Random Stuff!!

[JENNYJET]

Even though devolution exists in name and varied assemblies and representatives have been elected to serve, Westminster has the ultimate power as the government of the United Kingdom to over rule the nations in the name of The Crown as it is the Monarch that chooses the Government to act in his or her name as is the constitutional settlement following the removal of Oliver Cromwell.

I understand it may irritate some people but we live in the United Kingdom which is the vehicle of the Monarchy for the purpose of governance by consent.

 

[Jerry]

Westminster has the ultimate power as the government of the United Kingdom to over rule the nations in the name of The Crown as it is the Monarch that chooses the Government to act in his or her name as is the constitutional settlement following the removal of Oliver Cromwell.

Not in certain areas, that's the whole point of devolution. UK government changing that devolution settlement without the agreement of the devolved administrations is only just going to make the UK more unstable. Not too mention that the devolved administrations were voted for by the people of those countries and they've consistently voted for parties that support devolution and in Wales voted for more powers. UK government doesn't have any democratic mandate to be messing with the powers of the devolved administrations especially without their permission.

 

[JENNYJET]

I perhaps was not clear about ultimacy of powers.. When it comes to commiting UK Forces to military adventures, the members of the Welsh, Scottish and N Irish legislature yield to those elected to Westminster along with the ratification of treaties as the UK Parliament has the primary duty to the Kingdom as a whole and acts for the Monarch as the King or Queen is barred from entry to the Commons chamber and cannot influence deliberations, but IS consulted by the PM through the red boxes or audiences. As already indicated, major projects normally the purview of devolved administrations can be called in by Whitehall if contentious enough. Matters of State have a higher threshold than that of devolution but this may change if Wales becomes a State and the UK becomes a Federal union.

It used to be simple but The United Kingdom is constantly evolving so anything can happen over time.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Not in certain areas, that's the whole point of devolution. UK government changing that devolution settlement without the agreement of the devolved administrations is only just going to make the UK more unstable. Not too mention that the devolved administrations were voted for by the people of those countries and they've consistently voted for parties that support devolution and in Wales voted for more powers. UK government doesn't have any democratic mandate to be messing with the powers of the devolved administrations especially without their permission.

Westminster does have the power to change the devolution settlement in the sense that the transferring of additional powers to the devolved governments is within its gift. Whether the concept recognised by some Christians that 'The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away' applies to the Johnson government in its dealings with the devolved governments of the UK remains to be seen. To plagiarise another Biblical expression, some people believe that the current Westminster government thinks it can walk on water, so who knows what might be attempted?

When the Welsh electorate voted for an assembly in 1997 there had been no great clamour in the country for devolved government. It was more a case of the new Blair Westminster government deciding it knew what was best for Wales. The previous Welsh devolution referendum in 1979 had overwhelmingly rejected the idea.

In the event only 50.2% of the Welsh electorate turned out to vote in the 1997 referendum with just 50.3% of those voting for an assembly and 49.7% voting against the idea. This means that only just over 25% of the electorate wanted an assembly, or at least wanted it enough to turn out and vote, and the day was carried by a majority of fewer than 7,000 votes.

If there was no Welsh Assembly or Government and a referendum into the matter was held now I wonder what the turnout would be and how the vote would go.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has a dedicated minister of Cabinet rank in the Westminster Government in the office of the respective secretaries of state for those countries which provides at least some notional specific representation for them in the UK Parliament (something denied to England which doesn't even have a devolved government but is governed by Westminster with input from MPs from across the UK).

It used to be simple but The United Kingdom is constantly evolving so anything can happen over time.

From having the biggest empire the world has ever known down through decreasing importance as a world power to being part of a European 'club' to resigning from that with the country already part-split into a loose federal association. That's the progression of the UK over the past 120 years or so. Isn't the next step in the process a break-up of the Union with each constituent country going its own way as an independent state?

 

[Jerry]

In the event only 50.2% of the Welsh electorate turned out to vote in the 1997 referendum with just 50.3% of those voting for an assembly and 49.7% voting against the idea. This means that only just over 25% of the electorate wanted an assembly, or at least wanted it enough to turn out and vote, and the day was carried by a majority of fewer than 7,000 votes.

There was a vote in 2011 for more powers where it was 63% yes.
As for whether Wales would've voted for home rule today if it hadn't before had it is hard to judge as the country would be completely different. It would've had 20 years more of politically being Western England so who knows how that would've effected it. I do think politically in general the Welsh people can be a bit apathetic but it does seem for good or bad that is lessening no doubt helped by social media.

 

[JENNYJET]

TLY asks if the next step is a break up of the union etc., possibly, if the respective nations and populace have the requisite patience. It is likely to take the same time that the UK has been in existence to unravel every law, regulation and revisit every legal judgment handed down for effects on each nation and then the dissolution of the Kingdom as is today. The distribution of assets accrued over the life of the UK then follows e.g. Gold, financial instruments, infrastructure etc, and the establishment of new legal structures similar to those of EU since another four nations become independent or more if the Crown Dependencies also go independent, meaning Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, The Falklands and those within the Caribbean and Pacific regions. The empire still exists.

Another consideration is the future status of Her Majesty's realms, namely Canada, Australia and New Zealand plus a few small states nearby. As Monarch, The UK has a considerable footprint and legal responsibilities through the Privy Council, and dissolution will have repercussions.

Hope this helps shed light.

 

[Jerry]

TLY asks if the next step is a break up of the union etc., possibly, if the respective nations and populace have the requisite patience.

