Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

I think my points on co-dependency are entirely consistent.

As are mine.

[Nearly Sane]

This is an important point - in population density terms, Scotland is far more concentrated in a single area (the central belt) than the UK is, which although London/SE dominates there are major population centres in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and (of course, Glasgow).

So while I fully accept that Scotland currently rails against 'Westminster' rule - in other words, people from down south who don't understand us, there is a risk that an independent Scotland becomes even more centralised, towards the central belt population, to the exclusion of the rest of the country.

The problem is that regardless of how you carve up a country there will always be people who feel disenfranchised because another part of the country, with most of the population, necessarily dominates. And typically that will be where the parliament will be based.

So arguing for a union of the UK for any of the above  is vacuous. What's your argument for the union?

[Nearly Sane]

As are mine.

Not sure I suggested anything different.

[ProfessorDavey]

So arguing for a union of the UK for any of the above  is vacuous. What's your argument for the union?

I'm not a nationalist, neither a UK nationalist nor an English nationalist, nor a Scottish nationalist.

To me the notion of some mythical 'nation' status is an anathema - we should look to determine where in the hierarchy of geography decisions are best taken, without somehow claiming that all levels are equal, but one (the mythical nation state) is more equal than others just doesn't make sense to me. That's why I favour devolved power to regions, and then on to more local communities, but also being a member of the EU, as there are some decisions better taken at a geographic level higher than the UK.

My argument for some decisions being taken at the level of the UK is that it works pretty well within the rule of 10-20 times - in other words that you create political structures where the next biggest step is approx. 10-20 times larger in terms of population, so you neither create layers which are too close to each other in terms of size that they tread on each other's toes, nor too different in size that you create a vacuum in the middle.

But then I'm not a petty nationalist.

[ProfessorDavey]

What's your argument for the union?

Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.

So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.

I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.

Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.

[Outrider]

Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.

So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.

I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.

Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.

Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.

O.

But noting NS's comments previously, wouldn't the same argument be just as true about parts of Scotland and aimed at Holyrood.

Actually Scotland is the most centralised in Europe - so if the argument is that the UK is too centralised on London and the SE, then certainly the evidence from devolution suggests that an independent Scotland would be more centralised than the UK as a whole. So perhaps great for the central belt, not so great for the less populace parts that have been denuded of local democratic power over the past decades, and particularly over the past few years.

It is an interesting (but all too common) foible of nationalists that they rail against centralisation in a distant capital, but when given power are arch centralisers - making decision in a different capital but one just as distant to many of the people they wish to represent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.

O.

Interesting that the arch brexiteers have a similar approach - the fault is the EU, holding back Britain. If only we could get rid of this union but stay in some more distant union (e.g. the Commonwealth).

Ultimately this isn't really about the interests of individuals in the population (or you'd want to distribute power downwards to those people, and also upward when appropriate - e.g. climate policies). Nope it is based on nationalism - effectively a 'faith'-based view that some geographic block (my country) is somehow pre-eminent and must take priority.

It beggars belief that policing across the whole of Scotland is run effectively from Holyrood - the second biggest in the UK. While I can see the argument for one police force for the whole of London (not that they are doing a great job), I simply cannot see how it is a good idea to centralise the whole of policing in Scotland, ranging as it does from inner city drug issues to some of the most remote parts of the UK.

But as I've said it is often in the DNA of nationalists to centralise - as long as it is in 'their' capital city and run by 'their' people.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.

So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.

I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.

Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.

You are fabulous at making up arguments and then arging against yourself. My popcorn investment is safe.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are fabulous at making up arguments and then arging against yourself. My popcorn investment is safe.

I'm not arguing against myself at all - I think I'm pretty consistent. My argument being based on:

1. Not being obsessed by some mythical notion of a nation state which must be the pre-eminent level of governance.
2. Recognising that decisions that affect people are best taken at different geographic levels depending on the decision - so a decision on who to award a contract to cut the grass on a local park is probably best made by people locally, but they are unlikely to be best placed to take decisions on defence (for example).
3. Leading from 2, you want hierarchies of decision-making structures (presumable with democratic mandates) and so that the decisions can be taken at the most appropriate level.
4. That democratic decision-making structure should go above and below the notion of the 'nation-state' and actually I'd prefer the whole notion of the nation state to be blurred so that we don't see it as somehow the most important level, and certainly not become obsessed by it.
5. You decentralise and you shift power up and down as appropriate, making sure that decisions are taken at the most local appropriate level.
6. You don't centralise power unless there is a darned good reason for power to rest at that level - and cos Edinburgh is the capital of our beloved nation state is as poor an argument as cos London is the capital of our beloved nation state.
7. You recognise that some decisions are taken at a level broader than the nation state (which you've blurred anyway). So you want to form unions.
8. You try to avoid a situation where there is too big a gap between one level of democratic governance and another, or too little gap. About 10-20 times in population terms being a good rule of thumb - hence why Scottish devolution (and London devolution makes perfect sense), but an English parliament, alongside a UK parliament makes no sense at all.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not arguing against myself at all - I think I'm pretty consistent. My argument being based on:

1. Not being obsessed by some mythical notion of a nation state which must be the pre-eminent level of governance.
2. Recognising that decisions that affect people are best taken at different geographic levels depending on the decision - so a decision on who to award a contract to cut the grass on a local park is probably best made by people locally, but they are unlikely to be best placed to take decisions on defence (for example).
3. Leading from 2, you want hierarchies of decision-making structures (presumable with democratic mandates) and so that the decisions can be taken at the most appropriate level.
4. That democratic decision-making structure should go above and below the notion of the 'nation-state' and actually I'd prefer the whole notion of the nation state to be blurred so that we don't see it as somehow the most important level, and certainly not become obsessed by it.
5. You decentralise and you shift power up and down as appropriate, making sure that decisions are taken at the most local appropriate level.
6. You don't centralise power unless there is a darned good reason for power to rest at that level - and cos Edinburgh is the capital of our beloved nation state is as poor an argument as cos London is the capital of our beloved nation state.
7. You recognise that some decisions are taken at a level broader than the nation state (which you've blurred anyway). So you want to form unions.
8. You try to avoid a situation where there is too big a gap between one level of democratic governance and another, or too little gap. About 10-20 times in population terms being a good rule of thumb - hence why Scottish devolution (and London devolution makes perfect sense), but an English parliament, alongside a UK parliament makes no sense at all.

The popcorn suppliers cannae take it

[ProfessorDavey]

The popcorn suppliers cannae take it

Yawn.

You could even engage in some discussion, rather than making supercilious (and completely pointless) comments.

[jeremyp]

Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.

O.

Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?

I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn.

You could even engage in some discussion, rather than making supercilious (and completely pointless) comments.

'must not confuse effort with achievement'

[Nearly Sane]

Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?

I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.

And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?

[ProfessorDavey]

Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?

I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.

Absolutely - I think the best approach is 'nested' - Scotland within the UK and the UK within the EU. Shame we don't have that any more.

I also agree with the concept of 'subsidiarity'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Effectively that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level that is consistent with their resolution. This is actually a core principle of the EU, but one that (I think deliberately) was misinterpreted by the media in the UK as being almost exactly the opposite.

But the whole notion of subsidiarity runs counter to a view that some mythical nation state level is somehow the key and most important level. Sadly, neither the UK, nor the Scottish parliaments, seem very keep on subsidiarity, preferring to centralise. And actually the Scottish parliament, under the nationalist, are worse than the UK. And this is expected for nationalists as it is critically important for them to create the impression that their own national level governance is somehow key and superior.

[ProfessorDavey]

And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?

We aren't in the EU because of brexit voters, not because of English voters. I'm an English voter - I voted remain - I'm not to blame for brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

We aren't in the EU because of brexit voters, not because of English voters.

who were in the majority English.

[jeremyp]

And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?

If Scotland is in the EU but England is not, there will have to be a hard border between England and Scotland. This will be between two countries whose businesses had hitherto traded without any kind of hindrance. The damage done would be enormous on both sides.

It will be far better to get the whole UK back into the EU at the first opportunity and that's easier with Scotland than without. I don't think English votes will be a problem on any reasonable time scale.

[Nearly Sane]

Part of me finds it quite emotional. When will Labour in the UK chose a non white male as leader?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65098609

[jeremyp]

who were in the majority English.

The Brexit vote was not a regional vote. Everybody had one vote. PD and I both used our votes for the Remain cause.

Not that it matters because I doubt if Brexiteers could muster a majority in England now. If they could, it might be small enough that the Scottish vote swings it the right way.

[jeremyp]

Part of me finds it quite emotional. When will Labour in the UK chose a non white male as leader?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65098609

Why is skin colour significant?

[Nearly Sane]

If Scotland is in the EU but England is not, there will have to be a hard border between England and Scotland. This will be between two countries whose businesses had hitherto traded without any kind of hindrance. The damage done would be enormous on both sides.

It will be far better to get the whole UK back into the EU at the first opportunity and that's easier with Scotland than without. I don't think English votes will be a problem on any reasonable time scale.

I don't disagree about the impact. Indeed, it's why I would vote no in any indyref2 as I have covered before. Doesn't mean that Scotland wasn't removed from the UK by English votes.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is skin colour significant?

Why did you raise skin colour in reply but not sex?

[Nearly Sane]

Sturgeon on the back benches - and doing her job -   meanwhile Johnson...