Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

elantan wrote: »

Only this time the people ain't gonna shut up and forget it ... God were gonna be such pains ... it may get so bad were begged to dissappear and not come back ... I wouldn't mind causing some pain to WM before we go ... but I don't want the people to suffer

I suspect all this "Vow" business is not going to solve anything.

Clearly it isn't going to fulfill the desires of the SNP and advocates of independence.

In fact, it might even get in the way of BAU issues like rebuilding the economy.

I think there should be another referendum, but with the clear understanding that the next wont be for a fixed period of time, in the future.

Independence for Scotland could actually be a good thing for both Scotland and rUK. I'd like to know why Westminster are still so keen to maintain a situation which is causing much friction and disappointment.

Not having to pay a net subsidy to Scotland via the much hated Barnett formula will help rUK pay down the debt position. It will also force us to push ahead with our own energy plans involving fracking.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

zagubov wrote: »

Scotland quite rightly claimed a parliament for itself. Every country needs a legislature; sharing one with a neighbour for all purposes is a fudge or a compromise at best.

I'd like a parliament for England that voters in Scotland can't influence.

I wish a mainstream party would campaign for that.[/QUOTENeither Scotland nor England is a country, we are in a Union with the other parts of the UK.

As for a regional English Parliament, I don't want to have another tier of vainglorious Regional MPs inventing reasons for more budget and power to feed their vanity.

OK....... you think England's a region not a country? Instead of a constituent country of a composite nation state?

What on earth do you think the other partners in the union are?

I've spent thirty years living in the country of England that hasn't had its own parliament or been offered it for (AFAIK) 300 years.

I have English friends and family who, like me, feel we deserve our own government.

There's too much lazy thinking going on here. England needs what Scotland already has - its own parliament.

Aberdeenangarse

elantan wrote: »

Only this time the people ain't gonna shut up and forget it ... God were gonna be such pains ... it may get so bad were begged to dissappear and not come back ... I wouldn't mind causing some pain to WM before we go ... but I don't want the people to suffer

I wish you'd shut up. If you don't want people to suffer, why don't you bugg@r off from this forum

Tromking

elantan wrote: »

You are of course right Scotland is part of one country ... that country is called Scotland

They are also part of a group of coutries ...

Nope. Westminster does not recognise regions or constituent nations.
In Westminster terms you live and vote in one of 600 and odd constituencies. You have as much clout as any other single voter in a single constituency. Although as others have said, thanks to our rather fooked up constitutional settlement Scots MP`S have a wholly unfair influence on rUK matters also.
It seems to me that you voted parochially for the SNP and are now dripping that the rUK doesn't care.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

OK....... you think England's a region not a country? Instead of a constituent country of a composite nation state?

What on earth do you think the other partners in the union are?

I've spent thirty years living in the country of England that hasn't had its own parliament or been offered it for (AFAIK) 300 years.

I have English friends and family who, like me, feel we deserve our own government.

There's too much lazy thinking going on here. England needs what Scotland already has - its own parliament.

the 'lazy' thinking occurs because the scots have beeen indulged like children : the UK parlaimant (incorrectly but predicablly) expected them to tbe grateful and satisfied.


In a democracy the people ought to be consulted : there was no vote in the UK for separate parliaments and no consultation about what powers such parlaiment.


Of course, the people with 300 years chip on their shoulders, have no ability or wish to do the best for the whole of the UK but think only of their own self interest.


Counties, countries, states, lande, deparments etc are just useful artificial man made constructs : scotland is no more 'country' than say Texas.

zagubov

Crikey! Quoting's getting difficult!

Tromking wrote: »

Nope. Westminster does not recognise regions or constituent nations.
In Westminster terms you live and vote in one of 600 and odd constituencies. You have as much clout as any other single voter in a single constituency. Although as others have said, thanks to our rather fooked up constitutional settlement Scots MP`S have a wholly unfair influence on rUK matters also.
It seems to me that you voted parochially for the SNP and are now dripping that the rUK doesn't care.

There are no cross-border constituencies, and Westminster has always had to deal with different legal jurisdictions (for instance the different net sizes in boats).

The bulk of this malevolent jeering at Scotland is due to a democratic deficit in this country, England. We need to proceed to a situation where both kingdoms have neither the need nor the capacity to hinder each others progress.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Nope. Westminster does not recognise regions or constituent nations.
In Westminster terms you live and vote in one of 600 and odd constituencies. You have as much clout as any other single voter in a single constituency..

EVEL won't be needed then. Glad you cleared that up for us all.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

EVEL won't be needed then. Glad you cleared that up for us all.

typical response of some-one with a 300 year old chip on the shoulder and wishing harm to non scots

Tromking

zagubov wrote: »

Crikey! Quoting's getting difficult!



There are no cross-border constituencies, and Westminster has always had to deal with different legal jurisdictions (for instance the different net sizes in boats).

The bulk of this malevolent jeering at Scotland is due to a democratic deficit in this country, England. We need to proceed to a situation where both kingdoms have neither the need nor the capacity to hinder each others progress.

Again, nope!
There is but one Kingdom, that being the United Kingdom. The Scots had the chance to create two kingdoms, but chose the single variety.

baldelectrician

Tromking wrote: »

Scots MP`S have a wholly unfair influence on rUK matters also.

That is not my opinion, Westminster can and does do what it wants;

1. The Scottish Parliament previously voted against Trident (actually during Labour times) but Westminster will go ahead anyway [and then moan about moving costs if Scotland votes for independence].
2. The bedroom tax was forced on Scotland despite it costing more money than it saved
3. The poll tax (historical I know, but still relevant)
4. the 40% rule in 1979 -effectively making dead people still on the voters role count as a NO to a Scottish Assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979
5. Taking 6000 square miles from Scottish Waters the week before the Scottish Parliament was re-constituted. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12201882.MSPs_call_for__6000_square_miles_of_fishing_waters_to_be_returned_to_Scottish_jurisdiction_North_Sea_showdown_looms/