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.
|
azzuri
|
UK Poll - Upon Scotland leaving the Union.......Upon Scotland gaining it's Independence from the UK, do you believe that England, Wales and Northern Ireland should remain together in union or would their interests be best served by splitting and becoming sovereign states?
It is obviously up to these nations to decide for themselves, but personally I think upon Scotland leaving the Union it would be best for these 3 Nations to become Sovereign States also.
In order to vote in this poll you have to register for the forums. You can do so by Clicking Here
Please add your comments below.
|
True Scotsman
|
It is really up to England, Wales & Northern Ireland if they want the union to remain or not. The UK Parliament does have the power to dissolve the union between the the 3 countries. If England & Wales became seprate states then the Kingdom of England & the Principality of Wales would be re-established. If Northern Ireland were to become a seprate state then Northern Ireland would have two choices either it would keep on been an Independent State or it can
can be united with Southern Ireland & therefore creating a United Ireland. When Scotland regains it's Independence from the United Kingdom, the future of the remaining UK (Probably renamed the United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland) would probably be in doubt because if Scotland regains its Independence the other 3 countries might want to have Independence because Scotland is getting Independence. But who knows, we shall see what happens when it comes to that time.
___________________________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!
|
Hazel
|
Separate nations?As a foreigner, I do not feel I have a right to vote for what England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do. That is their decision.
I do have my opinion but I'll keep it to myself. That is, as long as you don't tell me that the 50 American states have to separate  .
(Just teasing there.) However, I'd like an explanation of a sentence from previous poster. You said:
<<If England & Wales became seprate states then the Kingdom of England & the Principality of Wales would be re-established>>
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but are you saying that England and Wales would be re-united in some way? Please elucidate. Thank you and good luck in your future.
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
This also brings up the question of Cornwall.Should they be independent of england?I certainly think so,but when Scotland do achieve independence i`m sure the other three countries will follow suit,where that would leave Cornwall though would be another matter.
|
True Scotsman
|
Hazel Wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but are you saying that England and Wales would be re-united in some way? Please elucidate. Thank you and good luck in your future.
What I am trying to say Hazel is that if England regain its Independent then the Kingdom of England would be re-established or would become in to existents again & if Wales regains its then the Principality of Wales would be re-established or would become in to existents again. Does that help Hazel.
Wolf of Badenoch wrote:
This also brings up the question of Cornwall.Should they be independent of england?I certainly think so,but when Scotland do achieve independence i`m sure the other three countries will follow suit,where that would leave Cornwall though would be another matter.
Cornwall is a different matter altogether. There was a Country called the Kingdom of Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow). It had its own Kings & laws until it was taken over by the Kingdom of England between the 10th & 11th Century. Weather Cornwall will become an Independent State again is anyones guess but I am not sure if it will happen but there is possibility Cornwall can become an Independent State again.
_________________________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!
|
Morph
|
was cornwall not taken by force and therefore is now part of England i feel it would be a step too far for Cornwall to gain independance however the rest of the current UK would have a decent chance if Scotland gained independance
|
Hazel
|
by forceCornwall was taken by force, yes. Was not Wales taken by force? Was not Ireland was taken by force. Wasn't Scotland taken by force even though some of its own people cooperated?
Is my history amiss? I thought all the regions were taken by force. Parliament seems to consider Wales part of England and, sometimes, I think BBC considers Wales part of England.
Woops! I am wandering. Only meant to say that "taken by force" does not exclude Cornwall for the chance to try for independence, I don't think.
Hazel
|
Hazel
|
Principality of Wales | True Scotsman wrote: | Hazel Wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but are you saying that England and Wales would be re-united in some way? Please elucidate. Thank you and good luck in your future.
What I am trying to say Hazel is that if England regain its Independent then the Kingdom of England would be re-established or would become in to existents again & if Wales regains its then the Principality of Wales would be re-established or would become in to existents again. Does that help Hazel.
Wolf of Badenoch wrote:
This also brings up the question of Cornwall.Should they be independent of england?I certainly think so,but when Scotland do achieve independence i`m sure the other three countries will follow suit,where that would leave Cornwall though would be another matter.
Cornwall is a different matter altogether. There was a Country called the Kingdom of Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow). It had its own Kings & laws until it was taken over by the Kingdom of England between the 10th & 11th Century. Weather Cornwall will become an Independent State again is anyones guess but I am not sure if it will happen but there is possibility Cornwall can become an Independent State again.
_________________________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!! |
Thank you. That explains, yes. I thought you were saying that England and Wales would be re-established as one entity. Men of Harlech, awaken!!!! 
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
Re: by force | Hazel wrote: |
Woops! I am wandering. Only meant to say that "taken by force" does not exclude Cornwall for the chance to try for independence, I don't think.
Hazel |
I would agree with ye oan the Cornwall point there...but you said Scotland was taken by force...no,never happened,we were given up by a "parcel o rogues" but were not taken by force.
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
Re: by force | Hazel wrote: | Parliament seems to consider Wales part of England and, sometimes, I think BBC considers Wales part of England.
Hazel |
Aye an theres mony south o the border whae see Scotland as jist anither region o england tae,plenty ae them in Scotland see it like that tae come tae think o it.
|
Hazel
|
Re: by force | Wolf of Badenoch wrote: | | Hazel wrote: |
Woops! I am wandering. Only meant to say that "taken by force" does not exclude Cornwall for the chance to try for independence, I don't think.
Hazel |
I would agree with ye oan the Cornwall point there...but you said Scotland was taken by force...no,never happened,we were given up by a "parcel o rogues" but were not taken by force. |
"Parcel of rogues" is a better term than mine. And, you are right there. But, there were the constant battles preceding. It was a long process.
I recently read a book that presented a theory of why the Saxons won and Celts lost so often. I must find that if I can. Otherwise, I might tell it wrong. But, it boiled down to the Celts being a more romantically-inclined people who had more time for the wonders of their world and the spiritual side of life while the Saxons saw nothing except conquering. Therefore, they had more energy to zero in on their goals.
|
Leathlaobhair
|
I'm writing an argumentative thesis for an english class on Welsh Nationalism. And from what I've learned from all of my sources and writing, I must definitely vote for Independence 
|
Cymro
|
Of course Wales, England and NI and Cornwall should continue to breakup the Union once Scotland says goodbye.
Wales is a conquered part of England originally hence why you dont get a roaring red dragon on the Union Jack as Wales was annexed into England. Though now to be fair it is recognised as a 'country' within the state of the UK.
|
SLG
|
I believe that Scotland should be Independent, but most of all, I believe that Scots should be allowed the opportunity to make that decision either way. Similarly the people of England, Wales and NI should be allowed that opportunity. Whether they take it or not, it is up to them. I'm all for self-determination  . I expect that as Scotland become Independent, that they to will choose that path.
|
Peter Dow
|
Thank you for the invitation (by email) to participate in the poll. I don't find it easy to choose an option as you have opposed the concept of union and independence, which I do not believe are dichotomies - mutually exclusive options.
For example, France and Germany are independent countries but both are in the European Union. Independent AND in union. Strange indeed, but true nevertheless.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from my website.
The need for a British state after Scottish independence
| Quote: | Policy ideas are to have Scotland as a member of NATO and for keeping the nuclear weapons submarine on the Clyde - but removing the “Her Majesty’s” label from bases such as HM Naval Base Clyde.
Also, Scotland should have independent membership of the United Nations General Assembly but so should Britain - both Scottish and British nations exist and so both should be represented on the UN General Assembly. If England and the rest want on the UN General Assembly too, fair enough. That’s a policy idea.
Britain should keep its seat on the UN Security Council but not as “the UK”. For that seat, UK nuclear weapons, UK aircraft carriers and a few other things, even with full Scottish independence, there will still need to be an inheritor British state, under the Prime Minister presumably - to take over those few limited remaining functions that cannot be done separately by the new states emerging from the break up of the United Kingdom.
The name of the inheritor British state is somewhat academic, but “Britain” seems to be a good starting point for discussion.
Abbreviation. rUK = remainder of the United Kingdom after Scotland has left
Posting on the Scotland.com political forum, Neil Caple said:
| Quote: | | "Tell us all, Peter, after Scotland and the remainder of the UK become independent of each other, how would this political entity you call Britain function?" |
What part of
"Britain should keep its seat on the UN Security Council but not as “the UK”. For that seat, UK nuclear weapons, UK aircraft carriers and a few other things, even with full Scottish independence, there will still need to be an inheritor British state, under the Prime Minister presumably - to take over those few limited remaining functions that cannot be done separately by the new states emerging from the break up of the United Kingdom."
don’t you understand?
I would assume that such a “Britain” would function taking democratic authority from the elected British House of Commons, hopefully minus all that “Her Majesty’s Government”, compulsory loyalty oaths and other royalist nonsense. (I’m for proportional representation for Westminster as well.)
If the rUK wants to stick with the Queen then that’s their business - as long as they are not ramming the Queen down the throat of Scotland or Scottish representatives, as a Scottish republican I don’t mind too much. Of course the rUK or its parts could dump the Queen as well and go republican too - why not?
Posting on the Scotland.com political forum, Neil Caple said:
| Quote: | | "How do you see this Britain of yours justifying its own UN membership in addition to the memberships of Scotland and the rUK?" |
The British nation is well known in the international scene, as are the Scots - both nations need no introduction or justification. I don‘t know if the rUK would want membership of the UN as a “nation”. The English, the Welsh and perhaps the N. Irish yes, I can see them wanting to be in the UN in their own right - but that isn‘t for us Scots to decide. There are more questions about what the rUK would want to do; far fewer questions about a British replacement for the UK.
Posting on the Scotland.com political forum, Neil Caple said:
| Quote: | | "What powers will this Britain of yours have, what form of government? Who will select its leaders? Who will pay for it? Will this Britain be a member of the EU, in addition to Scotland and the rUK? Will it be a NATO member in its own right?" |
In comparison to the UK, this Britain would have:
- powers and responsibilities - far fewer,
- government - democratic,
- government leader selection - British House of Commons elects Prime Minster,
- membership of NATO - oh yes indeed.
to be paid for by British taxpayers one-way-or-another. Lots of options - up for negotiation.
Just thinking out loud, I would suggest removing any British element from income tax (a tax cut!) and then pay for the nuclear weapon submarines by taxes on oil pipe-lines, the aircraft carriers by taxes on shipping, the British air-traffic and air-defence control by taxes on flying, and British representation at Westminster, the EU, NATO, the UN and so on by taxes on the Channel tunnel.
Other questions -
- Scotland in EU - yes,
- rUK - in EU? - again that’s up to them if they want to be there as part of Britain only or as rUK, England, Wales and N. Ireland as well.
It’s up to the rUK or its parts to decide what they want to do. More or less Britain would take over from the UK but would not determine what Scotland does domestically or internationally, excepting things that Scotland cannot run for itself - like the nuclear weapon submarines on the Clyde.
Britain would also hand over the same bulk of UK responsibilities in the rUK to the new rUK state or states as and when they get themselves sorted out.
Of course in addition to all that, eventually , we should democratically elect heads of state - a President of Scotland and a President of Britain (and vice-presidents).
These are policy ideas towards republican constitutions for Scotland and Britain. |
Britain doesn't have to threaten Scottish independence
| Quote: | "We shall defend our island" said Winston Churchill in world war 2.
The Scots agreed with Churchill about that.
The Scots understood then, as today intelligent Scots understand, that for Scotland and its people to be free then we Scots must concern ourselves with the freedom of all Britain.
What would happen to Scottish freedom if, in the future, say, England falls politically to an extreme form of fascism, like the Nazis or today's far right politicians?
We Scots would be the next to lose our freedom perhaps? Our fates on this island are inextricably intertwined.
Sir Winston and the legend of King Arthur. I fancy that, such was Britain's peril in 1940, the Lady of the Lake might have been tempted to assist Churchill with the loan of King Arthur's magic sword Excalibur! ... Anyway, Churchill, and we, won.
That is not to say that the different nations of Britain cannot be free and independent. They can and, in my opinion, they should be.
However, as free and independent nations there would still be times of great danger when it would be in all our interests to consent to stand together again as one British nation - to wage war against a monstrous tyranny perhaps?
Therefore my fellow Scots, doubt me not if, as a Scottish National Standard Bearer, an occasion arises where I fly the union jack (or union flag) for all to see.
I won't have abandoned Scottish independence. I won't be cheering on the Queen. Never!
Although I'm no royalist, this standard bearer remembers and honours the Scots who were proud to fight for a free Britain.
I'll simply be advising Scots to unite as a free and independent nation with the other nations of Britain solely for the purpose of dealing more effectively with a great challenge of the time while maintaining Scotland's independence on all other matters.
As a Scottish republican, I see the union jack as no more of a threat to a Scottish republic than the European Union flag is a threat to the French, Italian or German republics.
|
Which is second best - an Independent Scottish Kingdom or a British Republic?
| Quote: | Comments on adopting the Windsor realm model for Scotland - i.e. Scotland having independence from Westminster but no independence from Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors as head of state. In other words, a Scotland that was only as independent as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are.
If that was what my fellow Scots wanted then of course I would have to lump it until such time as Scottish republicans could win the argument with our fellow Scots for a truly independent Scottish Republic.
Leaving the United Kingdom but staying in the Windsor realm would be such a minor improvement to the status quo that I wouldn’t have any faith that that set up would, could or should last.
I can only accept the best for Scotland and the Scots. I would not be doing my duty to my fellow Scots if I settled for second or third best - and I won’t. I’m not in any way demeaning the people of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I love them and I respect them. In fact, I have so much confidence in their ability to run their own affairs that I am confident that some of them would make excellent candidates for presidents of republics of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
For Scotland, I should explain that I am a ferocious republican and I wouldn’t agree that even a vote of the majority of Scots in favour of the Queen somehow allowed her state to oppress the minority of Scots. Either ALL Scots get their rights, justice and democratic freedoms, or it is war against the oppressor state, as far as I am concerned - maybe sometimes a cold war but potentially a hot war with bullets flying and bombs going off! Democracy means “government by all the people” - not “dictatorship by the majority”.
If the state in an Independent Scottish Kingdom was oppressing Scots, as I believe it would, I’d be duty bound as a Scottish republican to fight that royalist state and I’d happily accept help in that fight from any other republican - British, European, American, you name it.
Comments on models of British Republics with varying degrees of independence for Scotland -
(a) with no devolution - a unitary British state with no Scottish Parliament,
(b) with some devolution to the Scottish parliament via a republican version of the Scotland Act.
(c) federal state of Scotland with as much independence from Britain as the US states have from the US federal government
(d) fully independent state of Scotland.
(a) Unitary state Britain. Non-starter - I can’t see the Scots giving up our parliament - and if any British state, republic or not, tries to do away with the Scottish parliament, then it is war.
(b) A British republican version of the Scotland Act. A definite improvement over the status quo because if a British president and constitution actually helped to deliver democratic rights to the Scots - like free speech, the right to protest and so on, then the Scots would really be able to make proper use of any devolved powers to the Scottish parliament.
The real problem that Scotland has under the UK state (the royalist fascist police state, in other words) is that the absence of a fully inclusive democratic political process means that the best Scots with the best ideas are often marginalized, oppressed or worse.
Presently, the Scottish Executive can make a dog’s dinner of Scottish government and there is precious little opportunity for most aggrieved Scots to really kick up a fuss about it.
It is all very well having a Scottish Parliament with rights for MSPs but what a democracy requires to work is rights for all of the people - not just rights for members of parliaments.
(c) A Scottish federal state in a Republic of Britain. Even better than (b) because Scots would then have responsibility for more of our own affairs.
(d) An Independent Scottish Republic AND a British Republic. How can there be both an Independent Scottish state and a British Republic? It can be done. How?
The best example is to consider the European Union.
| Quote: | The European Union republican model
At present the E.U. operates with more of a republican style evolving towards a (hopefully democratic) constitution rather than a royalist style. There is no King or Queen of the Kingdom of Europe, but the European Parliament forms the democratic core of republican Europe - and there is now a move towards a formal constitution for the E.U., signed very recently by the heads of government - Britain’s Prime Minister among them.
Now obviously, parties like UKIP take a particularly dim view of the danger of an undemocratic European super-state emerging. However, I’d rather trust my own judgement about that than UKIP’s as they are not known for being enthusiastic supporters of the Scottish parliament and Scottish independence.
The E.U.’s new Charter of Fundamental Human Rights adds significantly to the E.U.’s democratic credentials as it is a real improvement over the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights. ECHR was better than nothing but it has serious flaws.
None of this emerging European Union republicanism has been too over-bearing and dictatorial as at every stage each European country can choose to accept or not, the latest proposals.
To get to the point: if a new British republic was to be based on co-operation between consenting countries and nations, in the manner of the European Union, then Scotland being “in” such a British republic would not be a threat to Scotland’s independence.
Such a loose British republic would in theory allow Scotland, England and the rest to decide independently for themselves on whether or not to become independent republics or independent kingdoms. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So an Independent Scottish Republic is my first choice - but what would be my second preference?
So if I am asked - “So, what's it to be, what's your second preference? Scottish Kingdom or British Republic? What's the most important to you?”
I would say that the rights and freedoms of the people of Scotland are most important to me. If a Scottish Kingdom denied Scots our rights - I would fight it. If a British Republic denied Scots our rights - I would fight it. Even if a temporarily bad Scottish Republic denied Scots our rights - I’d fight that too!
I am sure though that the right weapon to fight for the Scots’ rights is a properly led Scottish republic. A Scottish republic would need the right constitution and the right president and vice-presidents - but if we achieved that then that’s best of all.
The only circumstance in which I would reluctantly support a Windsor Scottish Kingdom rather than a particular British republic would be if, A BIG “IF”, uncharacteristically for the Windsors, the Windsor Scottish Kingdom was defending the existence and powers of the Scottish parliament and the British so-called “republic” in question was wanting to go back to a unitary state with no Scottish parliament or no powers for the Scottish parliament.
However, faced with the threat of such an undemocratic British state, royalist Scots would be better advised I think (a) it is best to become republican Scots, but if they refuse to do that then (b) at least look for a new King or Queen who would defend the Scots rights, Declaration-of-Arbroath-style, rather than expecting anything but betrayal from the Windsors.
However, royalist Scots are a pretty stupid lot - not likely to take good advice. Remember that, for decades, most of the royalists in the SNP stuck loyally with Queen Elizabeth even though she wasn’t lifting a finger to bring about a Scottish parliament or Scottish independence. Expect nothing from royalist Scots and you won’t be disappointed! I expect nothing but betrayal from the Scots-royalist parties - that’s Scottish Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Green, going by their disgraceful behaviour on the 9th October 2004. Still British Labour did deliver a Scottish Parliament of sorts.
Those (not me) who seek a new Scottish royal family, other than the Windsors, may be serving up pie-in-the-sky but that seems more appetising than the s**t the Windsors have been serving up to the Scots for so many years.
Any democratic British republic that defends the Scottish parliament would get my support in preference to a Windsor Scottish Kingdom. I do want at least one head of state, Scottish and/or British, who is really ready to fight for the rights of the Scots, and I know that Queen Elizabeth certainly has never done that.
I just don’t believe that an independent state is the be all and end all of politics. For example, “President” Saddam Hussein (the mass-graves filler) ran an independent state of Iraq. Hitler was head of an independent Nazi state. Independent states aren’t worth anything if they are not democratic independent states defending the rights and freedoms of the people.
I don’t consider the Windsors to be intrinsically more trustworthy than the likes of Saddam and Hitler. An independent Windsor royalist, fascist police state in Scotland oppressing the Scots - is something to be avoided, not voted for. |
OK if you want to take the time to click to my web pages you can read the above quotes and more with pictures, music and active links.
|
azzuri
|
Just to make it clear - every single registered user of the website should've received an email invitation to take part in the poll.
If not - check your 'spam' or 'junk' folder and make sure it is shown as a 'safe' email address to receive email from.
|
Hazel
|
BritainPeter said, "Also, Scotland should have independent membership of the United Nations General Assembly but so should Britain - both Scottish and British nations exist and so both should be represented on the UN General Assembly. If England and the rest want on the UN General Assembly too, fair enough. That’s a policy idea.
Scotland
Britain
England (and the rest)
United Kingdom
I suppose I am being dense as usual but, among these four entities, where/what is "Britain"? Is this "Great Britain"? If so, according to my atlas, Britain includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, I think, a few islands in the channel.
Always ready for clarification. Thanks. Hazel
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
Re: Britain | Hazel wrote: | Peter said, "Also, Scotland should have independent membership of the United Nations General Assembly but so should Britain - both Scottish and British nations exist and so both should be represented on the UN General Assembly. If England and the rest want on the UN General Assembly too, fair enough. That’s a policy idea.
Scotland
Britain
England (and the rest)
United Kingdom
I suppose I am being dense as usual but, among these four entities, where/what is "Britain"? Is this "Great Britain"? If so, according to my atlas, Britain includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, I think, a few islands in the channel.
Always ready for clarification. Thanks. Hazel |
Hazel dinnae listen tae Dow,theres alot o other sensible people oan here that ken whit their talkin aboot...my advice is treat onything ye read fae him wi a very large pinch ae salt.And thats only my opinion mind naebody elses.
Aye yer right..If Scotland becomes independent great britain or whatever other names they have for it ceases to exist.
Ho! Peter whits wi aw the spamming?Can ye no jist answer the question that wis asked ae ye.
|
SLG
|
Spot on Wolf. Hazel, Mr Dow is IMO slightly (ok, very) confused. Fair enough wanting some sort of structure to allow the countries of the British Isles to work together, something similar to the Nordic League, but Britain ceases to exist as a state, never mind a nation, as soon as Scotland becomes Independent.
|
redlak
|
They would be best served in following their own course. which hopefully would see Wales,Northern Ireland,Cornwall and the Isle of Man departing the English yoke.
|
Hazel
|
IndependenceIsn't Isle of Man totally self-governing now. Isn't it independent but as a protectorate? I confess to not quite understand the distinction there but my understanding is that the British/UK government has nothing to say about what Isle of Man does except in some dire emergency where the Isle can no longer govern itself.
Getting off-topic there. Back to Scotland. Just wondering.
|
Cymro
|
The Isle of Man is a British Dependency. From listening to the British news etc you'd swear that the Isle of Man was like Anglesey, Skye, the Isle of White - just an island. But its never been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. It has its own parliament which is I think slightly more autonomous than the Scottish Parliament. I think I'm right in saying that it's home to the oldest pariament in the world.
They 'depend' on the UK for security, currency etc.
|
Hazel
|
Isle of Man"its never been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland."
Hmmmm? Now that you write it and my brain starts thinking back, that looks quite true. I suppose I just assumed that it eventually got taken over like everywhere else. I've not delved into the history of Man as I should.
"They 'depend' on the UK for security, currency etc." Would that be international security, not local? And, does the Queen appoint a governor-general there as she does in Canada, Australia, etc.?
Thank you for explanation. Hazel
|
Peter Dow
|
Re: Britain | Hazel wrote: | Peter said, "Also, Scotland should have independent membership of the United Nations General Assembly but so should Britain - both Scottish and British nations exist and so both should be represented on the UN General Assembly. If England and the rest want on the UN General Assembly too, fair enough. That’s a policy idea.
Scotland
Britain
England (and the rest)
United Kingdom
I suppose I am being dense as usual but, among these four entities, where/what is "Britain"? Is this "Great Britain"? If so, according to my atlas, Britain includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, I think, a few islands in the channel.
Always ready for clarification. Thanks. Hazel |
What is Britain, Hazel? Well politically speaking - THIS is Britain (click to my webpage Winston Churchill, 8th May 1945)
|
Hazel
|
8 May 1945Thank you. It has been a long, long time since we listened to that via old radio.
|
SLG
|
On a similar note, the BBC is running a poll on whether there should be an English parliament. This follows comments from the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer saying that there definitely should not be an English Parliament.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk....stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_4792120
On an intervew on Radio 4 on the topic, Lord Falconer admits that devolution to Scotland and Wales had created an anomoly, but says "we must deal with that anomoly in a way that most promotes the Union". Not in the way that best deals with the anomoly, but the way that best protects the Union.
|
macnumpty
|
Yes, but for "Union", read "Labour's majority in the Commons".
|
SLG
|
| macnumpty wrote: | | Yes, but for "Union", read "Labour's majority in the Commons". |
I don't know abuot that. For a lot of Scottish Labour, yes. I think Falconer is a Unionist of the traditional variety. Even if it meant Tory rule in Scotland again, he would still support the Union.
|
macnumpty
|
I was feeling cynical this morning! I'm sure Falconer is a genuine Unionist, and to be honest the real cynicism should be directed at the "English votes for English laws" attitude of the Tories, who never saw passing Scotland or Wales-only legislation according to a Manifesto which had been rejected four times by the Scottish and Welsh electorates!
However, the key part of the current problem is what to do with England: the status quo is perceived as unfair, Assemblies based on artificially drawn up regions won't cut it (as we saw in the North East Referendum in 2004), an English Parliament doesn't seem to have enough support from mainstream politicians (add to that the perception of adding another tier of government, or what we would do with the UK MPs), and just tagging on a law that only English MPs can vote on English matters creates a potential fiasco in the event that the largest UK party isn't the largest party in England.
Frankly, "Independence all round" seems to be the best approach, but while I support independence, I don't like the idea of it being a default choice.
|
SLG
|
| macnumpty wrote: | | Frankly, "Independence all round" seems to be the best approach, but while I support independence, I don't like the idea of it being a default choice. |
I understand that the manner in which it is achieved can influence how we then move on after the event. I don't think we will ever be in the position where Independence is forced upon us. Any move by the English will attempted within the UK. It looks to me like The majority of the 'Campaign for an English Parliament' etc don't really consider an Independent England. They just want an English Parliament because we've got one. If there starts to be a real demand for an English Parliament then they will get one, but that will not end the UK as such. It will then be up to us to go that final step.
|
azzuri
|
...........it is certainly a step closer however.
|
SLG
|
| rs_azzuri wrote: | | ...........it is certainly a step closer however. |
Aye, and it should push us in Scotland to move on a bit. My point was that I am pretty certain that England will never actively want to end the Union. A parliament, maybe, but sever the Union, no. It will be our decision and that should allow us to enter that era with confidence.
|
|
|
|