I'd expect that there would be essentially a massive transfer of powers via Acts in all the Parliaments similar to the EU process. As for assets any there would be negotiations over them in a similar manner to UK leaving the EU and what you might find is that many assets such as military assets stay with England rather than be shared out amongst the nations. I'd expect that the Crown dependencies would stay under England. As for the likes of Australia and Canada i doubt anything would change for them as the Queen is their head of state and i doubt that will change.

 

[JENNYJET]

Thank you Jerry, a reasoned consideration. I could also have mentioned territorial waters and fishing rights, oil, Gas and so forth but moderators have limited patience for drifting off topic. Re. Crown Dependencies, they are of the Crown and not any other countries. Their status would remain unaltered.

 

[Jerry]

but moderators have limited patience for drifting off topic.

That's why i posted this in the random thread as they can go a bit more off topic than some of the other threads.

 

[JENNYJET]

Thank you Jerry, never too sure once my flow gets going!!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

TLY asks if the next step is a break up of the union etc., possibly, if the respective nations and populace have the requisite patience. It is likely to take the same time that the UK has been in existence to unravel every law, regulation and revisit every legal judgment handed down for effects on each nation and then the dissolution of the Kingdom as is today. The distribution of assets accrued over the life of the UK then follows e.g. Gold, financial instruments, infrastructure etc, and the establishment of new legal structures similar to those of EU since another four nations become independent or more if the Crown Dependencies also go independent, meaning Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, The Falklands and those within the Caribbean and Pacific regions. The empire still exists.

Another consideration is the future status of Her Majesty's realms, namely Canada, Australia and New Zealand plus a few small states nearby. As Monarch, The UK has a considerable footprint and legal responsibilities through the Privy Council, and dissolution will have repercussions.

Hope this helps shed light.

I'd expect that there would be essentially a massive transfer of powers via Acts in all the Parliaments similar to the EU process. As for assets any there would be negotiations over them in a similar manner to UK leaving the EU and what you might find is that many assets such as military assets stay with England rather than be shared out amongst the nations. I'd expect that the Crown dependencies would stay under England. As for the likes of Australia and Canada i doubt anything would change for them as the Queen is their head of state and i doubt that will change.

The same would apply if just Scotland left the UK, leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a smaller union. I remember reading a number of articles in the lead-up to the Scottish Independence referendum that touched on many of those considerations outlined by JENNY.

It won't be straightforward and it certainly won't be easy. Jerry has mentioned one possible path in broad brush stroke terms.

Because things are difficult in life doesn't mean they should not be attempted.

Australia is a country that my wife and I have come to know reasonably well. We've visited most years in the past decade following the emigration of our daughter and her family. There is still significant support for republicanism in Australia, often 50% or more in favour according to polls. However, it's eased slightly in recent years. Part of the reason might be the present Queen's personal stature. If she is succeeded by her eldest son the situation could easily change. Her eldest grandson might have more appeal to the republican waverers.

 

[JENNYJET]

I would not be surprised if a new push for independence in Scotland occurred following Blunderbus Boris succeeds in wrecking Brexit. And the old arguments resume with renewed vigour.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I would not be surprised if a new push for independence in Scotland occurred following Blunderbus Boris succeeds in wrecking Brexit. And the old arguments resume with renewed vigour.

I agree.

Ms Sturgeon is certainly taking full advantage of the situation to strengthen the independence push, and in her position why not? If I was a Scottish first minister committed to independence I would do the same.

 

[JENNYJET]

Quite so, the problem she has is getting round the "once in a lifetime" utterance as a statement of aspiration and not of fact. Even if she is not responsible.

 

[Jerry]

I would not be surprised if a new push for independence in Scotland occurred following Blunderbus Boris succeeds in wrecking Brexit. And the old arguments resume with renewed vigour.

The SNP have already said that they will campaign at the next Holyrood election to get a mandate for a new independence referendum. Plaid Cymru are campaigning for something similar in Wales. The UK government seems determined to give them the ammunition for it.

 

[JENNYJET]

If Mr. Blunderbus wanted a legacy he is doing stirling work. Winning and losing Brexit, breaking the UK and the Bank of England and heaven knows what else, he may eclipse even the Cromwells.

 

[Em0866]

Good to see that not all of BAs 747s won't be heading for scrap

Rossiya to Receive Ex-British Airways Boeing 747s | Airways Magazine

Seven of British Airways' (BA) Boeing 747-400 that are being retired are now going to be inbound to Russian carrier Rossiya (FV).

airwaysmag-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Independence for Wales and Scotland can easily be done. If it can be done well is another matter. I believe there is no business case for either.

Both would need switched on governments in power. I don’t believe any of the current ruling parties for those countries would be able to do it well.

currently i think If votes were held Wales would vote no with scotland voting yes.

 

[bluebols]

Independence for Wales and Scotland can easily be done. If it can be done well is another matter. I believe there is no business case for either.

Both would need switched on governments in power. I don’t believe any of the current ruling parties for those countries would be able to do it well.

currently i think If votes were held Wales would vote no with scotland voting yes.

If Wales were independent there would have been no furlough payments, Mr Drakeford admitted this.

The consequences would have been horrendous. Wales and Scotland need the economic clout of the union.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

If Wales were independent there would have been no furlough payments, Mr Drakeford admitted this.

The consequences would have been horrendous. Wales and Scotland need the economic clout of the union.

yes i agree, Wales would struggle to have raised the furlough money. They basically would of had to borrow it at higher interest rates than what the Current UK government can.

I totally get the arguments for independent Scotland and Wales and if the UK government took a long hard look and fixed the union A lot of problems would be eliminated.

perhaps one way would be to give the UK nations complete autonomy, maintain free movement and leave foreign affairs and defence at a higher level. Scotland basically have this now.