Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
cornubian

Government of Cornwall Bill

Cornish Lib Dem MP Dan Rogerson has introduced a billl to take power from Whitehall and unelected regional quangos and pass it to the new Cornwall Council. This would transform the new Council into an Assembly along the lines of that in Wales. Story here: MP Calls for more power to Cornwall | Dan Rogerson MP for North Cornwall

Mebyon Kernow comment here: Cornwall 24
Stevie

Exactly what I said my Cornubial friend.  Next step is a parliament.
Corby Boy

Nothing is impossible these days.

In the 1950's Scotland used to elect a majority of Conservative and Unionist MP's to Westminster and was very much part of the fabric of the British state. Less than 20 years ago, the idea of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly was almost unthinkable. These institutions have been in existence for 10 years now.

The Scottish parliament governed by a party whose raison d'etre is independence. This gov't is approving its ratings as time passes as it is seen to be doing a decent job.

No one, not even Cornubian belives that a Cornish parliament is close, but it certainly is not an impossibility. This is for the Cornish population to push for and the very best of luck to them, and I look forward to visiting Cornwall in the future and soaking up the vibrant culture down there.

May be a poll tax should be levied on Cornwall, may be that will really kick start the process to self-rule and eventual independence.

But then I think Scottish independence is possibly the best way to shine that beacon on the road ahead! Very Happy
Aventinian

This is what happens when you start bringing culture into drawing political boundaries.

Corby Boy wrote:
Less than 20 years ago, the idea of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly was almost unthinkable.


No it wasn't. Devolution had been desired and pushed for since at least the 1950s. Since then, I would say it was more or less inevitable that it would happen eventually. The only difference 20 years ago is that Labour were (temporarily) unelectable.
babykitten

Aventinian wrote:
This is what happens when you start bringing culture into drawing political boundaries.

Corby Boy wrote:
Less than 20 years ago, the idea of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly was almost unthinkable.


No it wasn't. Devolution had been desired and pushed for since at least the 1950s. Since then, I would say it was more or less inevitable that it would happen eventually. The only difference 20 years ago is that Labour were (temporarily) unelectable.


One of the founding principles* of the Labour party was home rule for Scotland.  Nice of them to eventually get round to it.

Aventinian, since you thing that devolution was more or less inevitable since the 1950s, do you think that independence is more or less inevitable given the situation today?  I'm not asking if you agree with it, obviously.

* I feel dirty using the word "principles" and "Labour" in the same sentence.
Aventinian

babykitten wrote:
One of the founding principles* of the Labour party was home rule for Scotland.  Nice of them to eventually get round to it.

* I feel dirty using the word "principles" and "Labour" in the same sentence.


Laughing

I was not aware that it an issue in the Labour Party that early on. To their credit, it was at least attempted beforehand.

Quote:
Aventinian, since you thing that devolution was more or less inevitable since the 1950s, do you think that independence is more or less inevitable given the situation today?  I'm not asking if you agree with it, obviously.


I wouldn't go as far as to say it was inevitable in the 1950s, no, but I certainly believe it was a massive upsurge in support that is not easily resisted or changed. Almost significant is just how far devolution was to go - as things are, we have quite a strong devolved Scottish Parliament at the moment considering the UK's traditional unitary and centralised structure. That certainly wasn't anything like a foregone conclusion.

As for independence, no. I don't believe the independence movement is remotely similar to the Home Rule movement in the 50s. I remind you of the massive significance here: the Scottish Covenant received over two million signatures from the Scottish people. I can't say I know exactly what the population of Scotland was at that time, but that's a massive number.
babykitten

Aventinian wrote:

I wouldn't go as far as to say it was inevitable in the 1950s, no, but I certainly believe it was a massive upsurge in support that is not easily resisted or changed. Almost significant is just how far devolution was to go - as things are, we have quite a strong devolved Scottish Parliament at the moment considering the UK's traditional unitary and centralised structure. That certainly wasn't anything like a foregone conclusion.

As for independence, no. I don't believe the independence movement is remotely similar to the Home Rule movement in the 50s. I remind you of the massive significance here: the Scottish Covenant received over two million signatures from the Scottish people. I can't say I know exactly what the population of Scotland was at that time, but that's a massive number.

I agree that the Scottish Parliament at the moment is quite a strong devolved administration.  I was surprised when Labour actually went through with it.  I think rather than killing the independence movement, it has shown that arguments that Scotland is incapable of running herself are completely bogus.  I know that you don't think this way, but a great many people did, before the parliament.  Your objections are not that Scotland can't run herself, but that it is better in the union and that attempts to break up the union are invalid.  Fair enough.

As for the Scottish Covenant, I agree that 2 million signatures is a very high number.  Wikipedia (if you believe it) says that the population at the time was 5.1m, which is the same as today.  This is what I thought, and I'm slightly surprised that you don't seem to be aware that Scotland's population has essentially been stagnant since the second world war.  In the other thread, you didn't seem to be aware that England's population growth has always (in modern history) been greater than Scotland's.  Indeed, at the time of union England's population was somewhere around 5 times that of Scotland's, rather than the 10 times it is today.

Wikipedia also states that "Although Scotland's representation in both houses was smaller than its population indicated it should have been, representation in parliament was at that time based not on population but on taxation, and Scotland was given a greater number of seats than its share of taxation warranted."*.  So it has not always been the case that Scotland has been 'over-represented' in population terms.  Scotland today over-contributes taxation per head, to the tune of around 10.5% against an 8.5% population share, so according to this old system, we should be getting MORE MPs!

Anyway, all that is an aside.  2 million signatures out of 5.1 million population is 40%.  Now clearly not all of those 5 million were adults.  It's perhaps safe to say that around 3 million were adults?  So, it could be said that 2/3rds supported devolution then.

I think you'd find that in a referendum on Scottish independence, the result would not be far off that.

EDIT: * We have to remember too the backdrop of union.  Scotland was suffering from the failure of the Darien scheme, which undoubtedly seriously damaged the economy, and hence tax receipts.  Perhaps this is why we were allocated more seats than our tax receipts warranted.  They were expected to recover to more normal levels.  So perhaps this wasn't a concession at all.
Stevie

babykitten wrote:
I was surprised when Labour actually went through with it.  I think rather than killing the independence movement, it has shown that arguments that Scotland is incapable of running herself are completely bogus.


You were surprised, I was just praying they wouldn't wake up and realise what they were doing.
Aventinian

babykitten wrote:
I agree that the Scottish Parliament at the moment is quite a strong devolved administration.  I was surprised when Labour actually went through with it.  I think rather than killing the independence movement, it has shown that arguments that Scotland is incapable of running herself are completely bogus.  I know that you don't think this way, but a great many people did, before the parliament.  Your objections are not that Scotland can't run herself, but that it is better in the union and that attempts to break up the union are invalid.  Fair enough.


It did more than that, it gave the SNP - as almost inevitably the main opposition party and a potential executive (as, of course, happened) a platform which they did not enjoy before, particularly within Scotland.

As for using it to kill off nationalism, yes I'm inclined to agree: it seems to have been a failure at this stage. But then again, we are only ten years into devolution - it may well be the case that it might in the long term kill off Scottish independence as the SNP becomes trapped in the cycle of being a large group but never forming a majority.

If that occurs, then it is entirely possible that the SNP - appreciating reality - may become rather more federalist than independentist... or indeed fracture from within. I suspect the latter may well have been Labour's best bet back in the 90s. Either way, I certainly believe cracks have been papered over between the gradualists and the (for want of a better word) revolutionaries.

Quote:
As for the Scottish Covenant, I agree that 2 million signatures is a very high number.  Wikipedia (if you believe it) says that the population at the time was 5.1m, which is the same as today.  This is what I thought, and I'm slightly surprised that you don't seem to be aware that Scotland's population has essentially been stagnant since the second world war.  In the other thread, you didn't seem to be aware that England's population growth has always (in modern history) been greater than Scotland's.  Indeed, at the time of union England's population was somewhere around 5 times that of Scotland's, rather than the 10 times it is today.


