This has just come to light although the amendment was passed before Christmas.
According to Mike Weir’s response Amendment 54 was introduced at the last minute and voted upon by the House of Unelected Representatives.
As much as I disagree in part with the Scottish Government’s renewables policy, I find it astonishing that Westminster can remove powers with such audacity and without appeal.
A similar tactic was used by Tony Blair when he moved the line of Scottish waters to level with Carnoustie, although his cloak and dagger behaviour happened in the House of Commons.
Who would want to be part of the UK when the current Big Brother government acts in such a manner?
If the answer to the referendum is No, then Westminster politicians will have a field day asset stripping Scotland and leaving the Scottish Parliament little more that a parish council. Thus making Tony Blair’s dream come true.
Posts
16 comments:
Rosie,
I share your outrage, but I am secretly pleased. Councils in Scotland (particularly here in Aberdeenshire) have been fawning all over the green nutters for the last few years. Turbines litter the countryside in every direction that I look.
But before you condemn the HoL, take another look at Holyrood. There is no Upper Chamber and I dread to think what the post-independence govt will emit with no-one scrutinising the legislation.
No checks, no balances. It is a recipe for disaster.
CR.
I completely agree.
Regardless of the subject matter I have to ask myself what the hell any of it has to do with a House consisting of aristocrats, English churchmen, old politicians and rejected politicians, and people with enough money to buy elevation to the aristocracy by bribing whichever spiv is sitting in Downing Street.
Whether or not one agrees with the policy, these people are in what is supposed to be a revising chamber. Why can they introduce legislation? And what will it be next?
And how is it that any house anywhere can take away power granted following a referendum without first putting it to Scottish representatives? There are no pro independence representatives in the house of peers as the SNP and Scottish Socialists do not try to buy peerages. They don't have an even slightly balanced debate.
If people are stupid enough to vote NO, god help us.
The UK will take what they can; powers back to Westminster, or to local authorities, dismantle the Barnett Formula leaving us £4-7 billions poorer and subsidising the UK even more than we do at the moment. They may even move the the border again, perhaps to Inverness...well, why not? Ridiculous yes, but then so was Carnoustie, and that happened. It's fair to say that that happened under a Labour government in the UK and a largely Labour government in Edinburgh, but buoyed by a NO vote, heaven knows what the Eton Spiv will think he can get away with.
Tris,
Whether we get raped by Westminster or by Brussels, we will still be violated. Saying 'No' in September is not reserved for the stupid. I will be saying no and I do not consider myself to be stupid, just a little choosy on which unelected shower of gibbons will govern us.
Like I said earlier: ANY Upper Chamber is better than none. It certainly beats being ruled by committee, which is what we have to endure from Holyrood today.
CR.
I guess that we profoundly disagree on Europe to start with, Captain.
I have worked with European funding (indeed it paid my salary in different projects involving tourism, job creation and training schemes). I know the UK pays more into the EU than it takes out, but the money that then came back from the EU was far more fairly distributed… it went to help projects designed to help poorer people in less well off areas, as opposed to being spent on tax cuts for the rich, and expensive train, sewerage and motorways for the SE of England and London in particular. Had the money not gone first to Brussels, it would not have ended up in Dundee in the council estates paying for training for poor people.
So, although there is much wrong with the EU, as there is with every system of government in the world (I’m sure even the Icelandic parliament could be more efficient), I prefer it to the utterly undemocratic British system where we have:
a) An unelected and hereditary monarch living in incredible luxury, which is completely removed from any kind of reality and with real and tangible power in the government of the country (contrary to what we have always been led to believe).
b) A house of unelected aristocrats comprising people who are there by right of birth, people who represent one religious faith only, people who have been rejected by the electorate, but are liked by the prime minister of the day, and people who can afford to bribe political parties with cash, in return for a title (which gets you the best seats anywhere in London), a guaranteed £300 a day tax free for life, and a say, no matter how stupid you may be, in the running of the country. Not only that but we know from investigations that large numbers of them are as bent as the day is long, turning up to sign in and in short order, disappearing out the door to get on with more exciting projects.
c) A house where around 3/4 of the seats almost never change hands because of the farcical FPTP system which often means people elected have less than 1/3 of the votes cast in the constituency. These people are then whipped (using all manner of threats including violence it is said) to vote the way the leader of their party says. And, it should be noted, who also appear in vast numbers to steal money from taxpayers, although the Daily Telegraph may have curbed that slightly.
It is almost impossible to believe the lack of democracy in Britain. In the last election the parties got the following (approximate) votes: Tories 10 million; Labour 8 million and Liberals 6 million. How did we end up with the seat distribution that we did, far from a ration 10 :8:6.
It was deemed unnecessary by the British parliament to give the Scots a second chamber because the more democratic voting system of Holyrood militated against the likelihood of there ever being a majority government. Indeed I doubt that there will be one again. In every parliament except the current one there has had to be either a coalition which puts breaks on dictatorial government or a minority government which of course can only get measures through by compromise.
I agree that there has to be some check on a dictatorial prime/first minister, but a house of unelected toffs is hardly a democratic solution.
You will of course vote for what you believe in, as will I. I want a better future for Scotland and I believe that this will be best procured by us behaving like the small unimportant country we are, looking after our own affairs like other small countries, instead of being part of a somewhat faded imperial power, with the fourth largest military spend in the world while its people starve or freeze to death because people like David Cameron, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Willie Hague and Jack Straw think that they have the right to run the world at America’s right hand.
I shouldn't expect objectivity from Ranty Tris. His sort have the set in aspic mind set that will never be changed, not by dynamite and especially not by such a mundane thing as logic.
Want a bet he latches onto only one aspect of what you say there and ignores all the rest and the overall gist. Thats if he answers at all that is!!
There are several interesting aspects to this topic -
Firstly, as has been stated on more than one occasion, much criticism surrounds the Scottish Governments misguided fervour for renewable energy.
We should therefore be grateful that a revising chamber has, not before time, put the brakes on the excesses of the SNP’s political dogma.
As for a second chamber, there is certainly an argument to be had as to whether any such revising chamber should be based upon unelected, privilege and patronage or on a more democratically elected system. Whatever that argument might bring forth, the need for a revising second chamber is without question.
Thirdly and somewhat sadly, there as a growing and unpleasant tendency amongst the ‘Yes’ campaigners to infer that those who would wish to curb the excesses, or even criticise the SNP government are either mad, bad or dangerous to know.
Now is not the time to set Scot against Scot, regardless of our individual opinion.
Tris (and The Doubter, Munguin),
I don't mind answering at all.
You raise some fantastic points and I will do what I can to address them.
First off, yes, we disagree on the EU. Whilst I think it is a massive waste of my money and yours, that is not my biggest issue. I left a link here a couple of weeks ago in which the EU declares its true intention: to create a United States of Europe. 500 million people that have (between them) 30 different cultures and we are all supposed to follow the same (unchallenged) edicts from the unelected in Brussels? No thanks.
Points a, b, and c, I cannot fault. You are spot on and I believe that the palace of Westminster needs to be burnt to the ground, and the earth salted so that it never grows back. It is an abomination.
Your second to last paragraph taught me things I never knew, and I thank you for that. I fully agree, monkeys dressed in ermine do not float my boat, but over the years I have seen them stop some awful legislation from becoming law. They are not entirely useless, but I know this is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Lastly, I want what you want. A truly independent Scotland. Between the 5.2 million of us, we can do it. We can go it alone. But that is not up for discussion, is it? This referendum in September is conditional. We either vote for independence and get the EU as well, or we say no and keep the absurd system we have now.
We are between a rock and a hard place, but of the two choices, I am sticking with the awful, the cringe-making, completely undemocratic Westminster system. I am well used to the shackles and I have no desire to swap them for rusty, ill-fitting, even nastier shackles from the EU.
Looking back, I think the closest we got to a democratic parliament was the first one in 1265, formed by De Montfort. Mind you, they were clueless then (it took them over two years to draft their first law-nowadays Westminster spits them out at a rate of 30 per day) and they are clueless now.
I don't know how we achieve independence but I know for sure it isn't by swapping one master for another.
CR.
How come we don't get a vote?
You'd be gone in a second.
A country which once gave us the likes of James Clerk Maxwell....
All things must pass.
Ranty, it was mainly the removal of power rather than the actual policy with which I disagree.
Like you I know this global warming, climate change or whatever they want to call it, is a scam and has created nothing by way of jobs.
Good point about another chamber in the SP. We’re told committees are the equivalent but I disagree.
Hi Tris. This is possibly the beginning of more of the same before September. Just in case...
Tris, I disagree that money from Westminster has never been given to Dundee burghers to use to help with training of the unemployed. Many years ago I ran a few projects doing that very thing. The problem was the council argued about providing the money because it wasn’t ring fenced.
How much money do you think we lose now by the time money goes to Brussels and back again? The admin itself is very costly.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a majority Scottish government again. The stupid souls who thought they were being smart with their election process got it wrong.
Tris, Ranty is prepared to change his mind, but the EU question is causing lots to decide upon the status quo. Sadly.
Munguin, that’s quite a remark when I doubt if you’re a regular reader of Ranty’s blog.
You’re so off the mark you are.
Well said JRB. I’m beginning to notice that trying to discuss certain parts of the Bill with some SNP members is nigh impossible.
Thanks for that response Ranty. I wonder if Munguin will have the courtesy to apologise for his assumption.
I would give you a vote if I were First Minister Rightwinggit. :)
No Mr Munguin then?
Shame.
CR.
Post a Comment