Why is England still run by Westminster only .. Scots, Welsh and N. Irish have their devolved parliaments/assembly's to drive local interests .. why don't England have theirs to fight for English specific rights without having to rely on those in Westminster, who have to represent all in the United Kingdom? We could then have a vote in 2013 on independence .. piss Alex the Bruce right off I reckon ..
Go for it - nobody's stopping you but yourselves. Good luck getting your Tory countrymen to vote for the "tax-raising" bit
Poor little England. You've only got Westminster where the vast majority of MPs represent English constituencies yet vote on matters that affect the whole of the UK. You don't need a devolved Parliament.
Labour thought giving the Celtic nations devolved parliaments would win them votes and take support away from nationalist parties Of course, it's backfired
The only difference I can see in England voting for independence would be that you would need to constitutionally ask Commonwealth countries if they still want to be in the new English Commonwealth with the Queen as their Head of State. Fat Eck doesn't want to ask us about this - he still wants to be in the English Commonwealth without asking the Scots - if England seperated itself seperately, there would probably be a Commonwealth Referendum in all the new territories.
Alec Fish-Puss and his fellow Baveheart wannabees can vote for whatever the f**k they want, but they can't argue with either history or geography. Scotland will still be a bleak, rainswept wasteland on the northern fringes of Britain. They can't vote that away.
I don't think anyone is debating that, most Scots including myself know it is a bleak, rainswept ****ehole (i believe this is a more accurate term than wasteland) on the northern fringes of Britain.
So long as you know. Don't want you being disapointed when you wake up on Independance Day to find out England's still to the south of you. And it's still p!ssing down outside.
OK the Independence bit was a jokey reference, but no reason why 'England' as a country in it's own right couldn't have a country specific parliament to represent them .. that doesn't exist today .. that wouldn't affect the British Commonwealth or the UK but would allow policies to be put forward that are in the specific interests of the country itself without having to take the United Kingdom countries into account .. the very same thing that was fought for in the Devo act by the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish .. just that one country was missed out because Westminster as it is today resides physically in 'England' ..
Can you imagine independence got voted in and then all of a sudden a climate change broke instantly upon us leaving Scotland like the canary Islands and England like, well Scotland. One can dream.
No - it's because none of you were asking for it except now in a reactionary sense. I think the British rules are that you need to wait about 250 years after you first ask, though. Seriously, though, pressurise your MP, get a referendum and vote it through. There's **** all stopping you No larger constitutional neighbour blocking it - nothing.
In general agreement with this yes .. (although not sure the 250 years thing is entirely accurate, could be wrong of course) Figured a reasonable topic for GC as the one thing you boys do really well (in between your bumming and suicide jokes) is politics
Well, I'd support England if they wanted to go it alone - if English people want to rule themselves, I see no reason to try and stop them. Like the West Lothian question in reverse - no-one could justify Scots having a say on that unless they had other political agendas to pursue.
No, want less watery, spineless, jobsworths .. and more with a bit of fight in them (much like Salmond - for all his bull he's obviously passionate about the place).. reduce the 'UK' parliament members and create an England parliament .. then all 4 countries could fight it out under the UK umbrella ..