I'm certainly no expert on demographics, and I do find those statistics interesting. I suppose in modern times the draw of London both from around the UK and from overseas is a major factor in that southern population growth.

Quote:
Wikipedia also states that "Although Scotland's representation in both houses was smaller than its population indicated it should have been, representation in parliament was at that time based not on population but on taxation, and Scotland was given a greater number of seats than its share of taxation warranted."*.  So it has not always been the case that Scotland has been 'over-represented' in population terms.  Scotland today over-contributes taxation per head, to the tune of around 10.5% against an 8.5% population share, so according to this old system, we should be getting MORE MPs!


Ah, but we don't live in a plutocratic state any more!

Quote:
Anyway, all that is an aside.  2 million signatures out of 5.1 million population is 40%.  Now clearly not all of those 5 million were adults.  It's perhaps safe to say that around 3 million were adults?  So, it could be said that 2/3rds supported devolution then.


Well, even if two-thirds signed, that would not necessarily indicate only two-thirds approved. Whilst there was probably the possibility of low-level fraud or a few numpties who signed twice, I would suspect there were probably even more who simply weren't interested enough or were not invited to sign.
babykitten

Aventinian wrote:

It did more than that, it gave the SNP - as almost inevitably the main opposition party and a potential executive (as, of course, happened) a platform which they did not enjoy before, particularly within Scotland.

As for using it to kill off nationalism, yes I'm inclined to agree: it seems to have been a failure at this stage. But then again, we are only ten years into devolution - it may well be the case that it might in the long term kill off Scottish independence as the SNP becomes trapped in the cycle of being a large group but never forming a majority.

If that occurs, then it is entirely possible that the SNP - appreciating reality - may become rather more federalist than independentist... or indeed fracture from within. I suspect the latter may well have been Labour's best bet back in the 90s. Either way, I certainly believe cracks have been papered over between the gradualists and the (for want of a better word) revolutionaries.

I'm sure there always is some friction between gradualists and 'revolutionaries' but this is the case with any party.

Federalism probably works best where you have numerous states with similar sizes, at least in orders of magnitude.  The problem with the UK, is that the biggest 'state' is an order of magnitude bigger than the other three.  There is no easy way to solve that problem.  I don't think it makes sense or is even desireable to split England up into smaller parts simply to address that.  The histories of Scotland and England are that of strong independent kingdoms which were internally united before being united to each other.  There is no Italy or Germany-style history of loosely aligned states finally coming together in fairly recent history.  And there is no point in arbitrarily drawing lines like Canada or America to solve this 'problem'.

The solution, and I know you don't like it(!), is the dissolution of the United Kingdom.  We can still have the social and cultural benefits that we currently enjoy as part of the UK post-independence, with a sort of 'British Isles council' or 'trading bloc' or 'customs union' or whatever, like many other areas, even within Europe have at the moment.  Independence doesn't mean isolation.  Anyway, I've rather drifted from the point...
Quote:

I'm certainly no expert on demographics, and I do find those statistics interesting. I suppose in modern times the draw of London both from around the UK and from overseas is a major factor in that southern population growth.

Yes, and also the draw of the 'new world'.  Emmigration from Scotland resulted in a static population for a long, long time.  There can be virtually no family in Scotland (recent migrants aside) without distant relatives in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Quote:

Well, even if two-thirds signed, that would not necessarily indicate only two-thirds approved. Whilst there was probably the possibility of low-level fraud or a few numpties who signed twice, I would suspect there were probably even more who simply weren't interested enough or were not invited to sign.

Funny that, because that's what many people feel about the independence question.  i.e. there are many other people perhaps not interested enough to make a big deal out of it but who would vote "yes" if only they were asked.
Alasdair

babykitten wrote:
Federalism probably works best where you have numerous states with similar sizes, at least in orders of magnitude.  The problem with the UK, is that the ...


Which is surely why it was initially the intention to regionalise England with the assembly idea that went so badly wrong, I suspect that this is the real reason for the democratic deficit about which we hear so much from the CEP.

bk wrote:
The solution, and I know you don't like it(!), is the dissolution of the United Kingdom


It's certainly a solution.  As would pushing for the regionalisation of England which would upset many people down south no end ...
Stevie

Regional parliaments/assemblies were just the Labour Party led by the intelligent Tony Blair who was distracting opposition to the Scottish Parliament in England (i.e. special treatment only for the Scots?).

The truth is that the English don't want a half dozen parliaments because they quite rightly feel that Westminster is their parliament.

Federalism is aimed at several different cultural groups who gain by not having actual independence since they don't see themselves as a nation e.g. Germany is a functional federation.

Functional of course means different things to different people but England doesn't fall into the category of multiple identities under one flag (having said this that is an opinion and some may quite rightly not agree with that generalisation).

Alba gu brąth.
babykitten

Bravehand wrote:
Regional parliaments/assemblies were just the Labour Party led by the intelligent Tony Blair who was distracting opposition to the Scottish Parliament in England (i.e. special treatment only for the Scots?).

The truth is that the English don't want a half dozen parliaments because they quite rightly feel that Westminster is their parliament.

Federalism is aimed at several different cultural groups who gain by not having actual independence since they don't see themselves as a nation e.g. Germany is a functional federation.

Functional of course means different things to different people but England doesn't fall into the category of multiple identities under one flag (having said this that is an opinion and some may quite rightly not agree with that generalisation).

Alba gu brąth.

This is the point I was trying to make, but Bravehand appears to have put it better.  I was trying to contrast the strong English identity throughout England (with the exception of maybe Cornwall) with the likes of Germany which consists of multiple differing peoples with a common language and, dare I say it, ethnicity.  Germany came together as Germany relatively recently whereas England has existed as a unit for a very long time indeed, probably before 'federalism' was ever thought of.
babykitten

Alasdair wrote:
babykitten wrote:
Federalism probably works best where you have numerous states with similar sizes, at least in orders of magnitude.  The problem with the UK, is that the ...


Which is surely why it was initially the intention to regionalise England with the assembly idea that went so badly wrong, I suspect that this is the real reason for the democratic deficit about which we hear so much from the CEP.

bk wrote:
The solution, and I know you don't like it(!), is the dissolution of the United Kingdom


It's certainly a solution.  As would pushing for the regionalisation of England which would upset many people down south no end ...

I'm not surprised the regionlisation of England didn't work.  People in England, rightly, see themselves as English.  There aren't strong enough regional identities to support individual 'states' within England.  Perhaps this is simply due to the highly centralised nature of England, but regardless, it's the way it is.
Luke P

babykitten wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
babykitten wrote:
Federalism probably works best where you have numerous states with similar sizes, at least in orders of magnitude.  The problem with the UK, is that the ...


Which is surely why it was initially the intention to regionalise England with the assembly idea that went so badly wrong, I suspect that this is the real reason for the democratic deficit about which we hear so much from the CEP.

bk wrote:
The solution, and I know you don't like it(!), is the dissolution of the United Kingdom


It's certainly a solution.  As would pushing for the regionalisation of England which would upset many people down south no end ...

I'm not surprised the regionlisation of England didn't work.  People in England, rightly, see themselves as English.  There aren't strong enough regional identities to support individual 'states' within England.  Perhaps this is simply due to the highly centralised nature of England, but regardless, it's the way it is.


So much is down to will and branding. The heritage of English regions does exist. There were once Saxon kingdoms in the south (and Cornwall) and Angle Kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria (the latter two later heavily influenced by the Danes). Go to Yorkshire and Lincolnshire you will find them extremely viking. Despite being Saxon, the southwest and  retains a certain celtic underlay as does Cumbria. Parts of Mercia have a strong Welsh flavour. The historic regions have their own flags (Northumbria - left) and a range of dialects. When we have a Geordie talking to a man of Devon can we say they are really the same?

The problem has been they have never been defined officially as regions. Government statistics with notional regions as endearingly named as  "the northwest" inspire no regional identity, rather they are a counter to it - they are in essence "anti-regions"- demographics devoid of cultural or historic reference. They change in shape and number according to application with no adherence to standard.

Establishing regions within a cultural and historic framework would, in my view, be desirable. There is not, one England, but several. If history had been slightly different, during the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries the England that emerged might have expanded to include Strathclyde. The union that did come about was between Angles and Saxons and Jutes, who were in essence genetically indistinguishable but spoke different (albeit related) languages. During the upheavals a large chunk of Northumbrian territory was lost, to find itself in Scotland.

The issue of establishing 'real regions' poses a problem however. For the English nationalist he sees it as a threat to England's existence. England, after all has not existed as a sovereign political entity for 300 years. After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant. Due to the odd nature of the union, they did not. The EU plan which is to create 9 EU regions out of England (along the lines of those meaningless government creations) is his nightmare. England ceases to exist. Hence the rejection of a regional assembly by referendum in "the northeast" (wherever that is).

I prefer the idea of establishing 6 or 7 'real regions' out of England, and getting the UK out of the EU. We can get rid of 'England' and preserve an independent UK. These regions would be the economic, cultural and sporting homologues of Scotland and Wales and the 'marriage of inequals' problem is solved - in my view the crux of our constitutional problems. A 'federal' UK is then eminently possible and much more viable than a "Serbia and Montenegro' situation. This would however be of no help to Cornwall which, It saddens me to say is perpetually hamstrung by its size. Presumably they would not take kindly to finding themselves in the region of 'Wessex'. (and I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales and Hereford to Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandw...3/hereford_in_wales_feature.shtml) I was in Hereford (Henfford) at the weekend and it is very Welsh.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
The heritage of English regions does exist
This talk of "heritage" ignores the simple fact that there is no DEMAND for the regionalisation of government in England. The Labour government did try to push this, starting with a referendum in the "region" they thought stood the best chance of being in favour. Their plans for regional government in the North East were rejected in a referendum by the people of that region. If even the North East isn't enthusiastic, the chances of significant support for regionalisation in, for example, the East Midlands, are approximately zero.
Luke P wrote:
Angle Kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria
Where would you draw the boundaries? HOW would you draw the boundaries? Would your latter-day kingdom of Mercia have a border with Wales at Offa's Dyke? What about Mercia's eastern border? Would it include Corby, for instance? Or would you put that town in East Anglia? Would you include Essex in East Anglia? If some parts of Essex identify more with London and the "South East" than they do with Norwich, exactly where in Essex would you draw the boundary?  "Northumbria" originally meant "the land north of the River Humber", but since Yorkshire is one of the parts of England that really does have a strong identity I doubt if they would take kindly to being ruled from Newcastle or Durham. Let's face it, the regionalisation of England is a project so full of problems, it simply isn't going to happen, not in this century, and not in any form that has been proposed so far. It's just a distraction championed by folk whose real agenda is continued London rule over Scotland.
Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
But that did NOT happen in 1707, and it didn't happen even at the height of the British Empire, and, if it didn't happen then, the chances of it happening now are zero.
Luke P wrote:
A 'federal' UK
is probably slightly less likely to happen than North Korea putting a man on Mars.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
The heritage of English regions does exist
This talk of "heritage" ignores the simple fact that there is no DEMAND for the regionalisation of government in England. The Labour government did try to push this, starting with a referendum in the "region" they thought stood the best chance of being in favour. Their plans for regional government in the North East were rejected in a referendum by the people of that region. If even the North East isn't enthusiastic, the chances of significant support for regionalisation in, for example, the East Midlands, are approximately zero.
Luke P wrote:
Angle Kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria
Where would you draw the boundaries? HOW would you draw the boundaries? Would your latter-day kingdom of Mercia have a border with Wales at Offa's Dyke? What about Mercia's eastern border? Would it include Corby, for instance? Or would you put that town in East Anglia? Would you include Essex in East Anglia? If some parts of Essex identify more with London and the "South East" than they do with Norwich, exactly where in Essex would you draw the boundary?  "Northumbria" originally meant "the land north of the River Humber", but since Yorkshire is one of the parts of England that really does have a strong identity I doubt if they would take kindly to being ruled from Newcastle or Durham. Let's face it, the regionalisation of England is a project so full of problems, it simply isn't going to happen, not in this century, and not in any form that has been proposed so far. It's just a distraction championed by folk whose real agenda is continued London rule over Scotland.
Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
But that did NOT happen in 1707, and it didn't happen even at the height of the British Empire, and, if it didn't happen then, the chances of it happening now are zero.
Luke P wrote:
A 'federal' UK
is probably slightly less likely to happen than North Korea putting a man on Mars.


That there is NO demand is not quite true, since here is one voice advocating it. Whether or not there is insufficient demand does not overrride the necessity of regions. They are convenient divisions for statistics and analysis. They are used all the time, but as I said they are "mushy" and indistinct, the boundaries shifted for whatever the purpose.

Setting the boundaries is the least of our worries I think. If one can put a man on the moon, we can agree on carving up a map sensibly. There is plenty of historical precedent - it gets discussed, it gets solved... I would answer all the questions you raise quite reasonably but it would just be my view. The issue should be decided by a body of public opinion.

The EU are pushing ahead with their own style of regionalisation of England whether we like it or not. If we remain in the EU England will become a set of regions. It may take 10 years, it may take 40. It is happening. They are going to impose their own demarcations on us whether we like it or not. I think it is infinitely preferrable to let the folk of England have their say. As you know we are denied a voice on anything regarding EU policy.

My raison d'etre is not continued London rule of Scotland. There may be people whose purpose in life is to impose cruel English tyranny on the poor Scots (I haven't met any yet though), but I would like to see the UK remain intact precisely so we can be viable outside the EU. In case you hadn't notice London holds precious little sway in Scotland anyway (barring UK national issues)!!! (????)  I won't mention that our last two prime ministers have been Scottish, since when I mention that to Scots Nationalists they don't seem to hear it. oops I just did.

As for the issue of the Northumbrian capital - it used to be York not Newcastle. Till the vikings sacked the place and the Scots dismembered the north. By the same token I see no reason why a Geordie should resent regional government in York - it's infinitely more local than London - the great evil that Scots Nats keep waving around....!
Dave Coull

Regarding resurrecting Mercia etc,
Luke P wrote:
That there is NO demand is not quite true, since here is one voice advocating it
We've probably all had the experience at some time of requesting something in some shop or pub or restaurant and being told there is no demand for it. What they mean is that there is insufficient demand for it. So, if and when you can ever show evidence of significant numbers of folk joining you in your demand for the resurrection of Mercia..........
Luke P wrote:
London holds precious little sway in Scotland anyway (barring UK national issues)
That is a VERY big exception. For example, the London government can decide to have a new generation of Trident nuclear missiles, at enormous cost, and put these on the Clyde, within a few miles of Glasgow, against the opposition of Scottish public opinion and the great majority of MSPs of all political parties: a perfect example of the massive centralisation which still continues to exist, the massive centralisation which YOU support.
Stevie

With everything you write, it is obvious you are a 'Nationalist' Luke P but a British Nationalist (not the BNP but in the idealogical sense of the word).
 
I imagine you are a UKIP member/advocate.

So stop pretending you are a 'Nationalist' and reveal your actual political leanings by answering a simple question.

Do you believe Scotland should be an independent sovereign nation?
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
Setting the boundaries is the least of our worries
That is true where independence for Scotland is concerned. Regardless of whether you think the differences at the border are a good thing or a bad thing or a bit of a mixture, the boundary is a reality which exists, and has existed for a very long time. The different laws on marriage have, over the years, led to some young English couples with disapproving parents deciding to make a dash for the Scottish border. On one side of the border, a jury consists of 12 people, on the other side of the border it consists of 15. On one side of the border, a jury has two possible verdicts, "guilty" or "not guilty", while on the other side there is a third possible verdict, "not proven". The laws regarding house sales have always been completely different north of the border from south of the border. On one side of the border, children go to secondary school at 11+, on the other side they go into Primary 7 and don't go to secondary for another year. On one side of the border, a university degree course is likely to last 3 years, while on the other side it is likely to last 4 years. These are just a few of the differences which existed long before the Scottish Parliament was re-convened. So that boundary is long established and has a well-entrenched reality. But trying to find ANY boundary within England with half as much reality is quite another matter.............
Cymro

Luke P wrote:


Presumably they would not take kindly to finding themselves in the region of 'Wessex'. (and I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales and Hereford to Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandw...3/hereford_in_wales_feature.shtml) I was in Hereford (Henfford) at the weekend and it is very Welsh.


Laughing What planet are you on? There is a notorious and celebrated Welsh connection with Liverpool - names of streets, Welsh Chapels, Liverpool Welsh Community Newspaper etc, but wholesale shift of Liverpool INTO Wales? If we start moving places with large populations of another nation into that country we're going to end up with one messed up map - New York, Boston, Baltimore can become part of Ireland, Nova Scotia can become parts of Scotland, Patagonia can become Welsh.

As for Hereford being Welsh? Other than it's name and my friends dad who is from Wales, Hereford has little Welshness still in existing - I've spotted a Welsh Social Club, there may or may not be a couple of Chapels still open. That's it. I look forward to you claiming otherwise. Hereford Cows are a popular breed on Welsh farms though....

Off the top of my head there are Welsh Chapels and Communities in Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Oswestry, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Dublin, Derby. Can I claim these to the new Wales Imperialisitic State?
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
A statement which reveals him as a British Nationalist of the most extreme kind, one who thinks the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Scotland and turning it into merely "north Britain" didn't go nearly far enough. Yet while wishing to eradicate the one very real obstacle to British centralisation which continued to have some existence after the Union of 1707  -  the border between two completely different legal systems  -  Luke P also claims to be in favour of de-centralisation where England is concerned. It is clear from his statements about creating "six or seven" regions of England that the only real PURPOSE of doing so would be to achieve a pseudo-"federal" United Kingdom with the component parts of the "federation" not too many orders of magnitude different in size. In pursuit of such regionalisation, he talks about restoring
Quote:
Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria
when I asked
Quote:
Where would you draw the boundaries? HOW would you draw the boundaries?
the response was
Quote:
If one can put a man on the moon, we can agree on carving up a map sensibly.
But, far from being "sensible", Luke P's own pipe dreams are quite mad. Apart from the sheer insanity of his expressed desire to include Edinburgh and the Lothians in "Northumbria", there is also
Quote:
I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales
So, he wishes to re-draw both the border with Scotland and the border with Wales, yet he is unable to come up with ANY reasonable suggestions for drawing regional boundaries WITHIN England.

The fact is, where any scheme for the regionalisation of England is concerned, far from being "the least of our worries", as Luke P suggests, any attempt to draw regional boundaries within England would be fraught with difficulties and would lead to many objections. Since Luke P also says
Quote:
The issue should be decided by a body of public opinion.
it is obvious that, even if the regionalisation of England could be achieved, it would take a great many years. Meanwhile, if he thinks that Scotland will be standing still and patiently awaiting the new federal UK while all this is dragging on, then that must be powerful stuff he is smoking.
Stevie

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
A statement which reveals him as a British Nationalist of the most extreme kind, one who thinks the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Scotland and turning it into merely "north Britain" didn't go nearly far enough.


I say he's UKIP but if you think BNP, it's entirely possible.

It would be better if he was just honest and marked down British Nationalist then we could have a real discussion, but he won't.

He does the same stuff on another Scottish forum but in my opinion thought to try his hand here at being a 5th columnist.  He's trolling by subterfuge.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
A statement which reveals him as a British Nationalist of the most extreme kind, one who thinks the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Scotland and turning it into merely "north Britain" didn't go nearly far enough.
Bravehand wrote:
I say he's UKIP but if you think BNP, it's entirely possible.
I didn't say he's a member of the BNP. Although the BNP are a party of neo-nazi racists, so far as I'm aware, the BNP doesn't have an official policy of abolishing absolutely all distinctions between Scotland and England; so, in that particular respect, on the basis of his statement quoted above, Luke P may actually be more extreme than the BNP.
Bravehand wrote:
He does the same stuff on another Scottish forum
What other Scottish forum?
Stevie

http://www.mrsite.co.uk/usersites....com/wwwroot/userimages/forum.htm

There's a whole bunch of his posts, including "Long live the Union!"

But a more telling post near the bottom of the boards page.
The Lithgae Jambo

Luke P wrote:


The EU are pushing ahead with their own style of regionalisation of England whether we like it or not. If we remain in the EU England will become a set of regions. It may take 10 years, it may take 40. It is happening. They are going to impose their own demarcations on us whether we like it or not.!


More bollocks about the EU from LP.
Stevie

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Luke P wrote:


The EU are pushing ahead with their own style of regionalisation of England whether we like it or not. If we remain in the EU England will become a set of regions. It may take 10 years, it may take 40. It is happening. They are going to impose their own demarcations on us whether we like it or not.!


More bollocks about the EU from LP.


This is why I think UKIP.
Luke P

Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:


Presumably they would not take kindly to finding themselves in the region of 'Wessex'. (and I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales and Hereford to Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandw...3/hereford_in_wales_feature.shtml) I was in Hereford (Henfford) at the weekend and it is very Welsh.


Laughing What planet are you on? There is a notorious and celebrated Welsh connection with Liverpool - names of streets, Welsh Chapels, Liverpool Welsh Community Newspaper etc, but wholesale shift of Liverpool INTO Wales? If we start moving places with large populations of another nation into that country we're going to end up with one messed up map - New York, Boston, Baltimore can become part of Ireland, Nova Scotia can become parts of Scotland, Patagonia can become Welsh.

As for Hereford being Welsh? Other than it's name and my friends dad who is from Wales, Hereford has little Welshness still in existing - I've spotted a Welsh Social Club, there may or may not be a couple of Chapels still open. That's it. I look forward to you claiming otherwise. Hereford Cows are a popular breed on Welsh farms though....

Off the top of my head there are Welsh Chapels and Communities in Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Oswestry, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Dublin, Derby. Can I claim these to the new Wales Imperialisitic State?


Read the responses of the Herefordians - more than half of them are in favour of the idea!!!

I make the Liverpool remark semi-seriously. I don't imagine it will ever be on an official agenda. However, the Welsh influence in Liverpool is extremely large. The scouser way of talking is itself extremely Welsh-influenced. Parts of Liverpool used to be Welsh-speaking (possibly still are). Liverpool is the metropolis that North Wales never had (pity, for its economy) and would be a great boost to an independent Wales by the way. And of course, Liverpool did used to be in Wales, a wee while ago... Smile
Luke P

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Luke P wrote:


The EU are pushing ahead with their own style of regionalisation of England whether we like it or not. If we remain in the EU England will become a set of regions. It may take 10 years, it may take 40. It is happening. They are going to impose their own demarcations on us whether we like it or not.!


More bollocks about the EU from LP.


Erm excuse me?
Do you have an education?

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=446
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
A statement which reveals him as a British Nationalist of the most extreme kind, one who thinks the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Scotland and turning it into merely "north Britain" didn't go nearly far enough. Yet while wishing to eradicate the one very real obstacle to British centralisation which continued to have some existence after the Union of 1707  -  the border between two completely different legal systems  -  Luke P also claims to be in favour of de-centralisation where England is concerned. It is clear from his statements about creating "six or seven" regions of England that the only real PURPOSE of doing so would be to achieve a pseudo-"federal" United Kingdom with the component parts of the "federation" not too many orders of magnitude different in size. In pursuit of such regionalisation, he talks about restoring
Quote:
Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria
when I asked
Quote:
Where would you draw the boundaries? HOW would you draw the boundaries?
the response was
Quote:
If one can put a man on the moon, we can agree on carving up a map sensibly.
But, far from being "sensible", Luke P's own pipe dreams are quite mad. Apart from the sheer insanity of his expressed desire to include Edinburgh and the Lothians in "Northumbria", there is also
Quote:
I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales
So, he wishes to re-draw both the border with Scotland and the border with Wales, yet he is unable to come up with ANY reasonable suggestions for drawing regional boundaries WITHIN England.

The fact is, where any scheme for the regionalisation of England is concerned, far from being "the least of our worries", as Luke P suggests, any attempt to draw regional boundaries within England would be fraught with difficulties and would lead to many objections. Since Luke P also says
Quote:
The issue should be decided by a body of public opinion.
it is obvious that, even if the regionalisation of England could be achieved, it would take a great many years. Meanwhile, if he thinks that Scotland will be standing still and patiently awaiting the new federal UK while all this is dragging on, then that must be powerful stuff he is smoking.


I didn't make any reference to 'north Britain' Dave... sigh, that's an awful lot of conjecture from one statement.

England and Scotland should have become irrelevant in the same way Dal Riatha, Strathclyde and Pictland stopped being relevant in a united Scotland Or do you think there just 'always was' a Scotland? I imagine it was quite a departure when Wessex merged with Mercia to form England too. Think about it, I thought you were sharper.
Luke P

Bravehand wrote:
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Luke P wrote:


The EU are pushing ahead with their own style of regionalisation of England whether we like it or not. If we remain in the EU England will become a set of regions. It may take 10 years, it may take 40. It is happening. They are going to impose their own demarcations on us whether we like it or not.!


More bollocks about the EU from LP.


This is why I think UKIP.


I am not a member, not affiliated to any political party. If I were, it would not be a crime. I have explained my political stance clearly on other occasions. For me the continued prosperity and independence of this Island is best achieved as a union. Any secession into a federal EU is tantamount to non-independence, which gets overlooked amidst the dreams of restoring lost pride. The UK has a better chance of leaving the EU nonsense and making a go of it, as a union.
Luke P

Bravehand wrote:
With everything you write, it is obvious you are a 'Nationalist' Luke P but a British Nationalist (not the BNP but in the idealogical sense of the word).
 
I imagine you are a UKIP member/advocate.

So stop pretending you are a 'Nationalist' and reveal your actual political leanings by answering a simple question.

Do you believe Scotland should be an independent sovereign nation?


My inital instinct is merely that the people of Scotland should decide that if that is what they want. I do not live in Scotland so it is not my decision. But, that is not what is being offered by Scottish nationalism at present. It is offering EU-integrated "independence" and "then we'll see...". The problem, and it is quite a significant one" with this is that Scotland on its own is likely to be much less viable outside the EU than as part of the UK. I do not see an "independent" Scotland turning down a place at the EU smorgasbord and the politicians jumping off the gravy train in the same way a lot of them were enticed into the union. The joke is that Scotland will merely become an EU region anyway, with its laws decided in Brussels, exactly the situation it is headed for now. If Scotland were able to leave the EU and the UK and become just Scotland, a free and independent country, I would probably move there. But itt is about as likely as Michael Jackson's turning up at Alec Salmond's pad on hogmanay to sing auld lang's ayne.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
After the act of union 'England' and 'Scotland' should have in my view become irrelevant.
A statement which reveals him as a British Nationalist of the most extreme kind, one who thinks the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Scotland and turning it into merely "north Britain" didn't go nearly far enough.
Bravehand wrote:
I say he's UKIP but if you think BNP, it's entirely possible.
I didn't say he's a member of the BNP. Although the BNP are a party of neo-nazi racists, so far as I'm aware, the BNP doesn't have an official policy of abolishing absolutely all distinctions between Scotland and England; so, in that particular respect, on the basis of his statement quoted above, Luke P may actually be more extreme than the BNP.
Bravehand wrote:
He does the same stuff on another Scottish forum
What other Scottish forum?


You are a little harsh on the BNP. I have met some BNP people and they are not neo-Nazis, nor particularly racist. I have no doubt some of them are though. That a growing proportion of the electorate are voting for them should tell you something about the state we are in. I find some of their stances quite reasonable, and if you took the time to examine them I am sure you would too.

Are you able to hold a theoretical discussion without getting riled up?
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
Are you able to hold a theoretical discussion without getting riled up?
You are making the elementary mistake of assuming you know how I feel. You don't. The fact I dismiss nearly everything you say doesn't mean I'm "riled up". It just means I think what you say is stupid. As it happens, right now, for reasons I won't go into at present, I'm in a very good mood, and I cheerfully say I think your arguments are stupid.
Luke P wrote:
I didn't make any reference to 'north Britain'
So what? You said that, after 1707, Scotland and England SHOULD HAVE become irrelevant. That can only be taken as you supporting the two countries becoming one homogenous whole, to a far greater extent than actually occurred. Logically, that would make the northern part of that homogenous whole north Britain. That's what you support, whether you actually used that term or not.
Luke P

Am I to assume the poor Strathclydians were in the same state of horror at the integrationist Scottish nationalists way back when.... Scottish nationalists of the most extreme kind, who thought the attempts at eradicating the very idea of Strathclyde and turning it into merely "sw Scotland" didn't go nearly far enough... ????

(I'm sure Strathclyde had quite the distinct legal system before it was integrated)


Nations grow, countries merge, lands are conquered, wars are lost, names are changed, countries divide and it starts again...
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
Am I to assume the poor Strathclydians were in the same state of horror at the integrationist Scottish nationalists way back when
Who knows? Who cares? Virtually nobody, nowadays. This isn't an issue in present day politics, and it hasn't been an issue for a great many centuries. You are avoiding the REAL issue. You said Scotland and England SHOULD HAVE become irrelevant. You were expressing a preference with regard to PRESENT DAY politics. You are a British nationalist who hankers after a perfect Union which has never existed, and never will, now.
Luke P

Actually I was talking about 300 years ago, and my point is really that the "who know? who cares?" would equally apply to Scotland and England right now, if the "perfect union" had been done. I agree it probably won't.
Holebender

Luke P wrote:
My inital instinct is merely that the people of Scotland should decide that if that is what they want. I do not live in Scotland so it is not my decision. But, that is not what is being offered by Scottish nationalism at present. It is offering EU-integrated "independence" and "then we'll see...".

Right now Scotland is part of the UK and the EU and NATO, and it's a Monarchy, among other things. If you want people to decide on significant matters like these, you have to deal with them one at a time. If you were to hold a referendum and ask (for example) do you want Scotland to leave the UK and the EU you will definitely fail. Supporters of Union will vote no, supporters of the EU will vote no, as will significant numbers of supporters of independence within the EU and supporters of the UK who oppose the EU. The only way to truly gauge opinion on these issues is to treat each issue separately.

It is therefore bogus to argue against Scottish independence from the UK on the grounds that it does not deal with the EU question. Scotland is already a member of the EU so nothing changes in the event of independence from the UK. On the other hand, Scotland cannot decide on its status in the EU while remaining a member of the UK. The question of UK membership must be settled first and only if Scotland leaves the UK can any other matter, such as EU membership, be decided by Scotland's electorate.
Cymro

Luke P wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:


Presumably they would not take kindly to finding themselves in the region of 'Wessex'. (and I think there is a strong case for transferring Liverpool to Wales and Hereford to Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandw...3/hereford_in_wales_feature.shtml) I was in Hereford (Henfford) at the weekend and it is very Welsh.


Laughing What planet are you on? There is a notorious and celebrated Welsh connection with Liverpool - names of streets, Welsh Chapels, Liverpool Welsh Community Newspaper etc, but wholesale shift of Liverpool INTO Wales? If we start moving places with large populations of another nation into that country we're going to end up with one messed up map - New York, Boston, Baltimore can become part of Ireland, Nova Scotia can become parts of Scotland, Patagonia can become Welsh.

As for Hereford being Welsh? Other than it's name and my friends dad who is from Wales, Hereford has little Welshness still in existing - I've spotted a Welsh Social Club, there may or may not be a couple of Chapels still open. That's it. I look forward to you claiming otherwise. Hereford Cows are a popular breed on Welsh farms though....

Off the top of my head there are Welsh Chapels and Communities in Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Oswestry, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Dublin, Derby. Can I claim these to the new Wales Imperialisitic State?


Read the responses of the Herefordians - more than half of them are in favour of the idea!!!

I make the Liverpool remark semi-seriously. I don't imagine it will ever be on an official agenda. However, the Welsh influence in Liverpool is extremely large. The scouser way of talking is itself extremely Welsh-influenced. Parts of Liverpool used to be Welsh-speaking (possibly still are). Liverpool is the metropolis that North Wales never had (pity, for its economy) and would be a great boost to an independent Wales by the way. And of course, Liverpool did used to be in Wales, a wee while ago... Smile


Irish influence on Liverpool is also huge. So what do we do about that issue? I enjoy the Welsh connection with Liverpool, but that is all it is, it's a connection with some interlinking history. The Scouser way of talking is a hybid of influences, including the Irish. It's influence can in turn be heard in North East Wales, but that's more to do with the more recent influence of Liverpool and the transiant population to places like Flintshire and Coastal Denbighshire from Liverpool and Merseyside than the other way round. It's thought that the name Liverpool came from the Welsh name Ler Pwll but the name Dover also came from the Welsh (or Brythonic to be more exact) name for Water (Dwr) so can we also stake a claim for Dover and the port?

And Worcester, and Chester, and Carlisle, and Cumbria oh and why not Strathclyde?
Luke P

Yes it's true. We were all Welsh once. But, though the suggestion may seem ridiculous, there is plenty of precedent for border areas switching countries. The usual route is via plebiscite - a simple vote of people. I would love to know the support for such a move, though I think it infinitely more probable in Herefordshire than Liverpool. They seem to admire the Welsh road system.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
You are a British nationalist who hankers after a perfect Union which has never existed, and never will, now.
Luke P wrote:
the "who know? who cares?" would equally apply to Scotland and England right now, if the "perfect union" had been done.
The reason a "perfect union"wasn't even attempted was because it COULDN'T be done. As it was, the union was "welcomed"with rioting in several Scottish cities. Within a couple of years, those who had voted for it had changed their minds. A motion for disbanding the Union failed in the House of Lords by just four votes. Your "more perfect union"wouldn't have lasted ten years.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
though the suggestion may seem ridiculous
If the Republic of Ireland claimed Liverpool, they could make out a case on ethnic/cultural grounds, but it would still be stupid, in fact it would be almost as idiotic as you suggesting transferring Liverpool to Wales. Neither Plaid Cymru nor any other Welsh nationalist organisation claims LIverpool. What is the purpose of inventing this complete non-issue?
The Lithgae Jambo

Luke P wrote:
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:


More bollocks about the EU from LP.


Erm excuse me?
Do you have an education?

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=446


Oh, yes, I have an education. It's made me wise enough never to refer to the DM as an authoritative source on which to base an argument.

It's a lesson I learned long ago. I suggest that you take heed of it too.
Corby Boy

Luke P

When exactly was Liverpool part of Wales? Can you provide your reference. (I accept the heavy Welsh influence through migration, but not being part of Wales)

Too my modest knowledge, Cheshire in the doomsday book pretty much stretched as far West to Flint. That would make Liverpool further east into ENGLAND. I don't think the border has ever moved further back east then its present position of the outskirts of Chester to my knowledge.

May be the good Cymro can chip in here.
Luke P

I think you would have to go back to around 600 - 700 AD. Before then of course everyone was Romano-Briton (or Pictish). I don't know what kind of settlement sat on the Mersey then, but it would have been "Welsh".
Holebender

I love the way you dismiss the entire half of the island which lies north of Hadrian's Wall. No great surprise.

BTW, how does your acknowledgement of Pictland fit into your claims of Edinburgh for Northumbria?
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
I love the way you dismiss the entire half of the island which lies north of Hadrian's Wall. No great surprise.

BTW, how does your acknowledgement of Pictland fit into your claims of Edinburgh for Northumbria?


In what way do I dismiss it?!!! The Britons stretched well north of Hadrian's wall, the area north of which is not half the island.... you're splitting hairs here.
Holebender

Oh yeah? the mid-point in Great Britain is not very far from the wall.

You said everyone was a Romano-Briton and then put "or Pictish" in brackets. That's pretty dismissive of the population of the northern half of the island who were never Romano- anything and didn't live in brackets.
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
how does your acknowledgement of Pictland fit into your claims of Edinburgh for Northumbria?
Din Eidyn (Edinburgh) was only captured by the Northumbrians from the Gododdin in 638ad. In 672ad there was a major uprising by the Pictish inhabitants of Northumbrian-controlled territory. That uprising was suppressed, but then, on the 20th of May 685ad, just ten miles from where I live, at Dunnichen near Forfar, Bridei, king of the Picts, defeated and killed Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria. This was a significant battle because it stopped the northwards advance of the Northumbrian angles and began the process of pushing them back, and so ensured that there would be a kingdom in northern Britain which was not English. Notice that the time between the Northumbrians capturing Edinburgh and the Northumbrian advance being reversed was 46 years, and that during that time there were uprisings against the Northumbrians by the native inhabitants. That period is all that Luke P's nonsense about the Lothians being Northumbrian is based on, a relatively short and highly contested time of occupation.

When I was a kid, we were told the first king to rule over both the Scots and the Picts was Kenneth MacAlpin, and that he was a Scot, and that after him the rulers were all Scots. Nowadays, that is widely regarded as myth, rather than history. The evidence suggests that earlier Pictish kings than Kenneth ruled over the Scots, that both Kenneth and quite a lot of his descendants were Pictish, and that the first king to be styled  as "King of Alba" (rather than king of the Picts) was Constantine the Second, who ruled from the year 900, for 43 years, an extremely long reign for those days. One of the main reasons for the Gaelicisation of Alba was that Constantine and his cousin Donald, both of them Pictish, had to flee for their lives during the reign of Giric, and where they fled to was Ulster, where their (Pictish) auntie was married to the local king, and, during the years of their Irish exile, they absorbed Irish ways, which they introduced into Alba after Giric was defeated and killed.
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
Oh yeah? the mid-point in Great Britain is not very far from the wall.

You said everyone was a Romano-Briton and then put "or Pictish" in brackets. That's pretty dismissive of the population of the northern half of the island who were never Romano- anything and didn't live in brackets.


Nonsense. The whole discussion was about Liverpool, where ne'er a Pict had set foot.  I think you'll find, if we are to be pedantic, that about one third of Great Britain (If I can use that filthy term) lies above Hadrian's wall.
Holebender

In that case, why did you mention the Picts? If you were only discussing the population of Merseyside, why bring the Picts into it?

As you do not know the make-up of the tribes in the Merseyside area during Roman times, why do you raise them as some sort of argument in favour of moving Liverpool into Wales? You haven't the first clue if the people who lived around the banks of the Mersey had any connection with the peoples who inhabited what we now call Wales, but you try to convince us that the people who lived there 2000 years ago are justification for redrawing the map today.

I suppose you think Israel is justified in settling the West Bank because it was part of Judea 2000 years ago, right?
Cymro

Ha ha ha ha ha, Luke you're nuts!

It's highly likely that the name Liverpool stems from a Welsh name for the area (it's Lerpwl in Welsh), but the pre Roman period saw what are now regarded as Welsh (Brythonic) populations extended as far North as Cumbria (hence the simmilarities with Cambria - the Roman name for Wales), and South Western Scotland. So do you argue for the placing of these in Wales too?
Luke P

I said the initial remark was only semi-serious but some seem to be taking it very seriously indeed.

Compare Cumbria with Cymru, Penrith with Penarth, Langwathby with Llangwathan (the former a nice mix of British and Norse), Blencarn with Blenavon. We were all Welsh once, except for...

Unfortunately I put Picts in brackets and this was taken very badly.

I am not suggesting Cumbria should be part of Wales but I would be in favour of merging all aforementioned regions into one, which we might call Great Britain or somesuch...
cornubian

Luke P have you read Leopold Kohr's 'break down of nations'?

You do remind me of someone.
Luke P

cornubian wrote:
Luke P have you read Leopold Kohr's 'break down of nations'?

You do remind me of someone.


I haven't but I've read the synopsis. Small is beautiful? Indeed, but don't forget Britain is quite small enough, and the EU is quite the monster in the making.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
Britain is quite small enough
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state; a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
Britain is quite small enough
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state; a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.


Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size. Brazil is a humungous country by comparison that does not interfere in anyone's business except the poor Indians'.

Dismembering Britain will not take away these evils you state. The nuclear weapons will not be disappeared, the kowtowing to US foreign policy will not necessarily go away. These are being subsumed into the 'EU nuclear deterrant' and the 'EU defence force'. This is the giant in the making, and as I said, is much much bigger than Britain. Of course, by the time we've all realised it (there are still many who remain blinkered) it will be far too late to dismantle.

If you argue that size is the enemy, why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state.....is not small enough
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

You are completely and deliberately ignoring my first point. Nearly everyone in London works for the bureaucracy in one way or another. You simply couldn't get that situation in a country which was, to use your words, "quite small enough".

I also wrote
Quote:
a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

Does Iceland have a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Have Norwegian troops been involved in fighting somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War?

Now, this failure to stockpile massive numbers of nuclear weapons might be because Icelanders are nicer than Brits. The failure to send troops to fight somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War might be because Norwegians have abandoned the violent ways of their Viking ancestors. But I can't help feeling the sheer size of the political unit might also have some connection.
Luke P wrote:
why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
The reason parties such as UKIP and the BNP fail so badly to gain any significant support in Scotland is because, so far as many Scots are concerned, THEY (and you) fail to mention "the elephant in the room", which, as far as many Scots are concerned, is being ruled from London.

Independence from the UK first, then we can make our own decision on Europe afterwards.
Stevie

Currently, England is apparently the most populated (per square mile) nation in Europe and maybe the world (my father is my anecdotal  source), feel free to contradict this, so yes small is beautiful indeed considering property and food prices.  Actually, small with a healthy fresh water supply is very beautiful.

Cornwall will have an assembly and I believe a parliament eventually (why the heck not?).

Cornwall gu brąth.
Alasdair

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state.....is not small enough
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

You are completely and deliberately ignoring my first point. Nearly everyone in London works for the bureaucracy in one way or another. You simply couldn't get that situation in a country which was, to use your words, "quite small enough".

I also wrote
Quote:
a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

Does Iceland have a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Have Norwegian troops been involved in fighting somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War?

Now, this failure to stockpile massive numbers of nuclear weapons might be because Icelanders are nicer than Brits. The failure to send troops to fight somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War might be because Norwegians have abandoned the violent ways of their Viking ancestors. But I can't help feeling the sheer size of the political unit might also have some connection.
Luke P wrote:
why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
The reason parties such as UKIP and the BNP fail so badly to gain any significant support in Scotland is because, so far as many Scots are concerned, THEY (and you) fail to mention "the elephant in the room", which, as far as many Scots are concerned, is being ruled from London.

Independence from the UK first, then we can make our own decision on Europe afterwards.


I whole-heartedly agree ... Huzzah!

and now I'm going to talk about nuclear weapons.  As it stands they do exist in this uk and as such will continue to exist regardless of what happens with the break up of the union.  As a least worst option I'd rather see these weapons subsumed into the EU with safe guards requiring activation only on the authority of a number of nations or under certain pre-set conditions, e.g. where any nation under the eu umbrella suffers nuclear attack and where the perpetrator is clearly identifiable.

As I said that would be the least worst option.  My preference being for unilateral decommissioning ... although I do wonder about the N. Korea type arguements.  Maybe the eu umbrella option is the best option after-all Confused
Luke P

Alasdair wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state.....is not small enough
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

You are completely and deliberately ignoring my first point. Nearly everyone in London works for the bureaucracy in one way or another. You simply couldn't get that situation in a country which was, to use your words, "quite small enough".

I also wrote
Quote:
a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

Does Iceland have a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Have Norwegian troops been involved in fighting somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War?

Now, this failure to stockpile massive numbers of nuclear weapons might be because Icelanders are nicer than Brits. The failure to send troops to fight somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War might be because Norwegians have abandoned the violent ways of their Viking ancestors. But I can't help feeling the sheer size of the political unit might also have some connection.
Luke P wrote:
why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
The reason parties such as UKIP and the BNP fail so badly to gain any significant support in Scotland is because, so far as many Scots are concerned, THEY (and you) fail to mention "the elephant in the room", which, as far as many Scots are concerned, is being ruled from London.

Independence from the UK first, then we can make our own decision on Europe afterwards.


I whole-heartedly agree ... Huzzah!

and now I'm going to talk about nuclear weapons.  As it stands they do exist in this uk and as such will continue to exist regardless of what happens with the break up of the union.  As a least worst option I'd rather see these weapons subsumed into the EU with safe guards requiring activation only on the authority of a number of nations or under certain pre-set conditions, e.g. where any nation under the eu umbrella suffers nuclear attack and where the perpetrator is clearly identifiable.

As I said that would be the least worst option.  My preference being for unilateral decommissioning ... although I do wonder about the N. Korea type arguements.  Maybe the eu umbrella option is the best option after-all Confused


If I can paraphrase your statement in a few words, it might read "big is beautiful"...!

As for independence first, worry about the EU later, this is what everybody says, knowing full well there is little chance Scotland would opt out, or be able to opt out. If the Scots in Whitehall were able to deny us a referendum on the subject, why wouldn't the Scots at Holyrood?
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state.....is not small enough
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

You are completely and deliberately ignoring my first point. Nearly everyone in London works for the bureaucracy in one way or another. You simply couldn't get that situation in a country which was, to use your words, "quite small enough".

I also wrote
Quote:
a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

Does Iceland have a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Have Norwegian troops been involved in fighting somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War?

Now, this failure to stockpile massive numbers of nuclear weapons might be because Icelanders are nicer than Brits. The failure to send troops to fight somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War might be because Norwegians have abandoned the violent ways of their Viking ancestors. But I can't help feeling the sheer size of the political unit might also have some connection.
Luke P wrote:
why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
The reason parties such as UKIP and the BNP fail so badly to gain any significant support in Scotland is because, so far as many Scots are concerned, THEY (and you) fail to mention "the elephant in the room", which, as far as many Scots are concerned, is being ruled from London.

Independence from the UK first, then we can make our own decision on Europe afterwards.


I'm not sure your statement is true. An awful lot of Londoners work for mammon, the banking and finance sector. While they undoubtedly pull the strings of government in ways we can only guess at, this is not the 'bureaucracy' in its classic sense. You mention bureaucracy as an evil. I tend to agree. Yet fail to mention the much bigger bureaucracy being assembled somewhere in a Flanders field.

You mention Iceland and Norway. No indeed they are not aggressive nations. Let us look at an even smaller nation - Israel. The size of Wales, with 7m people and more nukes than a red square parade.

Canada - 40 times the size of the UK, no nukes. Sorry, but aggressive nuclear-armed foreign-policy is clearly not a function of size.

As for being ruled from London.
1st- every country needs a capital. London is about 4.5 hours by train from Edinburgh. Gordon and Alasdair manage just fine. The trip from Vancouver to Ottawa can take a little longer. Britain is really not big. I'm sure you've travelled and I'm sure you know it.
2nd - you really aren't ruled from London. Most of your legislation, once again, comes from Brussels, then Edinburgh.   (why do you resent London and not Brussels?)
3rd - being ruled from London is not the same as being ruled by the English. Scots have been at the forefront of Whitehall politics for 400 years and, I have a feeling, will continue to be even if Scotland does secede. Come what may, we will all be EU citizens...
Holebender

Who said being ruled from London is being ruled by the English? You are putting words into the mouths of people, which did not come from those people. Again for the hard of thinking, the Scottish independence movement's problem is with the UK, not England.

As for those Scots you think are running everything from London, they are 200% unionist British and the UK is their only priority. An accident of birth does not make them the same as the people who want independence for Scotland.
Stevie

Luke P wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
A political unit whose capital has many millions of people who nearly all work, directly or indirectly, for the state and for bureaucracies connected to the state.....is not small enough
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

You are completely and deliberately ignoring my first point. Nearly everyone in London works for the bureaucracy in one way or another. You simply couldn't get that situation in a country which was, to use your words, "quite small enough".

I also wrote
Quote:
a political unit which stockpiles massive amounts of nuclear weapons; a political unit which sends its armed forces to fight all over the world; is not small enough.
Luke P wrote:
Expansionist/aggressive/unethical domestic or foreign policies are not a function of size.

Does Iceland have a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Have Norwegian troops been involved in fighting somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War?

Now, this failure to stockpile massive numbers of nuclear weapons might be because Icelanders are nicer than Brits. The failure to send troops to fight somewhere in the world in every year since the Second World War might be because Norwegians have abandoned the violent ways of their Viking ancestors. But I can't help feeling the sheer size of the political unit might also have some connection.
Luke P wrote:
why do you not mention the elephant in the room?
The reason parties such as UKIP and the BNP fail so badly to gain any significant support in Scotland is because, so far as many Scots are concerned, THEY (and you) fail to mention "the elephant in the room", which, as far as many Scots are concerned, is being ruled from London.

Independence from the UK first, then we can make our own decision on Europe afterwards.


I whole-heartedly agree ... Huzzah!

and now I'm going to talk about nuclear weapons.  As it stands they do exist in this uk and as such will continue to exist regardless of what happens with the break up of the union.  As a least worst option I'd rather see these weapons subsumed into the EU with safe guards requiring activation only on the authority of a number of nations or under certain pre-set conditions, e.g. where any nation under the eu umbrella suffers nuclear attack and where the perpetrator is clearly identifiable.

As I said that would be the least worst option.  My preference being for unilateral decommissioning ... although I do wonder about the N. Korea type arguements.  Maybe the eu umbrella option is the best option after-all Confused


If I can paraphrase your statement in a few words, it might read "big is beautiful"...!

As for independence first, worry about the EU later, this is what everybody says, knowing full well there is little chance Scotland would opt out, or be able to opt out. If the Scots in Whitehall were able to deny us a referendum on the subject, why wouldn't the Scots at Holyrood?



Hi Luke P, I realise you have definite concerns over the EU.

I would be interested in you starting a post where you explain your views.

I do not pretend to know everything about the EU and its mysterious goings on.  It's not a subject that has had a great deal of attention and could be enlightening.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
the much bigger bureaucracy being assembled somewhere in a Flanders field
Well I'm not in favour of bureaucratic rule from Brussels, but , in point of fact, in some ways, while the bureaucracy of the EU has a wider reach, in terms of the sheer number of bureaucrats and their hangers-on, it is London that is "the much bigger bureaucracy". In ignoring the enormous bloat of London bureaucracy, YOU are the one ignoring the elephant in the room.
Luke P wrote:
every country needs a capital
Why?

But even if we were to accept for the moment that your hypothesis is true, the UK does NOT need the bloated boil of bureacracy that is London.
Luke P wrote:
An awful lot of Londoners work for mammon, the banking and finance sector.
Bureaucracy. Some towns got big because they produced something. For instance, Bradford's textile mills, Stoke-on-Trent's potteries, Birmingham's engineering workshops, Sheffield's fine quality steel products, Glasgow's shipbuilding, and so on. What London produces is bureaucracy. London got big because the king was there, and for no other reason. Because the king was there, the Court was there, and the servants of that Court were there, and the folk who provided services for the king and his family and his hangers-on and the Court and their families and their hangers-on were there. By the beginning of modern times London was already huge. The formation of the United Kingdom made it even bigger. Precisely BECAUSE it was the centre of government, it became the "centre" of the biggest free trade area in all of Europe, and the capital of the most highly centralised state in all of Europe. The growth of the British Empire made it also the centre of government of the biggest empire on Earth. Even after the Empire became the Commonwealth, London remained the centre of the Sterling area. The centre of the world empire remained a centre of world business out of sheer force of habit, because businessmen for the most part lack the imagination to do things differently. London remained a centre of world banking, a centre for the offices of multi-national companies, and all of this happened because, to begin with, the king was there. So the government was there. So all the companies who wanted to get contracts from the government were there. And all the companies which wanted to get contracts from the companies that got contracts from the government were there. This process is continuing to this very day. Many, many billions of pounds of OUR money is being spent on glorifying London still further for the Olympics. Of course they try to tell us it is for the benefit of all of us, but the truth is, the Olympics are for the benefit of London. I lived in London for twelve years, working as a bricklayer. That's a useful job, you might think. But what was I building? Sometimes it was office blocks for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats. Sometimes it was houses for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats. Sometimes it was houses for the people who provided services for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats. Hardly anybody at all in London actually PRODUCES anything at all. They are all there because the government is there. They are all there because the bureaucracy is there. When I lived in London, I lived there because it was easier for me to get work there because the bureaucracy and all its hangers on were there. I lived there because I was myself one of those hangers-on of bureaucracy, even though in a sense I was doing a "productive" job. The MAJORITY of Londoners were not born in London. They went there for the same reason that I did. Now, of course I don't blame anybody for making a decision about what is best for them and their family. I merely point out the simple fact that the Emperor has no clothes. London is just one big pile of bureaucracy.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
If the Scots in Whitehall were able to deny us a referendum on the subject, why wouldn't the Scots at Holyrood?
You have stated that you live in England. Therefore, "The Scots at Holyrood" have no jurisdiction over you. Anyway, if you really believe the only thing denying you and the rest of the inhabitants of England a referendum on Europe is "the Scots in Whitehall", presumably you will be delighted when this obstacle is removed by Scotland becoming independent.
Dave Coull

Alasdair wrote:
As a least worst option I'd rather see these weapons subsumed into the EU
Nuclear weapons should be dismantled as safely as possible and as fully as possible as soon as possible and their parts disposed in such a way as to make any re-assembly as difficult as possible. This should be done by anybody who can do so. If any nuclear weapons remain on Scottish soil after independence, the Scottish Government should take immediate steps to implement this policy. The weapons should not be handed over to the EU.
Alasdair wrote:
I do wonder about the N. Korea type arguements.
In the past, very prominent American politicians and generals have threatened a "first strike" with nuclear wepons against North Korea. North Korea has never made such a threat against anybody. If you're worried about "rogue states", you're looking in the wrong direction.
Alasdair

Dave Coull wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
I do wonder about the N. Korea type arguements.
In the past, very prominent American politicians and generals have threatened a "first strike" with nuclear wepons against North Korea. North Korea has never made such a threat against anybody. If you're worried about "rogue states", you're looking in the wrong direction.


fairplay.  In which direction should I look?  

[;ease bear in mindI'm sopzzled although come mornignI many be sober ... all typos are entirly in keeping eith my frame of mine ,,,

gawd i soujnd lie an alcomrapholic ...
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
If the Scots in Whitehall were able to deny us a referendum on the subject, why wouldn't the Scots at Holyrood?
You have stated that you live in England. Therefore, "The Scots at Holyrood" have no jurisdiction over you.


Sweet answer for "erm, erm.. erm.. I dunno..."

Laughing
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
If the Scots in Whitehall were able to deny us a referendum on the subject, why wouldn't the Scots at Holyrood?
You have stated that you live in England. Therefore, "The Scots at Holyrood" have no jurisdiction over you.


Sweet answer for "erm, erm.. erm.. I dunno..."

Laughing


Does anybody have a head count of those MSPs that would vote YES, ABSTAIN or vote NO to a referendum being held?

Also, it's remarkable that after such a short time that the SNP have gained the power they have and 'erm, erm, erm, I' do know that eventually a set of circumstances will arrise where a referendum is held, it's a logical development that will inevitably happen.
Holebender

The only people who would try to block a referendum are those who fear losing it... in other words a lot of unionist MSPs.
Stevie

Cornwall free or a desert!

Enough pussyfooting around, aim high.

I have been at the drambuie, maybe I'll be less vigorous in the cold light of day but damn it... FREEDOM!!!!!

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics