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.
Who argues that? Nationalists argue that there are too many Scottish MPs in Westminster; 59 too many!
Who are these nationalists?
I don't think any of them would be quite stupid enough to suggest that Scotland should not have representation in the UK Parliament whilst it is part of the UK. The SNP certainly doesn't believe that.
Oh ffs! The argument is that Scotland should withdraw from the UK. At that point there would then be zero MPs from Scotland at Westminster. Why would anyone argue for increased representation at Westminster when the goal is to become independent of Westminster?
I thought you were a bit more subtle than that Aventinian; I am really surprised that I had to spell it out for you.
Duh! _________________ "My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso
Which is? You seem to believe it's a plausible argument, so what is this presumed reason? _________________ "My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso
It's just demographics! 84% of the UK population live within the delimitations of the river Tweed and Offa's Dyke, referred to by some as 'England', the inhabitants' demonym being 'English'. These people have a right to 84% of the representation in parliament. They don't have it - they have about 81% of it. Fair enough - I'm not complaining. Personally I wouldn't have objected to reducing it a little more to reflect the greater per capita landmass of Scotland, but after devolution it is pointless and unfair.
On what basis can any minority grouping claim foul play for not being dominant? That would be a complete perversion of democracy and logic.
The East Anglians could be up in arms that their votes don't decide anything... as could the Northumbrians... or the people in my village... etc. (these latter groups, of course, not enjoying he luxury of home rule). Blacks could say white MPs always decide everything, but it wouldn't be right to have a black majority parliament when only 2% of the people are black; less so when there is a 'black parliament' to deal with black business outside Croydon. (for example)
Parliament is divided along party lines, not 'national' lines. Any notion of a pan-English political agenda in Westminster is nonsense (although it could emerge over the West Lothian question) as is any notion of a cohesive pan-Englishness although that may be forced by separatisms. The notion that any given Scottish MP represents you - because you are Scottish - is similarly nonsense. My local MP (in England) is Scottish but does as bad a job as anyone of representing me - actually he's quite decent for a Tory.
(you are right tho that the whips need got rid of)
In normal international relations, matters requiring representation by each nation do NOT disadvantage a contributing nation's participation simply because it happens to have a smaller population.
The unique perspective offered by each nation is a viable and very useful thing in its own right and much more important to the proceedings than how many people happen to live within its borders.
Population size is largely an arbitrary thing, a mere matter of luck, based mostly on geographical area, fertility and resources. However, the benchmarks, customs and mores of a nation combine to give one, very valuable, unique perspective.
If international matters are to be weighted by population, such that more populous nations have a pro rata right to their perspective, then China and India will effectively decide everything.
To say that the larger population of England must count more within the Union, but not that of Germany, China or India in regard to EU or World affairs is totally inconsistent.
Yet that does appear to be the position of Brit/Eng Nats.
Its a bit like saying fat people should have a say 1.7 vote whereas thin people only a 0,7 vote. _________________ "We have catcht hold of Scotland and would keep her fast." - Speaker, HoC, 1713
"No great mischief should they [Scottish soldiers] fall." - Wolfe, Quebec, 1759
The National anthem has always been a political issue and this thread was accepted as such until my post, which was most definitely political.
Political censorship by relocation?
I will start a new thread in political. _________________ "We have catcht hold of Scotland and would keep her fast." - Speaker, HoC, 1713
"No great mischief should they [Scottish soldiers] fall." - Wolfe, Quebec, 1759
It's just demographics! 84% of the UK population live within the delimitations of the river Tweed and Offa's Dyke, referred to by some as 'England', the inhabitants' demonym being 'English'. These people have a right to 84% of the representation in parliament. They don't have it - they have about 81% of it. Fair enough - I'm not complaining. Personally I wouldn't have objected to reducing it a little more to reflect the greater per capita landmass of Scotland, but after devolution it is pointless and unfair.
On what basis can any minority grouping claim foul play for not being dominant? That would be a complete perversion of democracy and logic.
The East Anglians could be up in arms that their votes don't decide anything... as could the Northumbrians... or the people in my village... etc. (these latter groups, of course, not enjoying he luxury of home rule). Blacks could say white MPs always decide everything, but it wouldn't be right to have a black majority parliament when only 2% of the people are black; less so when there is a 'black parliament' to deal with black business outside Croydon. (for example)
Parliament is divided along party lines, not 'national' lines. Any notion of a pan-English political agenda in Westminster is nonsense (although it could emerge over the West Lothian question) as is any notion of a cohesive pan-Englishness although that may be forced by separatisms. The notion that any given Scottish MP represents you - because you are Scottish - is similarly nonsense. My local MP (in England) is Scottish but does as bad a job as anyone of representing me - actually he's quite decent for a Tory.
(you are right tho that the whips need got rid of)
In normal international relations, matters requiring representation by each nation do NOT disadvantage a contributing nation's participation simply because it happens to have a smaller population.
The unique perspective offered by each nation is a viable and very useful thing in its own right and much more important to the proceedings than how many people happen to live within its borders.
Population size is largely an arbitrary thing, a mere matter of luck, based mostly on geographical area, fertility and resources. However, the benchmarks, customs and mores of a nation combine to give one, very valuable, unique perspective.
If international matters are to be weighted by population, such that more populous nations have a pro rata right to their perspective, then China and India will effectively decide everything.
To say that the larger population of England must count more within the Union, but not that of Germany, China or India in regard to EU or World affairs is totally inconsistent.
Yet that does appear to be the position of Brit/Eng Nats.
Its a bit like saying fat people should have a say 1.7 vote whereas thin people only a 0,7 vote.
By your logic am I to assume you think Scotland should have 200 MPs, England 200 MPs, Wales 200 MPs, and Northern Ireland 200 MPs? Is that your idea of democratic representation?
This is nothing to do with international relations! This is an internal matter. You are forgetting the UK is a sovereign nation and Scotland is not independent yet.
It's a cracked idea man. _________________ "Hath He not made us all in one island, compassed with one sea and of itself by nature indivisible?" James VI/I
As for the Song, I feel it can be hit and miss sometimes, but that's mostly to do with the Band that are playing it.
I think, I prefer the original version, stripped down and folky, but It also nice hearing it with the Pipes and especially at Rugby with the whole team singing it, it's fantastic.
Caledonia - is a great option for a national anthem if they decide to change the Flower of Scotland. The lyrics are fantasitc, heart-warming and tell the story of how most of us feel about returning home after a period away.
As for the Song, I feel it can be hit and miss sometimes, but that's mostly to do with the Band that are playing it.
I think, I prefer the original version, stripped down and folky, but It also nice hearing it with the Pipes and especially at Rugby with the whole team singing it, it's fantastic.
Caledonia - is a great option for a national anthem if they decide to change the Flower of Scotland. The lyrics are fantasitc, heart-warming and tell the story of how most of us feel about returning home after a period away.
Any chance of something with a bit of history rather than replacing some two-generations-ago folk song with another? It's like the United States declaring their national anthem to be Don McLean's American Pie.
Any chance of something with a bit of history rather than replacing some two-generations-ago folk song with another? It's like the United States declaring their national anthem to be Don McLean's American Pie.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
