Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 150 of 150
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Independent Scotland

  1. #101  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Independence sounds immature to me but not as you have characterised it.

    However if Scotland does want to achieve something along the lines you suggest then I think it would be better to build the movement from the bottom up so that when there was a referendum there would be little doubt as to what the result would be(like picking a ripe fruit).



    I know that the SNP was elected on a pledge to hold a referendum and also that it was mocked at its supposed discomfort when it had to honour that pledge but perhaps it should have held its nerve and waited for a better (=correct) moment -which ,by the way may never come.
    I completely agree that the timing was wrong. I had always favoured a vote in 2020, partly so we could talk about 20-20 Vision, but mainly so we could do due diligence on all the points that influenced many to vote no: especially the currency and EU membership.

    My suspicion has always been that Salmond thought a No vote likely, but recognised that a close vote would be a mandate for change for Scotland and for the UK as a whole. However, that is history. If a lesson is learned from history, and if the nation seeks independence at some distant date, then it will note that a step so momentous requires better preparation. But then that is the history lesson few politicians, or voters, ever learn.

    Maybe one day people might realise that for many they are already living the dream, a dream of united people on a united island working and sharing together for the benefit of all.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Some people think asteroids are united bodies also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    a triumph of common sense over sophistry.
    I think it was a sad result.

    It's sad that they did not choose to take that leap. However, to say that it was a triumph is to ignore the many many 'Yes' votes, at London's peril if they have your attitude.

    Also to John (hahaha you lost) pointing out complications of leaving the union was not scaremongering.
    Very mature.

    Did you stick your tongue out at him and tell him his mother is overweight as well?

    Would there have been risks? Of course there would have been. Just as there are risks in remaining. There will come a time where the child will stop breastfeeding and move on. It will even grow up and move out.

    It's called weighing up the evidence and not dismissing anything that disagrees with your utopian fantasy.
    I think the doom and gloom warnings, threats and recriminations if people chose to vote 'Yes' clearly dismissed the very real concerns of a very large portion of the populace who wanted to move away from a London centric model and seek to manage its own affairs fully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    a triumph of common sense over sophistry.
    I think it was a sad result.

    It's sad that they did not choose to take that leap. However, to say that it was a triumph is to ignore the many many 'Yes' votes, at London's peril if they have your attitude.

    Also to John (hahaha you lost) pointing out complications of leaving the union was not scaremongering.
    Very mature.

    Did you stick your tongue out at him and tell him his mother is overweight as well?

    Would there have been risks? Of course there would have been. Just as there are risks in remaining. There will come a time where the child will stop breastfeeding and move on. It will even grow up and move out.

    It's called weighing up the evidence and not dismissing anything that disagrees with your utopian fantasy.
    I think the doom and gloom warnings, threats and recriminations if people chose to vote 'Yes' clearly dismissed the very real concerns of a very large portion of the populace who wanted to move away from a London centric model and seek to manage its own affairs fully.
    Politics is tribal, talk about maturity all you want, I don't care and our leaders certainly don't. The result was a democratic and fair, any attempt to display the 'No' vote as simple fearmongering is just nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    I think the doom and gloom warnings, threats and recriminations if people chose to vote 'Yes' clearly dismissed the very real concerns of a very large portion of the populace who wanted to move away from a London centric model and seek to manage its own affairs fully.
    I think most of England and Wales would benefit from not being so London-centric as well.

    {edit} Sorry - I missed out NI; they would benefit too.
    Last edited by RedPanda; September 22nd, 2014 at 08:07 AM.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post

    Politics is tribal, talk about maturity all you want, I don't care
    Clearly..

    and our leaders certainly don't. The result was a democratic and fair, any attempt to display the 'No' vote as simple fearmongering is just nonsense.
    The result was definitely from a democratic process. However I don't think 'fair' is the correct word when the English virtually poured into Scotland to lobby. This decision should have been made by the Scottish, with little to no influence from London. Sadly, that was not the case. Instead of allowing the Scottish to decide their own fate, they saw fit to lobby about the doom and gloom of what would happen if they dared leave the very London centric Union. At the end of the day, the message was clear, London could not afford to lose Scotland, not the other way around. I think it is nonsense to ignore that reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda
    I think most of England and Wales would benefit from not being so London-centric as well.
    Definitely. I can only hope that this has given London the wake up call it so desperately needed. Because they did not win by such a huge margin and while they can keep saying this decision is forever, the push for independence if London fails to live up to their end of the bargain and what they promised could very well make itself known again in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    I think the doom and gloom warnings, threats and recriminations if people chose to vote 'Yes' clearly dismissed the very real concerns of a very large portion of the populace who wanted to move away from a London centric model and seek to manage its own affairs fully.
    I think most of England and Wales would benefit from not being so London-centric as well.

    I really have to agree here, the whole of the UK need each other and Scotland has always provided a natural counter balance to some of the ultra right wing politics coming out of London and the home counties.

    To me this was perhaps one of the most dissapointing aspects of the independence campaign that for so long the nationalists were allowed to shape and frame the debate as to whether Scotland needed the rest of the UK, as if it didn't matter about their part to play within the UK, the poor and needy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that depend on their MP's to hold the UK government to account over welfare cuts or public service privatisation.

    To lose Scotland from the UK would be like ripping the heart from a body, people on both sides of the border care passionatly about the Union but this has been lost along with the message that Scotland is important wanted. For generations nobody has been born into or lived in anything but the Union, centuries of intergration and codependence, achievements and hardships accomplished and endured together.

    For the many, the majority that didn't want to change that cared about was built together over 300 years ago and has lasted and saw off the worst that wars & world events have thrown at it, that have seen the efforts of Hilter and Napoleon to divide us fail, these people's genuine fears, concerns and questions were branded as scaremongering.

    The nationalist dream is now over for at least a generation, but unionist dream now lives on and Scotland can and should resume it's rightful role in helping to make the of whole of the UK into a fairer and more equal society. All the Yes campaigns visions of greater social justice don't have to end with this referendum but instead realised within the union and for all of the union not just for Scotland.

    The worst thing to come out of this entire referendum was the raising of the "West Lothian question", (West Lothian question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which could prove to be a very black day indeed for the old, sick, disabled, young or poor of the UK.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The worst thing to come out of this entire referendum was the raising of the "West Lothian question", (West Lothian question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which could prove to be a very black day indeed for the old, sick, disabled, young or poor of the UK.
    Would you care to explain this? The West Lothian question, as I understand it, is a proposal that residents of England have autonomy over local affairs, similar to what Scotland has. What's that got to do with old, sick, disabled, etc.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The worst thing to come out of this entire referendum was the raising of the "West Lothian question", (West Lothian question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which could prove to be a very black day indeed for the old, sick, disabled, young or poor of the UK.
    Would you care to explain this? The West Lothian question, as I understand it, is a proposal that residents of England have autonomy over local affairs, similar to what Scotland has. What's that got to do with old, sick, disabled, etc.?
    Yes Harold I would be happy to explain this. Quite simply put at present MP's (Members of Parliment) of all 4 countries of the United Kingdom vote in the house of commons on all matters related to issues of the United kingdom, apart from matters being decided by the devolved parliment in Scotland or the Assembly's of Wales and Northern Ireland.

    What this means is currently because England has no seperate devolved body it is governed by the UK parliment as a whole. This is important because of the make up of the UK political map as a whole. Tradionally Labour Government's have rellied upon the support of Scottish and Welsh MP's to make laws as they don't have enough MP's in England alone, this is because of voting boundaries. So if England only has English MP's voting for English matters, i.e the "West Lothian Question", then the likelihood is of a continuous progression of Concervative & UKIP policies in England unchecked by any more left wing influence.

    Generally speaking Labour policies tend to be more socially orientated towards protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor. Where as the UKIP and Concervative policies tend to be more about tax cuts for the wealthy and welfare and public service cuts.

    Scotland's political centre is already considerably far left of that of England and also so is Wales policital centre, therefore when MP's from both these nations are allowed to influence decisions made in England it's generally of the benefit of our societies most vunerable, take them out of the equation and a lurch to the right in terms of policy for England will inevitably see life becoming much harder for those in our society who are least able to cope with it, and this is why I'm suggesting that the raising of this question is a black day for vunerable groups of people in our society.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,877
    Well if the English electorate are allowed to vote on "local" affairs without the Scottish ,Welsh or N.Irish being allowed to do so then won't that concentrate minds in the English constituencies who will have to live with the consequences of what they have voted for?

    Will they see sense after a few years?

    Would it make sense to try and "lock in " the union while we can? We can organise a union wide referendum perhaps to limit the scope of any "local" referenda.

    What about freedom of residence in "perpetuity" ? (the idea of border patrols should be anathema to us surely but I have heard the idea floated in "jest" to me on my travels in Scotland )

    Is there no sense in which Scotland is "our land" (and the UK "belongs to Scotland too)? OK ,if the answer is "no" I will accept that but I kind of thought we were one country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The worst thing to come out of this entire referendum was the raising of the "West Lothian question", (West Lothian question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which could prove to be a very black day indeed for the old, sick, disabled, young or poor of the UK.
    Would you care to explain this? The West Lothian question, as I understand it, is a proposal that residents of England have autonomy over local affairs, similar to what Scotland has. What's that got to do with old, sick, disabled, etc.?
    Yes Harold I would be happy to explain this. Quite simply put at present MP's (Members of Parliment) of all 4 countries of the United Kingdom vote in the house of commons on all matters related to issues of the United kingdom, apart from matters being decided by the devolved parliment in Scotland or the Assembly's of Wales and Northern Ireland.

    What this means is currently because England has no seperate devolved body it is governed by the UK parliment as a whole. This is important because of the make up of the UK political map as a whole. Tradionally Labour Government's have rellied upon the support of Scottish and Welsh MP's to make laws as they don't have enough MP's in England alone, this is because of voting boundaries. So if England only has English MP's voting for English matters, i.e the "West Lothian Question", then the likelihood is of a continuous progression of Concervative & UKIP policies in England unchecked by any more left wing influence.

    Generally speaking Labour policies tend to be more socially orientated towards protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor. Where as the UKIP and Concervative policies tend to be more about tax cuts for the wealthy and welfare and public service cuts.

    Scotland's political centre is already considerably far left of that of England and also so is Wales policital centre, therefore when MP's from both these nations are allowed to influence decisions made in England it's generally of the benefit of our societies most vunerable, take them out of the equation and a lurch to the right in terms of policy for England will inevitably see life becoming much harder for those in our society who are least able to cope with it, and this is why I'm suggesting that the raising of this question is a black day for vunerable groups of people in our society.
    All this tells me is that you are politically to the left of the average Englishman, so you favor an arrangement which gives an extra voting advantage to those on the left.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    What I was explaining to you is that the current political map of the UK is made up by politians from all four countries and that if you take away the political influence from any of these countries in terms of policy making in England then you significantly affect the political balance of English policy. Now whilst this may be welcomed by some on the right who may seek to benefit from such changes, many in turn would also be adversely affected by such changes and that many of these people would be some of our societies most vunerable.

    I don't favour any change that would give voting advantages to either the left or the right, why I would favour is that we maintain the status quo i.e a political system that everybody is used to and understands. Rather than allowing the political right to take advantage of the Scottish indpendence referendum for their political advantage in England.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    .

    I don't favour any change that would give voting advantages to either the left or the right,
    No, you don't favor any change, but you do favor a status quo that gives the left a political advantage. You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No, you don't favor any change, but you do favor a status quo that gives the left a political advantage. You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,610
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No, you don't favor any change, but you do favor a status quo that gives the left a political advantage. You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    The blindingly obvious straw man in this exchange is the silly notion that people who are right of centre prefer "tax cuts for the rich" to "welfare for the poor". As if these are the simple alternatives on offer.

    There is a massive and complex argument to be had about what economic policy benefits society most. It includes a lot of moving parts, such as the unemployment rate, the economic growth rate, the tax take from business and individuals, the rate of reduction of the national debt, once the budget has eventually been balanced, which it has not, and hence the future funds available for Health, Education, and a host of other good things that we all would want for everyone, especially the poorest in our society.

    It is amazing to find somebody advocating the continuation of an unrepresentative system of government, on the grounds that it is biased in favour of a left wing approach to all such matters. What price democracy, with such a view!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post


    The blindingly obvious straw man in this exchange is the silly notion that people who are right of centre prefer "tax cuts for the rich" to "welfare for the poor". As if these are the simple alternatives on offer.

    There is a massive and complex argument to be had about what economic policy benefits society most. It includes a lot of moving parts, such as the unemployment rate, the economic growth rate, the tax take from business and individuals, the rate of reduction of the national debt, once the budget has eventually been balanced, which it has not, and hence the future funds available for Health, Education, and a host of other good things that we all would want for everyone, especially the poorest in our society.

    It is amazing to find somebody advocating the continuation of an unrepresentative system of government, on the grounds that it is biased in favour of a left wing approach to all such matters. What price democracy, with such a view!
    Like!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No, you don't favor any change, but you do favor a status quo that gives the left a political advantage. You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    Evidently, there are some people in England who would agree, else Ascended would not have any concern about losing the advantage of the votes from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But, I'm not debating the merits of those issues, just the fundamental fairness of giving Englishmen equal rights to the other UK countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    The blindingly obvious straw man in this exchange is the silly notion that people who are right of centre prefer "tax cuts for the rich" to "welfare for the poor". As if these are the simple alternatives on offer.
    Harold said "You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    The position that Ascended was holding was "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor."
    His reply says that he doesn't think that "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor" is morally superior to "tax cuts for the rich."
    I can only go by what he posted, and that is what he posted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    Evidently, there are some people in England who would agree, else Ascended would not have any concern about losing the advantage of the votes from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
    Correct.
    Rich people are frequently in favour of tax cuts for the rich.
    Last edited by RedPanda; September 22nd, 2014 at 01:10 PM.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    The blindingly obvious straw man in this exchange is the silly notion that people who are right of centre prefer "tax cuts for the rich" to "welfare for the poor". As if these are the simple alternatives on offer.
    Harold said "You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    The position that Ascended was holding was "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor."
    His reply says that he doesn't think that "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor" is morally superior to "tax cuts for the rich."
    I can only go by what he posted, and that is what he posted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    Evidently, there are some people in England who would agree, else Ascended would not have any concern about losing the advantage of the votes from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
    Correct.
    Rich people are frequently in favour of tax cuts for the rich.
    Thanks Panda I appreciate the support.

    There has been strong suspition that the last Tory tax cut was funded by the introduction of their "Spare room subsidy" policy, colloquially refered to as "The bedroom tax".
    Whilst the reasons behind this policy seemed reasonable and acceptable, in reality it's implications have been anything but.

    The problem is this, the point of this policy is supposedly to get people living in properties with more bedrooms than occupants to move into properties with the same amount of occupants as bedrooms, however this hasn't been possible for millions of people because of the acute housing shortage in modern day Britain. Now in order to encourage people to downsize the government has cut their housing benefit, this is the money they receive in order to able to afford pay their rent.

    So now these people no longer have enough money to pay their rents, cannot find alternative accomadation, as these properties don't exist at rents their housing benefit would pay for. These people many of them, sick or disabled or indeed caring for sick or disabled children have to find this extra rent money by not buying food or paying electric or gas bills, never even mind being able to pay for their childrens school uniforms.

    It's resulted in over a million people becoming dependent on food banks and thousands made homeless, all to fund a tax cut for the highest earners in our society.

    Now I certainly don't profess any moral superiority in my opinion, just that I have a right to have an opinion and express it. I want to live in a country where we have the ability to say to our government that certain policies that are hurting our societies vunerable are wrong and should be changed, at present we have a political system that is weighted to allowing people to be able to do that, and yes this does often mean with the help of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MP's, but that is the political system here in the UK. This is our political reality that the needy do indeed depend upon the support of our fellow citizens in other parts the UK, this has been so for hundreds of
    years.

    If we really were to have an English parliment then it would require huge upheaval and a seed change in English politics to ensure we actually end up with a representitive democracy for every Englishman. It could also very well lead to some serious boundary changes and whole new class of "Members of the English Parliment" being created, again nodoubt very unwanted by many and probably costly and wholely unnecessary a change from our current system.

    But to merely just have an English Parliment with our current English MP's voting would be like having a one party system, we might as well adopt communism or fascism for all the difference it would make!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But to merely just have an English Parliment with our current English MP's voting would be like having a one party system, we might as well adopt communism or fascism for all the difference it would make!
    I think you might have over-egged the hyperbole.
    But I see what you mean.

    Personally, I don't think humans are suitable holders of political positions.
    Politics (in its entirety) is too vast and complicated and people are too easily corrupted by power.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But to merely just have an English Parliment with our current English MP's voting would be like having a one party system, we might as well adopt communism or fascism for all the difference it would make!
    I think you might have over-egged the hyperbole.
    But I see what you mean.

    Personally, I don't think humans are suitable holders of political positions.
    Politics (in its entirety) is too vast and complicated and people are too easily corrupted by power.
    Yes, I did kind of try to make a point with the rhetorical equivalent of hitting a nail with a steam hammer, my bad

    Politicians alass do seem prone to self interest but there doesn't seem any easy solution to this problem, perhaps maybe we should just hold them all to their word and if they break their promises sack 'em. At least this way everyone will know what to expect.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Politicians alass do seem prone to self interest but there doesn't seem any easy solution to this problem...
    Self-interest seems a reasonable response to being given a job that is impossible to do.

    Our socio-political landscape is so complex that we can only ever understand small parts of it.
    So - which parts of it do we focus on? The parts that interest us the most or have the most direct impact on us, perhaps?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    As long as self-interest is mutually beneficial to society and the individual I don't see the concern really, of course politicians care about their careers if anything this is a good thing as they might be a bit more cautious (as long as there is free media) before they jump into bed with the wrong people. Someone on the centre-right of the spectrum isn't someone who thinks oligarchs are brilliant, simply that less state interference can actually provide many advantages: for example lower taxes might result in more money for personal use or for individual initiative, equally not everyone on the right is against social welfare, although most think charities are better suited to dealing with such issues. I'd say i'm centre-right but I support free (at use) healthcare for the simple reason that something so fundamental shouldn't be left to the market. Also many traditional conservatives who favour the aristocracy over the business class have traditionally supported social welfare policies, ironic really given the conflict between these classes in the 19th century. I'm in favour of scrapping taxes fo low earners tbh and introducing something akin to a land value tax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Politicians alass do seem prone to self interest but there doesn't seem any easy solution to this problem...
    Self-interest seems a reasonable response to being given a job that is impossible to do.

    Our socio-political landscape is so complex that we can only ever understand small parts of it.
    So - which parts of it do we focus on? The parts that interest us the most or have the most direct impact on us, perhaps?
    Perhaps politicians who do have more experience with specific issues are more able to represent our interests effectively, but also give the opportunity to help those affected by issues that we ourselves may be less familiar with.

    I think perhaps we need people to make us aware of the problems and issues of others so that we can express a social conscience.
    But I would certainly agree it's much easier on an individual level to deal with issues we ourselves are familiar with.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Now I certainly don't profess any moral superiority in my opinion,
    Sure you do. You think that your party's position is morally superior to that other party that wants to cut spending on social programs.
    just that I have a right to have an opinion and express it. I want to live in a country where we have the ability to say to our government that certain policies that are hurting our societies vunerable are wrong and should be changed, at present we have a political system that is weighted to allowing people to be able to do that, and yes this does often mean with the help of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MP's, but that is the political system here in the UK.
    You not only want the right to express an opinion, you want a thumb on the scale so that your opinion wins out.
    This is our political reality that the needy do indeed depend upon the support of our fellow citizens in other parts the UK, this has been so for hundreds of
    years.
    That's not a reason. Lots of unjust systems have lasted hundreds of years.
    If we really were to have an English parliment then it would require huge upheaval and a seed change in English politics to ensure we actually end up with a representitive democracy for every Englishman. It could also very well lead to some serious boundary changes and whole new class of "Members of the English Parliment" being created, again nodoubt very unwanted by many and probably costly and wholely unnecessary a change from our current system.

    But to merely just have an English Parliment with our current English MP's voting would be like having a one party system, we might as well adopt communism or fascism for all the difference it would make!
    What is more like communism or fascism? A system where all citizens have an equal vote, or one where one party gets special consideration in an election?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Now I certainly don't profess any moral superiority in my opinion,
    Sure you do. You think that your party's position is morally superior to that other party that wants to cut spending on social programs.
    just that I have a right to have an opinion and express it. I want to live in a country where we have the ability to say to our government that certain policies that are hurting our societies vunerable are wrong and should be changed, at present we have a political system that is weighted to allowing people to be able to do that, and yes this does often mean with the help of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MP's, but that is the political system here in the UK.
    You not only want the right to express an opinion, you want a thumb on the scale so that your opinion wins out.
    This is our political reality that the needy do indeed depend upon the support of our fellow citizens in other parts the UK, this has been so for hundreds of
    years.
    That's not a reason. Lots of unjust systems have lasted hundreds of years.
    If we really were to have an English parliment then it would require huge upheaval and a seed change in English politics to ensure we actually end up with a representitive democracy for every Englishman. It could also very well lead to some serious boundary changes and whole new class of "Members of the English Parliment" being created, again nodoubt very unwanted by many and probably costly and wholely unnecessary a change from our current system.

    But to merely just have an English Parliment with our current English MP's voting would be like having a one party system, we might as well adopt communism or fascism for all the difference it would make!
    What is more like communism or fascism? A system where all citizens have an equal vote, or one where one party gets special consideration in an election?
    Hey I'm all for constructive criticism, so far your suggesting I don't actually think what I said that I think, dishonesty, must be excellent mind reading skills at work there. Also that I showing bias, even though I've explained several times that I support the continuity of our present system that gives political balance to all sides of the political system, rather than supporting a change that gives political advantage to one side over another.

    Finally you are suggesting I'm mistaken about the political consequences of what the proposed change might result in. But aren't offering any evidence to support such a position.

    I must admit I struggling here to find the constructive parts.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post

    Hey I'm all for constructive criticism, so far your suggesting I don't actually think what I said that I think, dishonesty, must be excellent mind reading skills at work there.
    I didn't read your mind. I just read the words you wrote.
    Also that I showing bias, even though I've explained several times that I support the continuity of our present system that gives political balance to all sides of the political system, rather than supporting a change that gives political advantage to one side over another.
    How is it balanced if Scotsmen can vote in an election affecting only England, but Englishmen cannot vote in an election affecting only Scotland? Isn't than an imbalance on the very face of it?
    Finally you are suggesting I'm mistaken about the political consequences of what the proposed change might result in. But aren't offering any evidence to support such a position.

    I must admit I struggling here to find the constructive parts.
    The political consequences may well be a move to the right as you suggested, but that is not similar to communism or fascism. It is simply the consequences of giving Englishmen equal voting rights, which is quite the opposite of communism or fascism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Sure you do. You think that your party's position is morally superior to that other party that wants to cut spending on social programs.
    Where did he say that?

    This isn't American politics, so perhaps you shouldn't approach it from an American centric position. What he clearly said was that all sides need to have a fair and equal say and vote.

    You not only want the right to express an opinion, you want a thumb on the scale so that your opinion wins out.
    I am reading through his posts and I don't see that at all. I think you are the only one who is.


    That's not a reason. Lots of unjust systems have lasted hundreds of years.
    And?

    This makes it right?


    What is more like communism or fascism? A system where all citizens have an equal vote, or one where one party gets special consideration in an election?
    You tell us. Since you are the one supporting the shutting down of one side of the 'equal vote'.

    I didn't read your mind. I just read the words you wrote.
    Then perhaps you should not twist them around before you read them and read them as they are written. That might help you correct the clear misinterpretation of what he actually said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You tell us. Since you are the one supporting the shutting down of one side of the 'equal vote'.
    Really? You keep dodging the issue. Why is it right for Scottish people to vote in elections affecting only England, but not English to vote in elections affecting only Scotland? Where is the equality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Really? You keep dodging the issue.
    I am? I would love for you to explain how you can say that I keep dodging the issue when it is the first time I even commented on what Ascended was discussing. Or are you seeing what is not there again?

    Why is it right for Scottish people to vote in elections affecting only England, but not English to vote in elections affecting only Scotland? Where is the equality?
    Because what England votes for for its citizens also affects people in Scotland and the other countries of the 'United Kingdom'.

    The removal of the votes from the other countries in the United Kingdom in the English Parliament (where they currently happen) will create a vacuum and an unfair imbalance which will, in the end, affect all of the United Kingdom. I mean, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

    Remember, this isn't American politics where shutting the opposition out of voting appears to be the norm for the right. So perhaps approach this from a non-American centric way and it might make a bit more sense as to why this is such a bad thing. Because in other countries, denying factions the right to vote or a say in Parliament is generally considered a bad thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    The removal of the votes from the other countries in the United Kingdom in the English Parliament (where they currently happen) will create a vacuum and an unfair imbalance which will, in the end, affect all of the United Kingdom. I mean, it's not that hard to understand, is it?
    How is it that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have issues which affect them and them alone, which they get to vote on themselves, but England has no such issues, and must let the others vote on everything? This question isn't that hard to understand, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    The removal of the votes from the other countries in the United Kingdom in the English Parliament (where they currently happen) will create a vacuum and an unfair imbalance which will, in the end, affect all of the United Kingdom. I mean, it's not that hard to understand, is it?
    How is it that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have issues which affect them and them alone, which they get to vote on themselves, but England has no such issues, and must let the others vote on everything? This question isn't that hard to understand, is it?
    Apparently it is, if you are sufficiently left-wing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    How is it that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have issues which affect them and them alone, which they get to vote on themselves, but England has no such issues, and must let the others vote on everything? This question isn't that hard to understand, is it?
    Well they don't really. For example, they still need permission from England to be allowed to have things like Referendums, etc.

    England still has a very big say in what happens in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Which is why all things are not all rosy and dandy, even in England, where everything is so London centric.

    And laws that pass in England affect all of the United Kingdom. So should all of the United Kingdom have a vote and a say in what will affect them? If you believe in democracy, the answer to that should be yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Really? You keep dodging the issue.
    I am? I would love for you to explain how you can say that I keep dodging the issue when it is the first time I even commented on what Ascended was discussing. Or are you seeing what is not there again?

    Why is it right for Scottish people to vote in elections affecting only England, but not English to vote in elections affecting only Scotland? Where is the equality?
    Because what England votes for for its citizens also affects people in Scotland and the other countries of the 'United Kingdom'.

    The removal of the votes from the other countries in the United Kingdom in the English Parliament (where they currently happen) will create a vacuum and an unfair imbalance which will, in the end, affect all of the United Kingdom. I mean, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

    Remember, this isn't American politics where shutting the opposition out of voting appears to be the norm for the right. So perhaps approach this from a non-American centric way and it might make a bit more sense as to why this is such a bad thing. Because in other countries, denying factions the right to vote or a say in Parliament is generally considered a bad thing.
    Great job of explaining Tranquille, respect

    And for Harold:

    The issue is this, at present Conservative back benchers want David Cameron to push for a change to the way that England is governed by making MP's from other countries of the UK into a lesser type of MP's by limiting on what they can or cannot vote to supposedly ensure that England is governed by the English only.

    This of course is totally different than England having it's own seperate devolved parliment or assembly. This is a political manouvre being cooked up on the back of the Scottish Independence to give Tory MP's more power in England.

    It's not just a straight forward issue MP's are chosen by all the people's of the UK to represent the entire UK's interests as a whole, this means we could well have an MP from a Scottish or Welsh constituency voting on issues that on the surface may seem to affect England only, but 2 points things should be noted here, firstly that such MP's are no less able than or committed than those of English constituencies, they do just as good a job, also that many of the supposedly English only laws or policies have a direct knock effect for all 4 of the countries that make up the UK because of the size of population and enconomy of England in comparison with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In other words is not a like for like situation to compare the governance of England with the rest of UK.

    Further more the government has no mandate from the people to change our political system or devalue the status or voting rights of non-English constituency UK MP's.

    On top of this is the fact that governance is not about nationality, many of the laws we in the UK obey and follow are made at EU level by legislators from and elected or appointed by countries all across Europe, we accept this because it's in our best interest to do so. The issue of nationality isn't really an issue at all.

    Also is the fact that whether Scotland chose to remain part of the UK or not, in other words have at least some of it's decisions made by the UK government isn't really relevent to what we in England should have to do, we get to decide whether or not we wish the whole of the United Kingdom's Parliment to decide policy for England, not self serving Tory back benchers trying to rig the political system for a change that would give them more power.

    The issue is about balance & equality, if there ever truely becomes a strong desire for an English Parliment then many, myself included, will be insisting on an actual seperate Parliment, seperate from the UK government and with suitable boundaries to allow all political views to be fairly and correctly represented.

    As has been explained to you several times Harold, the UK political system is very different from that of America, and what you may see as a very simplistic issue is far more involved and complex than you are demonstrating any understanding of.
    Last edited by Ascended; September 24th, 2014 at 04:25 PM.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Three points:

    The unprecedented voter turnout (85%) arguably reflects that voters are very interested in politics, but bored (or disgusted) by politicians.

    This interest, coupled with almost half the population voting for independence, indicate a powerful desire for change. If this is only partly mirrored in the rest of the UK, it points towards an urgent need for constitutional reform. Carpe diem.

    Only a small proportion of Bills debated in the House of Commons relate only to England. Nevertheless the West Lothian question must be dealt with eventually. That is a matter of principle, quite separate from any current motivation of the Conservatives for promoting an English Parliament.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Only a small proportion of Bills debated in the House of Commons relate only to England. Nevertheless the West Lothian question must be dealt with eventually. That is a matter of principle, quite separate from any current motivation of the Conservatives for promoting an English Parliament.
    How is it separate from the proposals for an English parliament, and what is the motivation for an English parliament if it is not to resolve the West Lothian question?

    Why would there be a smaller proportion of bills in the House of Commons that relate only to England, than the proportion of bills affecting only Scotland, or only Wales, or only Northern Ireland?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The issue is this, at present Conservative back benchers want David Cameron to push for a change to the way that England is governed by making MP's from other countries of the UK into a lesser type of MP's by limiting on what they can or cannot vote to supposedly ensure that England is governed by the English only.
    If they would be lesser MPs in the sense of not being able to vote on English issues, that's fair because English MPs cannot vote on Scottish, Welsh, or Irish issues.
    This of course is totally different than England having it's own seperate devolved parliment or assembly. This is a political manouvre being cooked up on the back of the Scottish Independence to give Tory MP's more power in England.
    What is totally different about it? It would just mean the same people represent England in both UK and English affairs. Why do you use the pejorative "cooked up"?
    It's not just a straight forward issue MP's are chosen by all the people's of the UK to represent the entire UK's interests as a whole, this means we could well have an MP from a Scottish or Welsh constituency voting on issues that on the surface may seem to affect England only, but 2 points things should be noted here, firstly that such MP's are no less able than or committed than those of English constituencies, they do just as good a job, also that many of the supposedly English only laws or policies have a direct knock effect for all 4 of the countries that make up the UK because of the size of population and enconomy of England in comparison with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In other words is not a like for like situation to compare the governance of England with the rest of UK.
    I'm sure that English MPs are no less able than Scottish MPs, yet they are not permitted to vote on those issues that have devolved to Scotland. And, of course, there are issues that have devolved to Scotland that also affect Englishmen. You are still not explaining this very well.
    Further more the government has no mandate from the people to change our political system or devalue the status or voting rights of non-English constituency UK MP's.
    I'm sure there is no mandate from the Irish, Scotch, and Welsh to give up any power they now have, but what about the English?
    On top of this is the fact that governance is not about nationality, many of the laws we in the UK obey and follow are made at EU level by legislators from and elected or appointed by countries all across Europe, we accept this because it's in our best interest to do so. The issue of nationality isn't really an issue at all.
    If nationality is not an issue, why do Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments?
    Also is the fact that whether Scotland chose to remain part of the UK or not, in other words have at least some of it's decisions made by the UK government isn't really relevent to what we in England should have to do, we get to decide whether or not we wish the whole of the United Kingdom's Parliment to decide policy for England, not self serving Tory back benchers trying to rig the political system for a change that would give them more power.
    Again the use of loaded words like "self serving" "back benchers" and "rig." Can't you discuss the issue objectively?
    The issue is about balance & equality, if there ever truely becomes a strong desire for an English Parliment then many, myself included, will be insisting on an actual seperate Parliment, seperate from the UK government and with suitable boundaries to allow all political views to be fairly and correctly represented.
    Suitable boundaries like what?
    As has been explained to you several times Harold, the UK political system is very different from that of America, and what you may see as a very simplistic issue is far more involved and complex than you are demonstrating any understanding of.
    Explain it then. You are doing a poor job so far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Only a small proportion of Bills debated in the House of Commons relate only to England. Nevertheless the West Lothian question must be dealt with eventually. That is a matter of principle, quite separate from any current motivation of the Conservatives for promoting an English Parliament.
    How is it separate from the proposals for an English parliament, and what is the motivation for an English parliament if it is not to resolve the West Lothian question?

    Why would there be a smaller proportion of bills in the House of Commons that relate only to England, than the proportion of bills affecting only Scotland, or only Wales, or only Northern Ireland?
    I am sorry I did not make myself clear.

    There is more than one way to resolve the West Lothian question:
    1. Continue to ignore it as we have done for decades.
    2. Ask Scottish MPs voluntarily to forgo voting on Bills that effect only England.
    3. Pass legislation to prohibit Scottish MPs from voting on such Bills.
    4. Have English MPs sit in distinct parliamentary sessions as a designated English parliament. (Practically no different from 3, but very different symbolically.)
    5. Set up an English parliament with different MPs from those sitting for the national parliament.
    6. Set up regional parliaments with powers comparable with the Scottish Assembly.
    7. Go to a full blown federal system.
    8. Various steps mid-way between 6 and 7.

    Therefore an English Parliament is only one of many solutions to the question.

    There are at least two motivations for an English parliament:

    1. To resolve the West Lothian question.
    2. To ensure the probability of Conservative control of such a government by eliminating the strong contingent of Scottish Labour MPs from national government.

    Therefore, I am saying that despite the fact - as argued by others here - that the motivation for an English parliament is 2 above, I maintain that on principle it must still be addressed because of 1 above.


    History lesson: The UK Parliament has routinely passed Bills for England and Wales, then separate Bills on the same subject for Scotland. That is because Scottish Law is quite different from English Law. When Scotland regained its own parliament in the 90s control over those topics passed from the UK parliament to the Scottish. No Bills affecting only Scotland are now passed at Westminster. Similar conditions apply to Wales and Northern Ireland (and I am so grateful no one has mentioned the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands).

    As to why the number of Bills affecting only England is small, that's just the way it has worked out. The number was quoted in a discussion on a BBC radio station - I do not have independent sight of the data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Masters Degree mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    668
    I think an independent Scotland would be cool. Ireland did it. They do have cultural differences. The Irish and Scottish are mostly Celtic and the English are mostly Anglo Saxon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If they would be lesser MPs in the sense of not being able to vote on English issues, that's fair because English MPs cannot vote on Scottish, Welsh, or Irish issues.

    No this would create a two tier system with MP's being devalued, the UK parliment is where they were elected to serve as equal representitives as every other parlimentary member, there elected role is to vote upon all issues put before the UK parliment, if England decides to have it's own parliment then that is a seperate issue and shouldn't have a baring on such members elected rights or responsibilities. If you want fairness you have to have seperate legislators, you cannot have an automatic presumption that current English MP's should be given the power to govern an English parliment.

    This of course is totally different than England having it's own seperate devolved parliment or assembly. This is a political manouvre being cooked up on the back of the Scottish Independence to give Tory MP's more power in England.
    What is totally different about it? It would just mean the same people represent England in both UK and English affairs. Why do you use the pejorative "cooked up"?

    This is because the proposed change is being put forward by one particular political party, this particular change is different from the system in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and it would disproportionally benefit the MP's of the political party that are proposing it.
    I'm sure that English MPs are no less able than Scottish MPs, yet they are not permitted to vote on those issues that have devolved to Scotland. And, of course, there are issues that have devolved to Scotland that also affect Englishmen. You are still not explaining this very well.

    Yes but the point here is one of choice, why should I as an Englishman have to change my political system of governance that I am happy with simply because the Scottish recently had an independence referendum. If I and my fellow countrymen are happy that other smaller countries that make up the UK are allowed to expess their political influence at UK level, even if this at times seems to affect only England, they why shouldn't I be allowed to keep this system, a system that has been in place for several hundred years I might add. It should be and is our choice on who governs us and just because others may think there is a nationality issue about some of our legislators doesn't necessarily mean we share their opinions.

    Further more the government has no mandate from the people to change our political system or devalue the status or voting rights of non-English constituency UK MP's.
    I'm sure there is no mandate from the Irish, Scotch, and Welsh to give up any power they now have, but what about the English?

    I would suggest this is baseless speculation and is not supported by fact, the political parties in other UK countries have campaigned for more devalution because of direct support for such powers from their constituants, whilst there has been no evidence of this in England.

    On top of this is the fact that governance is not about nationality, many of the laws we in the UK obey and follow are made at EU level by legislators from and elected or appointed by countries all across Europe, we accept this because it's in our best interest to do so. The issue of nationality isn't really an issue at all.
    If nationality is not an issue, why do Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments?

    That is an issue about freedom of choice, many parts of England would prefer more devolved power, but that isn't a nationality issue. I don't care what nationality some one is if they are doing a good enough job that I'm happy with their perfomance. If issues were purely about nationality then it stands to reason that all the countries of the UK would have seceded and become independent nations, the fact they haven't stands testament to the fact this is about power and control and not which part of the UK someone was born in.

    Also is the fact that whether Scotland chose to remain part of the UK or not, in other words have at least some of it's decisions made by the UK government isn't really relevent to what we in England should have to do, we get to decide whether or not we wish the whole of the United Kingdom's Parliment to decide policy for England, not self serving Tory back benchers trying to rig the political system for a change that would give them more power.
    Again the use of loaded words like "self serving" "back benchers" and "rig." Can't you discuss the issue objectively?

    The terms self serving and rig are appropriate for would is actually being proposed, one political party is attempting to change a political system for it's own political benefit. "back benchers" is the actual name given to Members of Parliment that don't perform front line government jobs, the term comes form the actual seating position in the House of Commons, it is in no way pejorative term

    The issue is about balance & equality, if there ever truely becomes a strong desire for an English Parliment then many, myself included, will be insisting on an actual seperate Parliment, seperate from the UK government and with suitable boundaries to allow all political views to be fairly and correctly represented.
    Suitable boundaries like what?

    Well this would require the Boundary Commission to draw up suitable boundaries for a seperate English Parliment that would provide for enough MP's with enough diversity to truely represent the political will and interests of everybody in England. This is the actual function of the Boundary Commission. At present the constituency boundaries for the whole of the UK have been created to reflect the political balance which defines UK politics, this would be fundamentaly altered if non English Constituencies were arbitarily removed from the equation.

    As has been explained to you several times Harold, the UK political system is very different from that of America, and what you may see as a very simplistic issue is far more involved and complex than you are demonstrating any understanding of.
    Explain it then. You are doing a poor job so far.
    Hey we are all trying!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are at least two motivations for an English parliament:

    1. To resolve the West Lothian question.
    2. To ensure the probability of Conservative control of such a government by eliminating the strong contingent of Scottish Labour MPs from national government.

    Therefore, I am saying that despite the fact - as argued by others here - that the motivation for an English parliament is 2 above, I maintain that on principle it must still be addressed because of 1 above.
    I am glad you recognize the matter of principle involved. It shows you have respect for those on the other side of the aisle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are at least two motivations for an English parliament:

    1. To resolve the West Lothian question.
    2. To ensure the probability of Conservative control of such a government by eliminating the strong contingent of Scottish Labour MPs from national government.

    Therefore, I am saying that despite the fact - as argued by others here - that the motivation for an English parliament is 2 above, I maintain that on principle it must still be addressed because of 1 above.
    I am glad you recognize the matter of principle involved. It shows you have respect for those on the other side of the aisle.
    I have said nothing to indicate which side of the aisle I am on. (I haven't even agreed there is an aisle, or where it is located.)

    I think the only two opinions I have expressed in this thread were a) I favour Scottish independence and b) since the democratic vote indicates a desire for change, but is opposed to independence, then let us (The British) use this as an opportunity to reform our constitution.

    My later contribution was simply an educational venture to clear up some apparent misunderstandings on your part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,610
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    The blindingly obvious straw man in this exchange is the silly notion that people who are right of centre prefer "tax cuts for the rich" to "welfare for the poor". As if these are the simple alternatives on offer.
    Harold said "You think this is justified because your position is morally superior to those who favor "tax cuts for the rich."
    The position that Ascended was holding was "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor."
    His reply says that he doesn't think that "protecting the interests of the old, sick, disabled, young and poor" is morally superior to "tax cuts for the rich."
    I can only go by what he posted, and that is what he posted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    If you think that the welfare of the poor, sick and old is less important than tax cuts for the rich, then so be it.
    Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
    Evidently, there are some people in England who would agree, else Ascended would not have any concern about losing the advantage of the votes from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
    Correct.
    Rich people are frequently in favour of tax cuts for the rich.
    Whereas, as Margaret Thatcher once observed, "The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend."

    The people that vote Conservative governments into power in the UK are far from rich.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Whereas, as Margaret Thatcher once observed, "The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend."
    I think that counts as a Godwin.

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    The people that vote Conservative governments into power in the UK are far from rich.
    And the majority of them are far from poor.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    906
    Another way to resolve the West Lothian question which centres on English MP's unable to vote on matters concerning Blackburn, West Lothian, but Scottish MP's able to vote on matters concerning Blackburn, Lancashire is this:

    Rename Blackburn, Lancashire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    What will you do about Blackburn, Aberdeenshire, if the Lord of the Isles winds the clock back to Bloody Harlaw?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    906
    All place names in Scotland remain the same. All Blackburns in England get a name change. Actually, there are only 2, one in Lancs and one in Yorks. Blackburn, Lancs becomes Greater Darwen. The other is part of Rotherham, which in the light of recent events will probably get a name change anyway.
    Then Tam Dalyell (one time MP for W.Lothian and proposer of the question) will get his wish. Hearing him speaking on the radio on Monday his solution was quite interesting. He proposed closing down the Scottish Parliament which I concur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    All place names in Scotland remain the same. All Blackburns in England get a name change. Actually, there are only 2, one in Lancs and one in Yorks. Blackburn, Lancs becomes Greater Darwen. The other is part of Rotherham, which in the light of recent events will probably get a name change anyway.
    Then Tam Dalyell (one time MP for W.Lothian and proposer of the question) will get his wish. Hearing him speaking on the radio on Monday his solution was quite interesting. He proposed closing down the Scottish Parliament which I concur.
    Interesting idea of the name changes, not to sure we could convince the Scottish to give up their Parliment though when the independence vote was so close.

    Seems to me that the best way to deliver real democracy without risking further dividing up the UK is more localism, actually delivering more power to people at either local or regional levels.

    So long as the UK is bound together by firm and nationally important issues being decided by the UK parliment, then we can actually start to ask people about issues that can be decided to suit the economic and social conditions appropriate to where they live.

    If we can start to make decisions in this way thus being more relevant to people's lives then ideas about division or leaving the Union will find it much harder to take route. Also with less centralised power bases the threat lessens as smaller regions will always be more dependent on the much larger UK.

    So regional assembly's for England and more powers for local government in Scotland and Wales would be my preferred solution.

    Failing this a Manchester or Birmingham based English parliment and news powers for the Scottish parliment with performance targets.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,877
    I seem to remember that regionalism in some of the English areas was offered and declined (well very little interest was shown) not so long ago .

    Surely we are not going to force devolved government on parts of the country that are happy with things as they are, are we?

    Scotland may not be comparable to Yorkshire (as an example) in that they do want to govern themselves while comparably sized "local" English areas don't.

    I think if there is a real prospect of Scotland trying again to become "independent" then the bar should be set a bit higher than 50%.

    If that decision is taken then it should be a decision that commands respect and I don't think 51% achieves that.

    It might seem unfair but I am sure if Scotland really wants independence it will (and should) manage to find the votes to say so clearly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I seem to remember that regionalism in some of the English areas was offered and declined (well very little interest was shown) not so long ago .

    Surely we are not going to force devolved government on parts of the country that are happy with things as they are, are we?

    Scotland may not be comparable to Yorkshire (as an example) in that they do want to govern themselves while comparably sized "local" English areas don't.

    I think if there is a real prospect of Scotland trying again to become "independent" then the bar should be set a bit higher than 50%.

    If that decision is taken then it should be a decision that commands respect and I don't think 51% achieves that.

    It might seem unfair but I am sure if Scotland really wants independence it will (and should) manage to find the votes to say so clearly.
    I certainly wouldn't advocate enforced devolution for any particular region of England, this being said I don't think this would be a major issue. Simply put those areas that wish for more devolved power should get it, whether this is through a newly created regional assembly or through the strengthening of powers for councils should be upto the people to decide for themselves. For areas that are happy with the status quo then they should have the option to continue as they are.

    As for Scotland I think they should be able to decide for themselves whether to stay or go by a majority, and whilst the 51% threshold does seem very low it's the problem that it would still a majority so to then stop leaving would be anti democratic.

    The real issue for Scotland though is that for 300 years nobody has known anything other than the UK and because of this the SNP is getting away with "the grass is greener" brand of nationalism that just isn't being confronted properly.

    We require a strong unionist agenda in Scotland to educate and energise people to our shared history and the great things we've achieved together. For all the suggestions of scare mongering it was probably Gordon Brown's positivity that ultimately seemed to tip the balance. The SNP built their campaign around positivity, yet they were the seeking to pull our country apart and people seemed to love them for it.

    Scotland needs it's own strong movement that is just as passionate about being British as Scottish and until this happens the Union will remain under threat from nationalists.

    It's also no big coincidence that the SNP have come out of the refendum as the big political winners after claiming most of Yes voters for their own party whilst being also able to tar labour, the lib dems and the tories with a collective anti patriotic brush.

    Perhaps maybe creating a new national bank holiday, "Union Day" throughout the whole of the British Isles may go some way to redress the imbalance, and let's have our schools celebrating also, let all of our children actually be proud to be British!
    Last edited by Ascended; September 29th, 2014 at 07:44 PM.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Independent Birth of Organisms
    By forests in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 29th, 2012, 12:17 AM
  2. Scotland Geology
    By c186282 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 30th, 2011, 12:20 PM
  3. Independent convections
    By Pong in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 8th, 2008, 01:45 AM
  4. Computing in Scotland
    By spl1nter in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 06:13 AM
  5. Hello from Scotland!!
    By venus in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 15th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •