative party will back the no side, and withdraw under article 50 if the vote is an OUT)
And right now, with the other siblings DC is the "parent" on the hook for falling for it.
I will tell you for nothing the EU commission will not risk the angry child in a family of 27, and will tell you that, when the other 27 each can revert any negotiation, then he has no chance.
Enough of the games already, Do the conservative party want the UK to stay a member of the EU as it is now, or not? that is the honest question, we know it wont change, it cant, its doing exactly that which its designed to to, "Ever Closer Union" The voters are not stupid.
Develoving more decisions to Scotland is not necessarily incompatible with develolving more to England, Wales and NI if we can work out how to do so.
Exactly the same applies to the position of member states within the EU.
Most of the EU do not want Britain to leave, particularly Germany who would be left as the sole main net contributor.
If what we were asking for was a higher share of the EU budget, I think you analysis would be spot on. But we are asking for more autonomy for all member states - and granting more autonomy to Britain not only does not preclude other states getting it as well, in fact it almost certainly means that they will.
It is worth fighting our corner.