The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Parliament

  • Of parliament’s ‘ayes’ and ‘nays’

    SIR: In some nations of the world including Nigeria, it is the usual tradition and practice for lawmakers to adopt voice vote by adopting the use of ayes (yes) and nays (no) in taking decisions on important matters during parliamentary sessions. Section 56 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides that questions posed in the Senate or House of Representatives shall be determined by simple majority of the members present by voting. Similarly, Rule 72 of the Senate Standing Order recognizes three modes of voting namely: voice votes, signing of register in a division and electronic device. The rule also applies to the Lower Chamber of the National Assembly, the House of Representatives.

    These modes of voting can further be sub-divided into two; the recorded votes and unrecorded votes. Voice votes fall into the unrecorded category, while division and electronic voting are classified as recorded votes. Rule 71(3)(4) specifically states that the President of the Senate or chairman of the legislative house, at the conclusion of the debate, will ensure that votes shall be taken by voices of ayes and nays while the result shall be declared by the presiding officer. Due to the observed discrepancies in the approach, there is the need for our parliament to embrace the use of technology, move away from avoidable acrimony and be more accountable to the people who empowered them.

    Although few advanced democracies still rely on the voice vote mode, its disadvantages outnumber the merits. The first demerit of voice vote option is the inability to record votes thus preventing the electorate from knowing their representatives’ voting patterns and know whether it is in tandem with expectations. This practice has also made it difficult for the citizenry to assess their legislators in terms of performance. Secondly, it does not show sophistication and decorum. Many people are of the opinion that a more decent way of taking parliamentary decisions should be evolved. Thirdly, declaring voice vote’s result is usually unscientific, prone to manipulation and rather based on the opinion and discretion of the presiding officer and not on what really transpired.

    There have been cases where clearly the ‘ayes have it’ but the presiding officer chooses to do the opposite by declaring that the ‘nays have it’. What is then democratic about this practice that we should still be using it? Should bills or motions affecting the general public be reduced and subjected to the whim and caprices of the presiding officer? Certainly, this type of voting pattern has the tendency to breed lawlessness and disorderliness. Most crises that had broken out in our legislative chambers have been found to be ignited by the outcome of the voice votes of members that are not in agreement with others causing open confrontation.

    On the other hand, division as an alternative is commonly used when lawmakers have the cause to challenge the opinion of the presiding officer and when a particular legislator is unsatisfied with the rulings from the presiding officer, he/she could claim a division. This process involves legislators voting ‘ayes’ and physically moving to one side of the chamber while the nays move to the other side. Unfortunately, this approach has a major shortcoming of time wastage. One can guess the amount of time that would be wasted if a legislative house needs to vote on more than one bill a day. Hence, adopting the division voting for all the bills would be time consuming, cumbersome and problematic.

    Nigerian legislative houses should be equipped with modern day electronic voting equipment for efficient and effective pursuance of parliamentary tasks. We can realise this if we muster the necessary will to do so. Parliaments in countries such as South Africa, India, Mexico, Norway, Israel, Japan and Hungary, among others, have embraced the use of electronic system of voting. Using electronic voting should solve the challenges being posed by division and voice vote options that we grapple with. Developmental process allows for doing things in a better way. Hence, we could give it a trial hoping that it would improve the procedure and quality of the nation’s legislation.

     

    • Adewale Kupoluyi ,

    Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

  • Parliament wants immunity

    Parliament wants immunity

    Folks, your parliament wants immunity!

    But what is the assurance that immunity won’t breed parliamentary impunity, the most violent antipode to the very concept of democracy?

    Can you imagine a kabiyesi parliament — a parliament that cannot be questioned, even by its own electors?

    Yet, it is this much abused “democracy” that this self-serving ensemble mouth themselves as most authentic living symbols!

    Since 1999, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo roasted the National Assembly on the populist altar of “furniture allowance”, portraying the new brood of legislators as a band of unconscionable gluttons devoted to nobody’s welfare but their own, Ripples had always thought Nigerians unfair to their elected representatives.

    For one, President Obasanjo was scorching parliament and projecting himself as some people’s champion, too holy for a profane legislature to touch.  Yet, the president parliament must touch, by constitutional oversight.

    That populist ploy was, of course, dangerous Machiavellian gambit, subversive of rigorous checks-and-balances, on which presidential democracy is erected.

    For another, the president on the grandstand furiously excoriated legislative pork; but was stone quiet on the perks of his own ministers; and the brood of unelected others, in executive sinecure.

    Besides, Nigeria’s successive military coups had consigned the legislature as the least developed of the three governmental arms, since it was the only arm sacrificed during military rule.  For that sole reason, it deserved some empathy.

    Still, with Leo Ogor’s sensational announcement of immunity dreams for its topmost principal officers, Ripples just wonders if the National Assembly, not popular in the streets even in the best of times, is not bent on a self-destruct path.

    Mr. Ogor, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) member and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, announced with glee the legislature was mulling over a constitutional amendment that would gift immunity to the Senate president and his deputy, as well as the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In the spirit of subversive generosity, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) too was a putative beneficiary!

    The logic?  Well, the president (national) and governors (states), heads of the executive, enjoy the immunity clause.  So, why not “democratise” immunity, to include the heads of the other two arms?

    Indeed, why not, other things being equal?  But that is the snag: other things were far from equal.  Really, Mr. Ogor’s statement came across as some provocative sword of Damocles, from a parliament chaffing at the “insult” of docking Senate President, Bukola Saraki, for alleged corruption.

    Mr. Ogor’s seeming unstated illogic?  That the Constitution grants the president immunity, and the senate president none, appears “unacceptable” to parliament; and must be reversed forthwith.

    But wouldn’t self-help itself — and that’s what Ogor’s threat amounts to — be a cynical corruption of the hallowed trust of law making?

    Besides, when did legislative immunity become an issue — before or after Saraki’s Code of Conduct odyssey? Didn’t those chaffing now read the Constitution before they opted for the National Assembly, instead of running for president or governor, to enjoy immunity?

    And having made their choice, should they corrupt the process with self-help, not only cynically hinting that the law is an ass; but also that the processes leading to lawmaking is outright asinine, since legislators can corral powers to legislate for their short-term selfish interests, rather than for the perpetual good of the polity?

    Should they even pull off this gambit, how would it possibly save Saraki from having his day in court, even if his body language violently rails against that due process?  Could parliament, in all good — and democratic! — conscience, make the law retroactive to save the embattled senate president?

    Still, for all you know, Mr. Ogor could well have been speaking for himself, and no one else.  He could also be the quintessential honourable gentleman, as his House membership presupposes, incapable of cant.

    But he could also be flying a kite for an incipient campaign.

    Given his political trajectory, a scion of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a party splendidly undone by its own impunity, impunity would appear never far away.  From his PDP culture, therefore, a cynical push for legislative immunity, en route to legislative impunity, would appear coming with the territory.

    Still, the real story behind the Ogor immunity drama is the clash of vision between President Muhammadu Buhari and Senate President Saraki, on what governance should be in a season of change.

    In fairness, the crisis started from Buhari’s presidential naivety of declaring himself disinterested in whoever headed the Senate or the House of Representatives.

    But in fairness to the president too, no decent person would have expected Saraki’s vaulting desperation, which fired his brazen sell-out of his party — and its right to the deputy senate presidency — to the opposition PDP, to corral subversive votes, to land the Senate presidency.

    Now, the PDP sits pretty, not giving a damn if the new order fails.  Neither does Saraki, it appears, so long as he achieves his aim.  It’s all so reminiscent of the infamous quote of Lucifer, in John Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven”!

    Soon enough, if this crisis persists, rebel APC senators in Saraki’s camp, could just drop their neither-nor facade, and queue behind their master.  Whence then would he lead them?

    Remain Lucifer, still the proud Son of the Morning, in the ruling party (whatever its name)?  Or a full descent into Satan, in hellish opposition, stubbornly living the quip of ruling in hell, rather than serving in heaven?  Time will tell!

    This monstrous see-saw of change-but-no-change, therefore, drives this crisis.  The threat of legislative immunity is only the latest symptom, of the high-octane power play for the soul of change: the Buhari vanguard of change for real change; or the Saraki school’s change as mere illusion.

    But before the politicians get ahead of themselves, cooking deals and expecting the docile people to helplessly watch from the sidelines, let everyone know.

    For all his braggadocio, Senator Saraki only boasts the mandate of a third of a state, his senatorial district in Kwara State.  At the end of the day, the senate presidency, when the chips are down, is more a function of honour and of influence, than of power.

    On the other hand, President Buhari boasts a national mandate.  While to the tactful, soft power always trumps hard power, between the president and the senate president, there is little doubt as to who wields a bigger mandate.

    And lest everyone forgets: Buhari’s win was as much a victory for the opposition as it was redemption for the self-destruct ruling elite, which PDP was heedlessly rushing to the political gallows.

    A few months hence of Jonathan’s anomie, and maybe Nigeria’s present ruling elite would have been buried under the Nigerian rubble?

    That is why Buhari holds it a historic duty to enact the positive change his presidential win promised.  That is his contract with Nigeria.

    The Saraki dilution, via PDP intrusion, is not part of that solemn deal.  It is a terrible distraction that must be removed — and fast.

  • Confusion as parliament suspends union leaders

    The executive and legislative arms of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) Students’ Union Government (SUG) may have been on collision course, following the suspension of Financial Secretary and Treasurer by the parliament.

    The executive arm said it rejected the resolution of the Students’ Legislative Council (SLC) signed by the Speaker, Sherif Akinpelu, saying it the decision was unacceptable and unconstitutional.

    The executive arm said the union’s constitution allows the SLC to summon any member of the executive for meeting after a notice of 48 hours in writing through the General Secretary. The executive said the house did not follow due process before it took the decision.

    It was gathered that the SLC clerk, Adeyanju Adeonipekun, only gave a 24-hour notice to the affected members.

    The executive described the suspension as a witch-hunt and unnecessary, urging the parliament to rescind its decision.

    It was learnt that the suspension motion was moved by Samuel Oshinuga of the Faculty of Science and seconded by Timileyin Akegbejo of the Faculty of Social Sciences, who cited Section 4, sub-section J,K and N of the union, for their action.

  • Union parliament holds sitting

    Union parliament holds sitting

    Members of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) Students’ Legislative Council (SLC) held their maiden sitting on Saturday. The meeting, which was held for five hours, took place in the parliamentary building at the Students Union Building. About 50 of the 89 members attended.

    The Speaker, Olusegun Jawosinmi, directed the clerk, Adeonipekun Adeyanju, to give report of the activities of the principal officers since the inauguration of the parliament last month.

    Members deliberated on several issues, including standing order of the parliament, the College of Medicine challenges and the composition of committees, among others.

    Members passed resolutions, which include the right of faculty associations to have legislative arms, minimum of PhD for course adviser at all levels, drawing of zebra crossings on the campus roads and summoning of members of executive arm of the union to appear before the House within seven days give account of their stewardship.

    Other issues discussed but not resolved included the replacement of mattresses in hostels, suspension of Distance Leaning Institute (DLI) Vice President, inefficiency of UNILAG Ventures in circulating bottled water to everywhere on campus and commercial drivers’ conduct, among others.

    The House ratified composition of seven standing committees, which are Welfare and Academics, Social, Sports, Budget and Finance, Inter-Governmental, Ethics and Special Duties, and Transport.

  • Gbajabiamila: Rare breed in parliament

    There are several reasons why Femi Gbajabiamila deserves to be speaker of the Eighth Assembly. It is important to state unequivocally that he has the pedigree, talent and the enviable track record to be the Speaker of House of Representatives.

    It is evident that some are made speaker, while others are born speaker. This is where Femi Gbajabiamila stands apart. Little wonder, the people of Surulere nicknamed him Oluomo 1 – that is to say he is the number one prince among others. Truly, he is a born speaker with phrase making artistry, a peerless orator with uncommon intelligence and sophistication in legislative matters.

    Besides, he is objective, articulate and a self-effacing man with quiet disposition, a good listener with quick intelligence and dashing style. Once he is convinced about anything; he never gets tired to pursue it to a logical conclusion. He is a lawyer with two law degrees from two jurisdictions, Nigeria and the United States, LLB and a juris Doctorate (JD). He sees politics as an extension of his legal practice in which he would touch lives. There is no gainsaying that his academic background in law helped or positioned him to excel in the House of Representatives. He is a floor wonder, a rarity in the art of law making, hence he sponsored the highest number of Bills in the 6th Assembly. Thereafter, he sponsored 17 bills and motions in the 7th Assembly, namely Bill for the establishment of national vocational school, Bill to give interest free loan to Nigerian students, Bill to criminalize late under payment of employees in public and private organizations, economic stimulus bill to ensure the government pegs 40% of annual budget for capital expenditure annually till next 10 years, etc.

    Sometime in October 2014, while setting up a campaign committee for his re-election, and he made a public statement through a medium that: “My longevity in the legislative has allowed me to both wittingly and unwittingly redefine representation and this has become the theme of my 2014 re-election campaign. In redefining representation, I have sought to and intend to continue to represent every resident of Surulere, every resident of Lagos and every citizen of Nigeria irrespective of party affiliation, ethnicity or religion. In other words, I intend not to leave any Nigerian behind in my representation and to work only in the best interest of our country and for the greater good …”

    It is true to say that this quoted public pronouncement shows that Gbajabiamila had a readymade mission and agenda for the Eight Assembly. It was from this public pronouncement that a 20-man campaign committee was born, and was christened Representation Redefined Campaign Committee (RRCC). The committee was the first of its kind in Surulere because Surulere men and women of substance from different tribes were fused together to work assiduously to make Gbajabiamila to be the first person to be re-elected for the fourth term in office in Surulere’s political history.

    The success story of Femi Gbajabiamila’s re-election can be attributed firstly to God, secondly to the ingenuity and hard work of members of RRCC and to the massive support he received from the people of Surulere. So it was a common sight to see them on every occasion eulogize him during the electioneering campaign for his honesty, hard work, and for being a good ambassador to the people of Surulere in the National Assembly. In fact, he was also eulogized for rejecting the N100million bribe offered to him to abandon the anti-third term struggle in the past, and for rejecting the National Honour that was given to him in November 2011.

    These two noble acts endeared Gbajabiamila to the people of Surulere, hence they see him as a man of his words, because he had assured them in the past that he will ensure at all times that the overriding interest of the people will not be sacrificed either on the altar of political expediency or in pursuit of a narrow selfish interests.

    On several occasions during the electioneering campaign, he campaigned vigorously for Buhari and Ambode. He commended Babatunde Fashola(SAN) glowingly for actualizing our dreams, but he described Akinwunmi Ambode as the icing on the cake of our actualized dreams. Nevertheless, he blamed President Jonathan for his ineptitude and misrule. So he assured the people of Surulere that Muhammadu Buhari’s government will put smile on the faces of Nigerians through people–oriented programmes. It is my humble view that these people-oriented programmes will or may need legislative backing. Therefore, we need a consummate and talented lawyer in the person of Femi Gbajabiamila to do justice to these programmes.

    Interestingly, prior to the party primaries, some disgruntled people with the premonition that Gbajabiamila will win the party primary elections began to bad-mouth him, and posed questions such as is he the only person fit for the House of Representatives? Why must he be the only person? Or is there no other person? Consequently, when he toured the six wards during his electioneering campaign, he cited several bills and motions he had sponsored, the unique achievements and the programmes he had executed in Surulere. Thereafter, the people cheered him to contest, and they began to call him the next speaker, and by extension the in-coming speaker of the Eighth Assembly.

    As at today, Femi Gbajabiamila is facing the battle of becoming or emerging the speaker of the Eighth Assembly. Yesterday, the people of Surulere declared him the in-coming speaker. So the people of Surulere cannot be said to be wrong because according to John Scully – “the future belong to those who see possibilities before they become obvious” It is on this note that I make bold to say Femi Gbajabiamila will surely emerge speaker of the Eighth Assembly!

     

    •  Ibidapo, member of Gbajabiamila’s campaign committee (RRCC) writes from Lagos
  • Rain of blows at parliament

    Rain of blows at parliament

    Members of the legislative arm of the Nigeria Universities Accounting Students’ Association (NUASA) at the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) converged for business, but the sitting ended abruptly when they started throwing blows, reports AFEES LASISI (300-Level Political Science).

    It started peacefully as a fact-finding exercise. But, suddenly, there were heated arguments which ended in the throwing of blows.

    It was all at the parliamentary sitting of Nigeria Universities Accounting Students’ Association (NUASA) in the Department of Accounting of the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU).

    Members of the legislative arm of the association turned the place into a boxing arena following a disagreement.

    CAMPUSLIFE gathered that the parliament asked the President, Vincent Adeoba, to present his report on the state of the association and explain how N1.7 million realised from an event the association held in January was spent.

    It was gathered that , while giving the report , Vincent was interrupted severally by the Speaker, Olajide Famakin. Another member, it was learnt, also accused the president of dressing shabbily.

    An enraged Vincent, CAMPUSLIFE learnt, walked out on the parliament. The president reportedly told the Speaker that members had breached the association’s constitution by disrespecting his office.

    Olajide consequently wrote a letter to the president, demanding an apology. But Vincent refused to apologise. Rather, the president asked the parliament members to apologise for disrespecting his office.

    Vincent said: “I obliged to attend the parliamentary sitting to state the interest of our association members and I deserve to be respected because of my office. But, this was not accorded to me by the parliamentarians.”

    The Speaker  fixed another sitting for last Saturday and invited the president. But, the sitting erupted in violence when the Speaker suspended a member for raising a constitutional order.

    This led to rancour as members called for suspension of those who misbehaved at the previous sitting.

    In ensuing melee, members threw blows. Some of them tried to take away the mace.

    A member, who simply identified himself as Olatunde, described the incident as unfortunate, accusing the Speaker of disrupting proceeding because of his personal grudge against the president. “The Speaker should be blamed for the fight,” he said.

    A student-reporter, Sodiq Oyeleke, was attacked by two members while trying to take pictures.  Sodiq described the attack bad.

    He said: “I was attacked and pushed to the wall by two members I recognise as Abdullahi and Fatuga. This is getting too much. Campus writers are being attacked by ignorant students who don’t appreciate the work we are doing. Most of these people attacking us call themselves activists but they are nothing but hooligans.”

    A member of the parliament, Ibikunle Akingbade, said the incident was caused by the  Speaker’s handling of the parliament.

    He said: “It is normal for us to disagree on issues when we go for meetings, but today’s fracas was caused by some members who had earlier said that the sitting would be a battle field. They are unhappy with Olajide’s style of leadership.”

    CAMPUSLIFE gathered that it took the intervention of NUASA  president to douse the tension.

    The Speaker and the president declined comments.

  • Parliament holds inaugural sitting

    Members of the Student Representatives’ Council (SRC) of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO) have held their inaugural sitting.

    The parliament, which comprises 44 members representing each department, began its sitting with a prayer.

    The Speaker, Matthew Obinna, a student of Architecture, urged members to be courteous in making their views known on the floor of the house.

    Members introduced themselves starting from the principal officers to the Hon members. The principal officers include Rt Hon. Matthew Royal Obinna(Speaker). Rt Hon Ibeawuchi Chidiebere(Deputy Speaker). Hon Noble Enwerem Chukwuka(Chief Whip), and Obetta Rowland Chiemezie(Ag. Clerk).

    The parliament moved into a plenary session, after which members made resolutions and constituted house committees, which included ethics and finance. Members also named the parliament as “House of Credibility”.

  • Scuffle in South African Parliament

    Scuffle in South African Parliament

    No fewer than four South African Lawmakers have been injured in a scuffle that ensued in the country’s parliament.

    Parliamentarians on Thursday almost came to blows after they traded insults on the floor of the chamber that opposition leaders say is fast becoming the lair of the ruling African National Congress.

    On Friday, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) raised concerns that recent disruptions by opposition parties in parliament could lead to the institution losing its integrity.

    The parliament reportedly turned into a scene of chaos when lawmakers told Baleka Mbete, National Assembly Speaker “you must go!” after she attempted to delay discussions over a corruption report involving President Jacob Zuma.

    According to reports from Al Jazeera, Mbete’s move enraged lawmakers in the parliament resulting in opposition parties demanding the speaker reverse her decision.
    Opposition politicians accused Mbete, a member of the ruling ANC, of bias after she postponed the debate on the $23m state-funded upgrade to the president’s private residence.

    One of its members shouted at Mbete: “You won’t get away with this one.” John Henry Steenhuisen, chief whip of the main opposition Democratic Alliance, said the speaker changed the order of debate at the behest of ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe.

    “I am amazed by your excitement,” Mbete said, eventually overturning her decision. The ruckus was captured and streamed live online and on a paid-for television channel and went viral on the social media almost immediately, drawing outrage and ridicule from South African citizens all over.
    One opposition parliamentarian, Ngwanamakwetle Mashabela from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), was asked to withdraw her statement that described Zuma as a “criminal”.
    Mashabela, who was quoted to have said, “President Zuma is a thief. He is a criminal. He is the greatest thief in the world”, was thrown out by public order Police officers after she refused to stop her outrageous statements.

    There is the belief that if EFF’s Mashabela MP opines that President Zuma is a thief, surely she should be able to say so in parliament and not be assaulted by SAPS. However, her manners of presentation were in question.

    A statement issued by Spokesman Zizi Kodwa reads: “Yesterday [Thursday]… the nation watched with shock and horror as the National Assembly degenerated into a chaotic circus due to the unruly conduct of members,” spokesman Zizi Kodwa said in a statement.
    Public Protector Thuli Madonsela reported in March that Zuma had “benefited unduly” from some of the upgrades, which included a cattle enclosure and amphitheatre, and should pay back some of the costs of the unnecessary renovations.
    The alternative parliamentary report cleared Zuma of any blame over the upgrades but opposition lawmakers were expected to reject the findings and call for the president to resign.
    The national assembly report was compiled only by ANC members after opponents walked out of the committee, saying it was created solely to protect Zuma.
    Police officials are not allowed to enter parliament unless the speaker or deputy speaker requests their presence.

  • Ndoma-Egba lists dangers of high turnover in parliament

    Ndoma-Egba lists dangers of high turnover in parliament

    Ahead of next year’s elections, Senate Leader Victor Ndoma-Egba has said the country should be mindful of the massive disservice inherent in high turnover of members of the legislature.

    The senator, who addressed reporters yesterday in Abuja, denied complicity in the alleged attack on a House of Representatives member John Eno.

    The Cross River Central senator said it was regrettable that only two senators survived from 1999 till date while the Senate lost 107 senators without anybody thinking of the implications to parliamentary institution.

    The country, he said, should be wary of the massive haemorrhage and erosion of institutionalisation caused by continuous high turnover in parliament.

    Ndoma-Egba noted that unlike the legislature, elaborate bureaucracy services the Executive and the Judiciary.

    The senator said what constitutes the institutional memory of a parliament is the aggregate memory of its members.

    According to him, in the United States, if about four or seven senators lose their positions during an election year, it is considered an upheaval.

    He said in Nigeria, 30 senators hardly return to their positions in an election year.

    Asked why he wanted to return to the Senate in 2015, Ndoma-Egba said: “First of all, the Nigerian constitution provides for tenure and age limit for the Executive to qualify for certain offices. In the Judiciary, you must practise for a certain number of years before you can be eligible for appointment. And there is a retirement age there.

    “In the legislature, the provision is for an entry age; it has no tenure limit. It has no retirement age too.

  • Britain must honour pledge to Scotland – Gordon Brown

    Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown told British leaders yesterday that they must honour their promise to grant further powers to Scotland after voters backed staying in the United Kingdom in an independence referendum.

    Just days before the Sept. 18 vote, Brown appeared to be making British policy by announcing that laws granting further devolution to the Scottish parliament would be drafted by the time Scots celebrate the birthday of their most revered poet, Robert Burns, on January 25.

    “The eyes of the world have been upon us and now I think the eyes of the world are upon the leaders of the major parties in the United Kingdom,” Brown told supporters in Fife, Scotland.

    “These are men who have been promise makers and they will not be promise breakers and I will ensure as a promise keeper that these promises that have been made are upheld,” he said.

    During the campaign, Prime Minister David Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg promised to guarantee Scotland high levels of state funding and grant Scots greater control over healthcare spending.

    After Scots rejected independence, Cameron said the issue of Scottish independence had been settled “for a generation” but pledged a swift constitutional shake-up for all parts of the United Kingdom.