Printable View
I hope they go. The French are no longer a threat and we don't need to worry about a Catholic coalition.
Sure, the oil would be a loss, but as far as I am aware Scotland is still a net drain on the UK budget.
Wales has an even weaker economic case. Cornwall? There are a few that want independence, but I think most people think they are cute more than a threat to the Union.
Australia wants to leave the Commonwealth? I didn't think it was that much of an onerous task.
~:smoking:
I wonder what their flag would look like.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
A maple leaf mutated into a middle finger gesture imposed upon the kilt of the scottish savior Mel Gibson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Well then. I'll have to look into dual citizenship!Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Well, it's all giving me an intense feeling of deja vu, reading the views here. But
I realise you have to discuss non-events five times before they actually occur.
Yes, Labour appears to be bricking it here - though you're not quite getting the
coverage we are, it all smacks of panic stations. Fact is, or at least appear to
be, from the general feeling around my area, bugger all is going to happen. If
anything, the Tories are going to gain considerably thanks to the few disgruntled
whine merchants who can be bothered to vote. My home constituency has been
fairly solid Lib Dem ground for some time, and the only ones who seem to be
even trying to come close to that are the Tories.
As for where I am now, it's Labour, and it doesn't look like changing. I'm
surprised our resident Imperialist hasn't been out shouting about the glorious
victories to come.
So yes, let's all have our digs and get ready to laugh, eh. Hilarious.
As for ULSTER leaving the Union?
NEVAH! England may leave, Wales and Scotland may leave, but Ulster will be in there even if they're the only ones left! :beam:
A union of one then? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
I do hope that you are unanimous on that. :laugh4:
Heaven Forfend! I may have been a cursed nationalist a long time ago, for Lord only knows what reason.
It is unlikely that Salmond will win a Majority in Parliament this time, though. He might end up the largest party, but methinks all the other parties will refuse on the matter of independence. Even then, there would have to be a referendum which would probably be rejected.
As for the candidates here -- Labour's Dundee West Candidate, long time Leader of Dundee City Council, is fairly useless but this has long been a Labour seat. SNP candidate is nowhere near as good, and i have to say, Labour policies on education, and a few other things are generally better than the SNP.
I have to admit the Tories have no chance of a comeback. Maybe slight variation, probably a slight drop. This has been a safe Tory ward for a while, but what with the new changes, the outcome is hard to judge...
I really can't stand the Scottish Parliament, though. It is such a shame the Tories have such a small number, but are the only ones that wish to improve the Universities -- Education has, for some reason, been made into a big thing for the election, and of the parties policies, Labour is probably the best.
The SNP are pretty damned useless.
Ah, it's just good to hear it from you, Malcolm. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
From what I understand, Scotland actually receives more money in Union funds flowing in then they shell out in tax revenue going to Westminster, correct? How exactly do rabid Scottish nationalists plan to deal with this little conundrum? Cut back on services? Isn't Scotland more Labour than England? That is, don't the people in Dundee expect even more in the way of handouts than the people in Kent?
I'm with Adrian. This is going to be a farce and disaster from moment one.
Side question.... Why didn't the UK include all of it's territories into Union? Have the Brittish ever considered that if they had brought the colonies into the Union, perhaps they'd still have them? Hell, you guys never even handed out peerages over here. It's no wonder we turned into rebellious adolescents. And maybe after we broke away, it would have dawned on you that perhaps Canada, India and Australia might do a little better at being British if you actually made them British?
Seriously, I understand the difference between being British and being English. But why do you have to come from the magic islands to be allowed into the Union, as opposed to just being a flunky in the Commonwealth?
Well historically there were huge logistical issues, for example crossing the Ocean, and you have to remember that until the 1830's parliament was the preserve of the Nobility and hereditory gentry. Even in the 1870's the cabinet was mostly peers and baronets. So complaining about representation is a bit dissingenuous as it wasn't any better here in Wessex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
So, that's the historical reason. Why today we don't include the Falklands and the other Crown dependancies I don't know and if I were in government it would be something I would do in my first session of parliament.
Moving onto the Commonwealth, when Australia and Canada were granted independance the logistical issue was still a problem, after that the issues with Africa and Asia probably pivot on racism on both sides.
My dream is a Commonwealth Parliament in Winchester with the English parliament in London and the other member parliaments dotted about but with the real decisions made together and made binding on all member states.
Many areas, far from being assimilated into England were being prepared for independence. Separate parliaments, and finally Dominion status to e.g. Canada.
I think that Canada turned out almost how it was planned: similar values to England, speaks English and is relatively friendly to England. The same can be said of Australia and New Zealand.
A commonwealth parliament sounds a great way of never getting anything done.
Concerning the Crown lands in Parliament I think that is a good idea. When the Scottish MPs are got rid of there's a lot more space for them as well.
~:smoking:
Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera? From what I understand, it would have solved multiple problems... Parliment almost bankrupted the nation paying for the French and Indian War (or as you call it, the Seven Years War). Why didn't Parliment just follow the time honored from of military salary: land grants to the common soldiers and peerages to the higher ranking officers?
I guess what I'm asking is if there is some reason why peerages to England's possesions were never handed out. Not just here in the Colonies, but why no Earl of Gibraltar? No Count of Malta?
Kitchener was made K of K - Kitchener of Khartoum. But I can't think of any others.
Possibly soldiers weren't keen on the thought of being given lands in a place they were only dimly aware of.
~:smoking:
If representation were given for the US, the distance involved and the inaccuracy of outdated information may have given us even more extreme examples of our rotten boroughs. Imagine a representative representing nothing more than bears and wolves because the original inhabitants had moved away, and Westminster hadn't yet caught wind of it. It was bad enough in England, where there were constituencies of 50 voters and 50,000 voters, each electing 1 MP. Wasn't Manchester a "New Town" with a population of 100,000 but no MP, because the boundaries were drawn back in the days when it was a tiny hamlet?
New lands mean new taxes and...I'm sorry, did you say that there's nothing but trees? :toff:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Try prima nocta with an oak. (ok, that's not spelled right)
Perhaps because by that time the aristocracy had already become stagnent and they didn't want to let new people in. I don't really have answer. The logistical problem comes in again though, how do you run your estates and sit in the Lords?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
You have a good point. I hadn't thought about that.... How did the Romans manage to pull it off? If you were granted lands in Iberia AND a seat in the Senate, how did you make it in on time? I guess you have to start having a set season for the assembly....
Anyway, I think I understand a little better now.
Back to the original topic... Aren't the North Sea oil drillings in international waters? Why would Scotland be able to lay claim to them?
I don't think this is quite how it worked. We weren't still working on feudalism in 1775-people in Liverpool would have elected their MP who would represent them in the commons. Although there was a Duke of Lancaster, he didn't have dominion over the county in the way you seem to be suggesting. Peerages at this point were mostly important in terms of status and getting to sit in the Lords-the peer in question wasn't responsible to the people who lived where his title refered to, and the place name the peerage was based on was really rather arbitrary (I don't imagine The Duke of Wellington spent too much time in Wellington itself, which is, I believe, in Somerset). So any peers created with titles pertaining to American lands wouldn't actually have represented these lands in The Lords.Quote:
Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera?
Well each year our government talks about becoming a republic, and about changing the flag. Which in my opinion is completely stupid. What is tiny anti-nuclear farming nation like ours going to do without any solid links with either Britain or the USA. And as for changing the flag, if we just change the flag because it's getting a bit old then what value does our flag really have?
I might not know much about the issue but I don't believe there is any reason why Scotland should separate, same with us. Neither them nor us are being opressed by English imperialism. It's not as if England is supressing patriotism either.
You have a territorial zone and an economic zone . its like the arguements about Rockall between the UK and Ireland , the territorial waters are small and pretty worthless , but the economic zone could prove to be lucrative .Quote:
Back to the original topic... Aren't the North Sea oil drillings in international waters? Why would Scotland be able to lay claim to them?
They workd it out so you could vote in absentia. 1 guy votes for all his cronies from where ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The SNP plan to save money by getting the oil revenues and having a small Defence Force, of the previous Scottish Regiments (I believe). They seem to think they would save swathes of money by not paying for nuclear weapons. Their sums are dubious, since they want to employ hundreds of non-existant teachers (reduce class sizes to <20, for the idea that small classes=better performance), abolish council tax, abolish University Endowments and increase Grants (with no sign of more funding for universities -- they want most people to go to uni, but don't care how good the university is), Cut business rates for hundreds of thousands of small businesses, the cost of independence (embassies, government departments, quangoes, etc and when the time comes, a Republic (ugh...)), fields of wind farms and Lord knows what else... (on that matter, probably abolishing the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, those pesky thorns in the side of the Glorious Executive of the People's Republic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As for that other matter...
Malta had a referendum on joining the UK, which was voted "yes" but nulled because the Catholic boycotted it.
On the matter of nobility in the Colonies, King James VI granted a host of Baronetcies of Nova Scotia to Scottish Nobles to establish a colony in, uh, Nova Scotia. As is the nature of Baronetcies, they are still around today.
I wouldn't mind a Commonwealth Parliament. I think Cecil Rhodes was mightily in favour of an Imperial Parliament where all the countries of the world were represented equally, I believe (though no doubt it was based on race, asuch was the character of the chap). This is, of course, when Britain takes over the world.
Why would you think this? Have they come out with anything to suggestQuote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
this? Not that I would be bothered in the slightest, mind you. However it
sounds as though you should simply write they intend to drink the blood of
small children, and be done with it.
Yes, yes, i know. I was exaggerating. I couldn't help myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeče.jabolko
You'd consider Dundee West safe for Labour, then?
My flatmate [who campaigns for Labour in this constituency] informed me that the SNP aren't
too far off taking this seat.
Oh, no, not at all. After SNP took Dundee East in 2005, things have looked shaky for Labour here, though they had a bigger majority in '05 than in '03. The new candidate is no real charmer, either. And the SNP have been campaigning next near continuously -- the Councillor for Logie has been plastering and posting SNP propaganda all over the West End and other areas in Dundee West constituency.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeče.jabolko
I don't think Labour will be ousted from the seat, but there is a chance. I'm no great Labour supporter, but most people are pro-Union and they see that the way to stop SNP getting the seat is to vote Labour.
They may succeed in seceding but they may not succeed in secession.
what is wrong with that statement? England, Scotland, Wales and NI all exist under 'British Rule'..........?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It will be a great shame if Scotland leaves the Union, not least because i define myself as British, not English.
It is less than certain that Scotland would, as there has not in recent history been more than about 25% of Scottish people who are in favour of Independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hepcat
Well I am pretty sure the citizens of the USA would welcome the scots into our happy little union, but I fear they wouldn't want to come.
(even if we lost more money than we got out of it....it'd be worth it just to piss the UK off:laugh4:) Imagine part of the british mainland becoming the 51st state, if only the founding fathers could see:yes: