Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Questions to the Scots here | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:01:35 10/21/04 Thu What is the current support for Scottish independence? Have their been any polls on this recently? What are the trends - has it increased or decreased since devolution? The only poll I could find on the Internet was from 1997 and support for independence stood at 34%. Do you have any idea where that would stand now and where is it heading? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: for Wales too | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:32:12 10/21/04 Thu If anyone has similar information for Wales, it would be appreciated. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Scottish Nationalism | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:57:13 10/21/04 Thu Jim - it's difficult to tell what the real level of support for independence (for Scotland) is as, as odd as it may seem, not all SNP voters support independence. I am certainly not aware of any recent polls. The Socialist vote in Scotland makes up a huge proportion of the total vote, and the SNP are often a protest vote against incumbent Labour by those who would break out in a rash should their pen ever come within an inch of the Conservative box. The SNP certainly have a strong following in Scotland, but I cannot foresee them ever gaining control of the Scottish Parliament. Certain polls have shown that Scots believe we will be an independent nation eventually, but the SNP vote has been shaky lately, and they have recently re-instated their former leader as they were not being successful at the polls. My personal opinion on the matter is that the nationalist have missed the boat on the independence issue. North Sea oil is running out, meaning that the independence dividend is becoming more unrealistic. I also think that the SNP have a severe credibility problem. As crazy as this may sound to you, the SNP support EU membership, and membership of the single currency. So, after campaigning for years that an interest rate set in London was detrimental to the Scottish economy (which was true), they now wish to have it set in Frankfurt. However, they criticise the EU on its fishing policy, which has wiped out the Scottish fishing fleet. The SNP have come a long way since the days of the “Tartan Tories”, and I don’t know anyone personally who thinks they are a credible future for Scottish Government. There is one caveat here – should Britain continue on its course towards a federal Europe, and the SNP were to stand on an EU-withdrawal ticket, I would not be surprised if their fortunes improved. Hell, I might even consider voting for them! Paddy, your thoughts? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: SNP | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:45:24 10/22/04 Fri I think that it is correct that a lot of the SNPs vote is from tactical voting against ruinous socialist councils. Their support has remained around 30% before and after devolution. This means that there are around 70% of the population who do not actively support this radical idea. They do wish to take Scotland as an "Independent Nation" within the E.U. which most people today do not see as advantageous. Also their economic policy is all airy-fairy. They say that the Euro interest rate would be better than the Sterling rate which is true but only presently and could be wildly not the case in 10 years. The problem is that independence could turn Scotland into an economic Switzerland, a small, extremely rich nation truely in charge of it's own economic descisions. The truth is that the SNP offer exactly the opposite of this vision and so for the present have practically no chance of reaching power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Sounds like the answer is a true UK federation like Canada and Australia | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:30:23 10/22/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Constituencies | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:36:09 10/22/04 Fri The population of each constituency would be much larger under this arrangement than the current formula in the UK, as the FC Parliament would have roughly the same number of MPs as the UK Parliament now (and there isn’t enough room for all of them at Westminster). If we were to keep the existing formula, we would have about 1300 MPs, so we would have to construct a spectacular brand new Parliament building fit for the new era. Now where have I heard that before? Still, I doubt it would be any more expensive than the Scottish Parliament. What kind of building would you like to see? Personally, I would favour a grand neo-classical design, rather than the “contemporary” style, as many of these new buildings look like they have been designed by Picasso, and will not date very well. Neo-classicism may be derided by many modern architects as imposing irrelevant grandeur, but I feel that the building should reflect the history of our democracy, rather than the current incarnation of it. I believe that many modern building, including the new barnacle in Edinburgh, are equally guilty of being self-indulgent nonsense. Additionally, in a Federal Commonwealth, what role would the current national Parliaments in Westminster, Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington play? Up until now, we have been talking of a central parliament/executive, with devolved Government in each of the states/provinces/territories. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: existing "national" governments | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:01:51 10/22/04 Fri >in a Federal Commonwealth, what role would the current >national Parliaments in Westminster, Ottawa, Canberra and >Wellington play? Up until now, we have been talking of a >central parliament/executive, with devolved Government in >each of the states/provinces/territories. I would like to see the existing federal governments of Australia and Canada disappear, the government in Wellington would be the government of the FC province of New Zealand. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Westminster Hilton? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:15:46 10/22/04 Fri It would be a shame to make museum pieces of the beautiful Parliament buildings in London and Ottawa. I’m not so keen on the Canberra one, sorry Ian. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's nicer inside than out, but I do think it's silly to hide a building under a hill | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:37:32 10/22/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: uses for current parliaments | |
|
Author: Joel (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:47:56 10/31/04 Sun i would have the current NZ national parliament become the NZ state/prov parliament. The Australian parliament, government buildings and jobs could be turned into a civil service or administrative hub for the FC in the southern hemisphere (Aus and NZ with dependencies etc). - it could be made a priority to redirect and setup federal agencies departments (for Aus and NZ) and even headquarters in the city. - There is still the option to move the NSW parliament to Canberra but i seem to remember the building used in Sydney is quite nice. Previously I said that Westminster should be the federal parliament and perhaps something similar to what i have proposed for Canberra should happen in Ottawa. That is still and option but how about: The federal parliament being swapped between the Palace of Westminster and Parliament Hill every two terms of gov (so every 9 or 10 years) or perhaps 3 terms. The length of stay needs to be much longer than the current situation with the EU parliament (about every 6 months?). Advantages: - when one building is not being used for parliament it could be used to generate money as a tourist attraction - important and substantial building work, security features etc could be carried out and installed. - the two (original) CANZUK countries with highest populations would have democracy closer to home. - the governemtn would appear less UK-centric [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Cardiff | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:08:15 11/02/04 Tue IF we gave Canada a time with the capitol we would have to give it to Australia also. Its bets to keep it one place. The most obvious place is London, though perhaps Cardiff, simply because people wont be worried about Englash dominance that way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canberra | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:45:15 10/31/04 Sun I tend to agree with this approach but what would we do with Canberra? Almost 50% of employed people there are civil servants. The place would turn into a large goast town and its economy would be in ruins after the capital was moved. Perhaps Canberra could be made the Capital of NSW? Although even if this happened the city would still face significant problems. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Who would want Canberra as capital of NSW? Not me | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:28:54 10/31/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Number of MP's | |
|
Author: JIm (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:06:33 10/22/04 Fri On my rep by pop formula, I doubled the number of constituents in each English constituency. Currently, a typical English one has about 90,000 people, so I doubled it to 180,000. This gives us an FC parliament roughly with the same number of MP's as the current Westminster. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: English independence... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:40:14 10/22/04 Fri Paddy: how could independence turn Scotland into a sort of northern Switzerland unless it were also accompanied by withdrawwal from the Common Market, which has wiped out the Scottish fishing industry and, as elsewhere in the EC, strangled enterprise with its Euro-corporatist redtape? I don't live in Scotland, and so have never really got involved in the independence 'pros and cons' - although as a British patriot I'm instinctively against it! Could you clarify this point for me? I would also like to say that the Welsh and Scots, and to a lesser extent the Ulstermen, seem to take for granted that England is 100% Unionist. Quite simply, it is not. In the South, where I live, people tend to call themselves British, but in the more remote provinces, such as Shropshire, where my parents now live (for some peculiar reason of their own), they almost invariably say 'English'. These are the areas where St George's cross has never been replaced by the Jack, where the Campaign for an English parliament is strongest, where outrage is strongest when the BBC shows people in Edinburgh pubs cheering when France a try against England, and where the West Lothian question causes them to froth at the mouth and start mutinous talk about blood in the streets. "Smile at us, pay us pass us, but never quite forget, That we are the people of England, and have not spoken yet." When the English do lose their temper, the world will know about it. I passionately hope that we get rid of this government in time to save the Union from Celtic separatism and English frustration. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: the West Lothian question | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:26:52 10/22/04 Fri "What is it?" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Answer | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:40:29 10/22/04 Fri The original question was posed by Scottish Labour MP Tam Dalyell, whose constituency used to be called West Lothian. The essential point is this: How can it could be right that a Scottish MP at Westminster can vote on matters only affecting English seats, but that same MP could not vote on such matters affecting his own constituency because they are devolved issues, in which the Scottish Parliament has authority. The question is well-known, but we have yet to hear an answer. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ah, *that* West Lothian question | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:59:06 10/22/04 Fri I tend to think that Jim's answer is a good one. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: True federation is the answer | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:23 10/22/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed, but... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:22 10/22/04 Fri A true federal system would indeed resolve the issue. Unfortunately, this is not being offered. In fact the Government are campaigning as we speak on a referendum to create more devolution in England. At last, an English Parliament I hear you say? Well no, they want to fragment and regionalise England, and the referendum shortly is to create an Assembly for the North-East. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If the North East sees itself as a region and wants to govern itself, fine | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:05:19 10/22/04 Fri But the same opportunity should be available to all self-defined regions [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: England becoming "independent" of Scotland is like the USA becoming "independent" of Puerto Rico! NT | |
|
Author: misnomer! [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:52:03 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Yes, Ed | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:10:58 10/22/04 Fri It could not. Perhaps if I re-phrase my closing paragraph thus: "Independence in theory could turn Scotland into an economic Switzerland, a small, extremely rich nation truely in charge of it's own economic descisions; ever able, because of her small size, to gain economic advantage over her neighbour, the E.U. Howewver, the truth is that the SNP offers exactly the opposite of this vision and so for the present have practically no chance of reaching power." At the moment there are no economic or political advantages on offer from the SNP. Also many people who vote SNP only do so for tactical reasons and would never vote yes to independence in any referendum. I hope that this is a little clearer. Paddy [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Jim's Original Question | |
|
Author: Chic NCgregor [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:22:34 10/30/04 Sat The last 10 tests of public opinion that I am aware of in Scotland are the ICM polls carried out by the Scotsman in 1998 and 1999. These were discontinued, so were presumably not to the editor's liking.;) When they were carried out they were given on internal pages unlike the party polls which were given on thr Front page. They are were never reported in the broadcasting media to my knowledge, so as a result you find very few Scots who are actually aware of the results. It is difficult to convey how well the media in Scotland has been sewn up by Unionist interests. ICM Polls for the Scotsman Q: In a referendum, would you vote for independence for Scotland? Date % of those expressing an opinion voting Yes 5 th June 1998 56% 1 st July 1998 62% 31 st July 1998 53% 5 th September 1998 57% 25 th September 1998 57% 25 th November 1998 53% 12 th January 1999 54% 4 th February 1999 48% 18 th March 1999 47% 4 th April 1999 52% SNP support has NEVER been a true indication of support for independence since there are so many other policy stances which many pro-independence voters can passionately disagree on. i.e. a large portion of the pro-independence support has been alienated from SNP policy for socio-political reasons. chic [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: next we would need to know exactly what they all mean by "independence" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:36:20 10/30/04 Sat I don't think the question is terribly valid, because "independence" is such a poorly defined idea. If these people feel that Scotland is dependent on England, for example, then a genuine federalism would answer their wishes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Independence | |
|
Author: Charles McGregor [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:56 10/30/04 Sat The term independence is certainly more clearly understood here than it seems to be at the arse end of the planet. You assume Scots feel 'dependent' on England when the wealth generation deficit between the two is massively in Scotland's favour. It is England which is more the 'dependent' partner. True there are various types of independence, Monarchy/republic, in the EU or out of it, and Unionists try to use this to confuse things, but what would make all of those still independence, is whether the Scottish people decide. If Scots decide what independence means rather than Westminster, then they ARE independent, regardless of what form they decide on ultimately. End of story. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: you seem to have a better grasp of vulgarity too | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:02:36 10/30/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Mori Poll | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:13:31 10/31/04 Sun While searching on the Internet, I found a Mori poll from 2000 which showed that only 23% of Scots supported independence. There seems to be quite a spread in opinions about this. I think devolution may have made it decline. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Mori Poll | |
|
Author: Charles McGregor [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:54:22 10/31/04 Sun I checked Mori's on-line archives for Scottish polls in 2000, they covered everything from fox-hunting to section 28 to the NHS and for various clients, but none on Scottish independence are listed. That figure of 23% is even less than that usually quoted for those voting Labour. The polls I quoted are genuine and listed on Dr Iain Old's excellent Alba site for all things to do with Scottish politics. I'm not saying there have been NO independence polls in recent years, but I am unaware of any and they are not listed on Dr Old's site, which is even used as a reference source by Scottish Labour. There have been regular polls on the Scottish Parliuament which have shown the desire for more power for it rise to over 70% of those polled. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's a bit rich coming from a sunburt Aussie nt | |
|
Author: Put another shrimp on the barbie you bastard [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:23:25 10/31/04 Sun a [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Whoever you are, I am humbled by your intellect... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:18:43 10/31/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Mori 2003 Poll | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:34:53 10/31/04 Sun I found a 2003 Mori poll which found support for independence in Scotland at 38% and support for existing devolution at 49%. That only adds up to 87%, the remaining 13% either don't know or won't say. I don't know where I saw that 2000 Mori poll, perhaps I read it wrongly. But here is the link for the above 2003 poll: http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/scottishelection.shtml I would say that this is fairly recent enough. It shows that support for full independence has stayed around the same level for quite a few years. It was around 35% in 1998. These polls show that a true federation would be a good move. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Australia is well known round the world as a haven of "culture". Like yoghurt nt | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:54:39 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Oo! Handbags! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:01:20 10/31/04 Sun Good lord... "the arse end of the planet"? Could this fellow mean, by some remote chance, merrie olde England? If so, he is jolly rude. The rudest thing I've ever said about Scotland is, "Crikey, the weather's a bit rubbish up here, what? Round of beer, anyone?" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Wealth Generation Deficit | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:22:01 10/31/04 Sun What do you mean the wealth generation deficit is massively in Scotland's favour please? It is a fact that the U.K.'s productivity is 18th on the OECD list and Scotland's productivity is considerably lower than the U.K. average. Also per head the Barnett formula gives Scotland more "government" cash per head than poor communities in the North of England such as Newcastle. It does appear that if independence were to come about tommorrow, Scotland would be a hell of a lot worse-off (from a purely economic point of view). Is what you meant to say that England is more "dependent" because it subsidises Scotland to such a large extent? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Scotland has paid far more to England than it gets in return. In HUMAN LIVES nt | |
|
Author: Scots not Cannon Fodder [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:46:53 10/31/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Let's not get into those pathetic fights in the British Isles | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:24:55 10/31/04 Sun This is starting to happen here. This is what I hate about the British Isles - their petty hatreds for each other. Everyone is counting the supposed injustices from one to another. The whole things is so petty and stupid. I am now so glad I don't live in that pathetic country. Why can't you all just learn to get along and respect each other? Why can't Scots and English be good friends and stop trying to blame each other for all their ills, mainly caused by stupid politicians. I don't believe that Scottish independence will happen, but I do believe that the UK will end up as a true federation, then all the parts will be equal. For God's sake - learn to like each other - this is what our federation is all about. The Battle of the Boyne was almost four hundred years ago, the Battle of Culoden was almost three hundred years ago - leave them in the past. You can't go blaming today's people for things that happened a long time ago. Remember, united we stand and divided we fall - that includes the Commonwealth! Look to the future and forgive and forget. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the answer | |
|
Author: here's why [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:53:12 11/02/04 Tue "Why can't you all just learn to get along and respect each other?" Because 5/6 of the countries in the British Isles are still colonies of one. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Utter Garbage | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:18:57 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: not too bright are you | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:49:46 11/02/04 Tue You calling Wales a colony? A colony of England? I take serious offence to that. We can pretty much leave the union whenever we want, all we have to do is make lots of noise and call for a refferendum on independance. How does that make us a colony? Do you even know what a colony is? A colony is a territory being populated by an outside nation. Sure Wales recieves a fair bit of emmigration from Northeen England and Scotland, but if immigration makes a colony, then South Hampton is a Pakistani colony. I'm gueesing your a Scot. I think someday you should take a look at your countries history. You are just a responsible for this great union as England is and you have doen much to maintain it. Thousands of Scots have died for this great country (the United Kingdom that is) and calling for its end is spitting on there graves. And dont try and say the Scots have done all the fighting. I bet more Englishmen have died for this land than people from any other of its nations (only fair seeing they have the largest population). I am proud of every British death in the name of this countries security and glory. Everylast Welshmen, Englishmen, Scotsman and Irishman. You are not a patriot or a nationalist. Your nothing but another pathetic seperatist traitor. A true nationalist born in this land (a British Nationalist) would shudder at the thought of any independant republics on this island. And Shudder I do. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Colonies don't have representation in the national parliament | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:59:46 11/02/04 Tue Bermuda is a colony - it does not have MP's at Westminster. Wales and Scotland are not colonies - they have MP's at Westminster - they are part of the main decision-making process. That is not colonialism. Whoever says it is does not know what he is talking about. This is part of the pathetic hatreds I was discussing earlier. They are based on ignorance and can be wiped out by education and understanding - something separatists are not interested in. That goes for Quebec and Alberta too! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alberta? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:06:59 11/02/04 Tue Why on earth are there separatists in Alberta - because they have an enormous budget surplus? This is the last thing I would expect from a land-locked province. You could build a wall along the Rockies too! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:09:52 11/02/04 Tue I don't know... I understand that the Monster Raving Loony Party at the last election advocated full independence for Leicestershire. Or was it Rutlandshire? Given that many 1970s Monster Raving Loony Party policies have become actual government policy since the 1990s (I cite as the most important example the creation of the EEC Butter Mountain), then perhaps independence for land-locked regions might be on the agenda after all. Free Staffordshire from British Imperialism! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Screaming Lord Blair | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:22:26 11/02/04 Tue lol, you're right. The late Screaming Lord Such couldn't compete with Tony Blair on talking nonsense - the difference being that no-one took the Monster Raving Loony Party seriously! Roll-on the Atlantic Tunnel... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Goldfish | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:11 11/02/04 Tue Ah well, you see Tony Banks wants to ban pet goldfish, as they represent the ultimate in human barbarity towards animals. In future, pet goldfish will only be able to be purchased by over-18s with the appropriate licence issued by the Government. All prospective goldfish owners must have a proven track record of handling aquatic species, and must be of sound character, and be a registered Labour voter. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: MRLP | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:26:37 11/02/04 Tue Yep. Also, free corsets for the under-fives, the compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast, and the extension of slavery to anyone who hasn't got a pet goldfish. Not to mention the declaration of Total War against Latvia. Good lord, you're right: much of this MRLP Manifesto sounds positively sane compared to New Labour! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alberta separatism | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:49:56 11/02/04 Tue There is a growing separatist movement in Alberta. They are fielding candidates in the upcoming Alberta provincial election. They feel left out of the decision-making process in Ottawa because eastern Canada has a far higher population so therefore it has more representation in Ottawa. Albertans feel that Ontario and Quebec control the country. The east tends to vote Liberal and the west tends to vote Conservative. Albertans have been in opposition far more than in government in the Canadian parliament. This is exactly the same as the Scottish nationalists - they feel left out because another region has a bigger population, therefore it has more MP's, so they feel dominated by policies they did not vote for. Albertan separatists also say that the robust Albertan economy is strong enough to support an independent country of Alberta. The answer is for Albertans to vote Liberal and then they will be in government. However, that would solve nothing because they would not get the policies that they want. I think I should get in touch with the Alberta Separation Party because they could be potential FC supporters. After all, we are proposing abolishing the Canadian federal government, and they would love that! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: alberta vs scotland | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:18:20 11/03/04 Wed "This is exactly the same as the Scottish nationalists - they feel left out because another region has a bigger population" Scotland is a country. Alberta has never been. Population is only part of the problem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: True federation would make it a partnership of equals | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:21:22 11/03/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The national parliment | |
|
Author: Empee [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:21:26 11/03/04 Wed "Colonies don't have representation in the national parliament" You're right. If it is the parliament of the whole UK, then it is a State parliament, not a national one, since the UK contains several nations, not one. Even if they do send people to Westminster, that doesn't preclude them being colonies. Overseas departments of France send representatives to Paris. Doesn't stop them being colonies. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Landlocked regions | |
|
Author: landlubber [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:23:00 11/03/04 Wed "perhaps independence for land-locked regions might be on the agenda after all." I'm neutral on Alberta independence, but plenty of land locked countries exist and do well. Europe has many e.g. Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic etc. None of these countries are doing too badly. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Don't be silly Jim | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:58:28 11/01/04 Mon I am asking a perfectly valid question above to Charles McGreggor. The response from "Scots not Cannon Fodder" is rubbish I agree. We all wish that things were as you hope they were but even in Canada there are wide differences between East and West, French and English communities. If people wish to raise disagreeable issues I am willing to discuss them in an agreeable fashion and explain why I feel that they are wrong rather than ignoring the issue. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: why do say that? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:59:49 10/31/04 Sun Plenty of Englishmen have given there lives for this country as have Welshmen and Irishmen. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> Subject:  Well Done Jim!
|
|
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:42:02 10/31/04 Sun Amen to that Jim! As a Brit, I have never understood why after all this time, there is still that love/hate relationship amongst the home nations! Oh please! We should really get on and start admitting that we like each other! If Scotland was to gain its 'independence' tomorrow, it would be the end of Britain as we know it- the armed forces' prestige, the monarchy and other vital things would have their days numbered! I think we should use the coming 300th anniversary of the Act of Union in 2007 to plan a HUGE celebration, bigger than the 2002 Golden Jubilee to show the world, but more importantly, OURSELVES, that together we are much stronger. Remember.....WITHOUT SCOTLAND, ENGLAND IS NOTHING, AN WITHOUT ENGLAND, SCOTLAND IS NOTHING! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I would go further than that | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:53:11 11/01/04 Mon I think that we need to bury these silly old hatreds amongst the English/Scots/Welsh and Irish and we also need to bury hatreds towards immigrants and non-white citizens. In addition to getting rid of the hatreds amongst the home countries and building a new respect, I would include black and Asian Brits in that new respect. Any form of those outdated hatreds is a form of racism. This needs to stop and we need to embrace all people. English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Caribbean, Asian, African - they are all British and should learn from each other. This needs to happen before Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders should join in. We are all human beings with the same red blood in our veins and the same sensitivities in our hearts. I may live in Canada, but I made an effort recently to learn to play cricket and to cook Tandoori chicken! (absolutely delicious). Thanks G. Singh! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I would go further still | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:39:18 11/01/04 Mon We need to go beyond simple recognition of the contrabution made by each nation of the union to this land. We need intergration of the four nations to the extent that we had pre-1998 and perhaps a little further in certain areas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I'm not sure why you are so anti-decentralisation, Owain | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:59:37 11/01/04 Mon After all, we are the FEDERAL Commonwealth Society, not the Centralised Commonwealth Society. If the impulse is towards greater centralisation, then you can kiss goodbye any interest from Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: centralism | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:13:01 11/01/04 Mon I was talking about tehe UK alone, not the federal commonwealth. Sure I undertand that a united commonwealth would be federal, but I don live in a united commonwealth, I live in the UK which i fervantly believe shoudl be centralised. Ideologically I am a centralist, pure and simple and that isnt going to change until I believe the FC might actualy come to be. Currently I live in the rpeumption that I will die in the UK and fear that I will die in the Republic of Wales. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maps on the Commonwealth History page | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:05:14 11/02/04 Tue Later this week, I will be changing the maps on the Commonwealth History page on the FCS Canada web site. I will be removing the animated maps because they go too quickly. I will be replacing them with still maps of various stages of Empire development and compared to other empires from 1650 to 1943. Then I will have the modern maps of the Commonwealth and the proposed Federation further down. I have decided that it's time for a bit of British Isles education. I will put together historical maps showing the gradual unification of the British Isles from before 1066 to 1801 along with the maps of the development of the empire. Someone said earlier that I showed the proposed Federation in a 'sickly green'. How about if I changed it to gold? What are people's thoughts on this before I make these changes? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: red and green | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:50:32 11/02/04 Tue It was I who said it was sickly green, but really it wasnt all that bad, its just that I missed the good old scarlet. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maps | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:22:55 11/02/04 Tue I think that the green map is appropriate in it's context, to emphasise a new phase. I would not like to see the other maps changed from red. The idea of a U.K. history is a very sensible one as the current inter-dominion/U.K. are now of the same status as Scotland/England from 1603-1707. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: France | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:21:01 11/01/04 Mon This may shock you Owain but you seem to have a longing for a UK as centralised as France! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Centralisation | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:26:21 11/02/04 Tue It's not a centralised UK per se that I want; but I am appalled by the concept of a regionalised England. England has been a united political, cultural and economic unit for longer than any other nation on Earth except for Japan and a few of the smaller island nations. 1300 years ago the seven kingdoms were united into England, and both the EU (in the form of John Prescott's NE Assembly proposal) and the FC will find it very hard to override the psychological imperative amongst the English for England to be England. Wales was joined to England by conquest; Scotland and Ireland for political convenience which became a habit; Australia and Canada have been run federally since they were created by Acts of Parliament; and so it is not quite such a large step for any of these 'regions within the british world' to continue to be run as regions (in the case of Autralia and Canada) or become more autonomous 'regions within the british world' (in the case of Scotland and Wales). But England is a different matter. Any attempt to tear up such an ancient country for reasons of numerical fairness in voting (i.e. so that England's bloc of votes couldn't outvote the rest of the FC put together) will encounter serious resistance. Even I feel that it would be a backwards step of 1300 years, and feel the psychological wrench when I think of England ceasing to be... and I'm a smelly colonial! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Paddy (Smelly Blue-bottomed Scotsman) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:18 11/02/04 Tue I agree that England should not be obliged to break up. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: pre-1998 | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:28:45 11/02/04 Tue No Ben I merely want the UK as centralised as it was pre-1998. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: comment | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:29:46 11/02/04 Tue You can clearly tell where the line is drawn on this debate. The Englishmen seem to think of these differences as petty and ridiculous, while other's such as Paddy (sorry to use you as an example) take it more to heart. Just remeber what side of the fence you're coming from and how the other side might feel. I to feel somewhat the same way, being an Irishmen. It just bugs me sometimes to hear about the laws imposed on the Irish or Catholics back during the penal laws era, and then the famine was horrible. But I always remember that these acts were not committed by the people living today. Sorry for the rambling, just had to say that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I assure you I think of these sad arguments as petty... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:32:43 11/02/04 Tue I assure you I think of these sad arguments as extremely petty (not to say deeply boring!) and agree that we need to move on from bitching about history. However, if someone is prepared to come forward with a sensible name and raise issues/ask questions I will happily answer them. I will certainly raise my own issues/questions if I feel that a point is either: 1 Unclear (such as C McGreggor's) or 2 A gross over-reation I bear no-one any hostility on this forum (except possibly the Soeth Ifrican wine-producer advocating "European Power!"). That is why I enjoy posting here. People seem generally tolerant enough to accept each others differences in opinions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well said Paddy! I agree with you 100% | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:07:47 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |