Then and now (scandalous)

"Having played hard and fast with the Union to Scotland’s benefit..."

The only reason that Labour instituted devolution was to stop the SNP and create what they assumed would be a permanent Holyrood (and Cardiff) gravy train for their second string politicians and a nice retirement home for those Labour politicians who had given up the hurly-burly of Westminster.

It should read:

"Having played hard and fast with the Union for Labour's benefit..."

Brown would prefer a Scottish economic wasteland full of Labour voting benefit claimants within the Union over a successful independent Scotland any day of the week.

Doug, Since I know where you are coming from, I can see that's a fair-ish comment - what with you thinking that devolution was intended to stop nationalism dead in its tracts, or at the least, forestall separatism.

Nevertheless, viewed from down here devolution has provided benefits to Scotland that we English do not enjoy, so you will appreciate that it looks to us very much like a Scot doing for Scotland what he won't countenance for England. And there's a reason for that, it is.

Ulterior motives don't change the facts of the case.

In the general election in 1992 Plaid Cymru won four seats and the SNP three seats out of a possible of 112 seats. As the nationalist parties were hemmed in by the Westminister FPTP system isn’t it a bit simplistic to say that the only reason Labour introduced devolution was to stop the SNP? How about ‘We voted Labour we got Thatcher’? That is what Ron Davies claims converted him to the cause of devolution.

We voted Conservative, we got Brown.

Hi Toque:

The Barnett formula provides the only differential in funding between Scotland and England and it does give a higher level of funding but the baseline block grant is based entirely on the spend in England and all the "goodies" such as free prescriptions that excite a segment of the English press are all paid for by savings somewhere else in the budget.

"...so you will appreciate that it looks to us very much like a Scot doing for Scotland what he won’t countenance for England."

I do appreciate that, but remember that the Barnett formula and the Scottish Parliament were reactive not proactive and are essentially a bribe and a safety valve to keep Scotland in the Union.

Though Gordon's actions may look like a Scot feather-bedding Scotland they are the actions of a British nationalist trying to keep the union together. At the moment a parliament in England is not good for the Union in Gordon's reckoning so you're not going to get one.

The impact of the recession on the voting in Glenrothes may be bad news for Scotland because if Gordon thinks that the poorer and more economically insecure Scots are the more likely they are to turn to Labour he's going to do his best to make them poor and insecure.

Many people in England seem to regard Gordon Brown as a some form of Scottish Nationalist but Gordon Brown doesn't give a toss for Scotland apart from as a repository of Labour MP's for his British Government.

Toque:

"We voted Conservative, we got Brown."

If you're talking about England generally, erm...no.

England voted Labour in the 2005 GE with an overall majority for Labour in England of 286 over all the rest at 243. A majority of 43.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/seats.htm

Hendre:
The problem in FPTP is that once any party gets above a certain percentage in the polls the opposition parties start going down like nine-pins. Labour didn't want to let the SNP get anywhere near that magic figure and threaten their one party state gravy train in Scotland. It wasn't the numbert of seats that was the problem it was the potential future support they wanted to stop.

Doug, as you know full well there were more people in England that voted Conservative in 2005 than there were people that voted Labour.

I think Gordon Brown does give a toss for Scotland, he is just different from you in that he thinks it's better off in the UK. I agree that he's a British nationalist.

However, I don't really give a crap what he thinks, that's a matter for him and his constituents. The matter that concerns me is the small matter of the constitutional privileges he has granted Scotland but denied to England. It's not his motives or reasoning that interest me, it's his downright hypocrisy.

Well, it’s safe to say the Conservatives know what it feels like to go down like nine-pins in Wales and Scotland! I’m not so sure that the Labour Party in Scotland were guarding against such a propsect in 1997.

The old Labour/nationalist turf wars may well have remained a preoccupation for Labour in opposition throughout the 1980s and 1990s but I think the ‘killing nationalism stone dead’ narrative of devolution tends to underestimate such factors as de-industrialisation / over-centralisation / deficiencies of adminstrative devolution / quangoism / the problems of one-partism which some in Labour were prepared to address.

Doug
Toque said...We voted Coservative, we got Brown.
You replied...If your talking about England generally, erm...no.
Sorry if we are talking about England generally, erm...Yes.

8,116,005 English votes returned 194 Coservative MP's.
8,043,461 English votes returned 286 Labour MP's
It needed 41,835 votes for a conservative MP
IT only needed 28,123 votes for a Labour MP.

The Conservatives won the popular vote by a majority of 72,544 votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

Toque:

"It’s not his motives or reasoning that interest me, it’s his downright hypocrisy."

Fair enough, what he said then and what he says now are as different as chalk and cheese but then devolution was not tainted by the threat of Scottish independence and the happy, cosy, cartel of Labour in Scotland was not under threat from the SNP.

He's got no principles, just a desire to keep Labour in power and if that means lying, changing his mind or trashing the entire UK he's prepared to do it.

Robert:

In Scotland in the 2005 GE:

907,249 Scottish Votes returned 40 Labour MP's.
412,267 Scottish Votes returned 6 SNP MP's.

You think you've got it bad?

Dougthedoug wrote:

'The Barnett formula provides the only differential in funding between Scotland and England and it does give a higher level of funding but the baseline block grant is based entirely on the spend in England and all the “goodies” such as free prescriptions that excite a segment of the English press are all paid for by savings somewhere else in the budget.'

No Doug. You Jocks have been offering such rubbish in response to our complaints for years and got away with it. We've heard it all before and we're no longer prepared to sit quietly by and smile while you insult us with your self-serving, disingenuous tripe. The disproportionately large amount given to Sc*tland is not only not based on what is spent in England, it is further inflated by a proportion of whatever is spent in England (even though such expenditure may be of benefit to Britain entire rather than just England), from within, as well as supplementary to, the disproportionately low Barnett allocation, on essential infrastructure projects, whether they are required in Sc*tland or not. In addition, not only are there no 'savings somewhere else in the budget', there is so much English money swilling about in Scotch coffers that the Scotch 'government' actually has an overseas aid budget, as well as the authority to represent British interests overseas.

Further, since Brown is a signatory to the Scotch claim of right you really cannot get away with writing tosh such as:

'The only reason that Labour instituted devolution was to stop the SNP and create what they assumed would be a permanent Holyrood (and Cardiff) gravy train for their second string politicians and a nice retirement home for those Labour politicians who had given up the hurly-burly of Westminster.'

Lastly: We in England do not 'regard Gordon Brown as a some form of Scottish Nationalist ... '. We regard him as just another useless, grasping Scotch cunt intent on destroying our ancient homeland and we're looking forward to the day we can kick him, and the rest of you whingeing and incompetent ingrates back to bonny bloody Sc*tland for ever.

My apologies to you Toque for abusing, yet again, your hospitality.

I think Gordon Brown is a scottish nat pretending to love britain. once he's bankrupted England , imposed the euro and dragged us into europe, then he'll walk away to an independent bonnie scotland mission accomplished

Gruff:

...and we’re looking forward to the day we can kick him, and the rest of you whingeing and incompetent ingrates back to bonny bloody Sc*tland for ever.

The quickest way to get that done is to send money to the SNP. £50 quid would be a good start.

tally:

I think Gordon Brown is a scottish nat...

Sigh...

Gordon MUST care for Scotland more than England. That's why he swiped £2bn from the English NHS in his last act as Chancellor but left his own country's intact.

From the Financial Times:

"Gordon Brown quietly slashed by a third this year’s hospital building and equipment budget in one of his last acts as chancellor.

Prompted by the tightness of the public finances, the new prime minister, who has placed the NHS as his “immediate priority”, cut the capital budget of the English NHS for 2007-08 from £6.2bn to £4.2bn. The move could delay the government’s hospital building and reconfiguration programme in England.

However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets even though the funding formula for the UK nations suggests they should have shared the pain. That decision leaves him open to criticism that he favoured patients in his home country."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7a994d0-2677-11dc-8e18-000b5df10621.html?ncli...

Gordon Brown does favour over England - he's shown it numerous times.

The final sentence of my last post should read "Gordon Brown does favour Scotland over England - he’s shown it numerous times".

It should read:

“Having played hard and fast with the Union for Labour’s benefit…”

And [new] labour represents whom exactly? It DOES NOT represent the English nation!