So, perhaps we will end up with a confederated United Kingdom, with large amounts of autonomy for the various regions of the islands working together, where necessary. Hopefully they would also have similar relationships with regions in other parts of Europe, and the rest of the world. Those people who like to rule and control large swathes of the Earth would object, of course.
I hope they vote yes then when it all comes crashing about their ears and they wish to rejoin the uk they will have to wait as only the English and welsh will be able to vote on reacceptance on equal terms if the rest cant afford free uni and prescriptions etc then no longer will the sweatys get it
I hope that this idea of a Europe of regions works out in this way NZ. An area like the South West of England is far better placed for cooperation with eg. Brittany than if negotiations have to go via London and Paris. It is also a model more aligned to organic democracy, and more in keeping with earlier pre Napoleonic history.
Sorry Cologne that is a daft statement. It is not provocative it is a fact. I am not going to go head to head with you to slug it out as to whose atrocities are worse but you are trying to lay all the world's evils on the British Empire. In fact you are simply looking at a picture of how the world once was - where torture, slavery, death penalties for minor stealing offences were common and generally a world where respect for life was less than it is today. You cannot judge history through 20 20 hindsight. The British Empire did include many bad actions. However it brought trade, democracy, education, better health and so many more good things to untold millions. Unlike you I like the modern world for all its problems. I do not want to return to a tribal society where you have to ask the village elder if you can pick blackberries. I like being able to buy bananas and exotic fruiits - not just local ones, I like having sport played against others from around the country and the world -even if it does cause millions of air miles. I believe the British empire and other colonialisation activities by other countries helped forge the world we live in. I am glad the Empire is gone - it was good for its day; I am glad we now have a Commonwealth and United Nations. Do not lay religious conflicts at the door of the British Empire - to my knowledge it did not exist in medieval times. Do not look back and blame your ancestors. Look forward and work for world solutions to our problems. If you really wanted a better world for you children's children you would be advocating massive birth control programmes around the world to reduce the population to perhaps 1 billion. The Chinese have tried it - it is very hard - but in the end it would be the quickest and most effective way of preserving the worlds resources. Without killing anyone
cologne, I think if there was a link-up between the South of England and Normandy which is similar in nature to the one you suggest, I would like to think that the CI would be involved but our politicians would probably not realise the possible opportunities.
Full of spite and ignorance I'm afraid. 1)There is absolutely nothing to suggest that such a move would 'come crashing about their ears' - if you had undertaken any research whatsoever you would realise that the likelihood is that the opposite will apply; 2) Can you name any country where, when Independence has been won, the people have gone back saying 'We were wrong, can we come back please?' I strongly doubt it. Scotland was forced into this union against the wishes of a large majority - 75% if history books are to be believed. Since then, it has already been cheated out of Independence once by Westminster after a referendum vote ended in favour of Yes - and having been treated that way, the people are not unnaturally trying again. I doubt very much that anyone here would simply give up - and even in such an unlikely event, I suspect they would look elsewhere for help. 3) Equal terms? I presume you have never heard of the term 'economy of scale'? The per capita cost of providing the services expected in any society is far smaller in a large population than it is in a small population. In this union, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should all expect a higher per capita grant in order to maintain a similar level of services as England in order to maintain equality. Otherwise there would be no equality - something I expect wouldn't particularly worry the good folk of England. 4) Why on earth should the residents of Scotland be denied the 'free' education, elderly care and health services that they currently receive? That those are available here has nothing at all to with 'extra money' coming Scotland's way - it is to do with how the SG choose to spend the Grant it is given to best benefit the people who live here. That option is available in England as well, but Westminster choose not to take it up - they choose to view the residents of England as a commodity, one that can be utilised in any way they can devise in order to make a profit. Scotland, on the other hand, simply views its people as a resource - to be valued, nurtured, encouraged and cared for. It's fairly obvious that that simply would not happen under a UK government, regardless of political colour. Maybe I should ask - had you been in New Zealand in 1900, how would you have felt about Richard Seddon's actions? That may put things into perspective for you...
Sorry Leo - my first reaction was a little over the top and came over as a personal attack, it wasn't meant that way. However, you say that the British empire (and others) established democracy and infrastructure throughout the World - even if this were the case it took sovereignty away from others through brutal means. Does this mean I am justified in invading another country because it raises their standard of living ? Most of the cases of brutality which I quoted came from the 20th Century - some after the war, and were not representative of their age. It is impossible to calculate what the World would be like now had colonialism never happened. Maybe the Sioux would still be chasing the buffalo, maybe the aborigines and Maoris would still have their land, maybe Africas`borders would now be more tribally and organically based than the colonial ones we left them with. Maybe Hindu and Moslem would be living together in peace in India. Maybe the World of Islam would not have become as militant and inflamed as it has. We do not know because history developed in a different way. The legacy of empire is, however all around us, to an extent it defines how many older British people feel about Britain - about the EU, about the monarchy, and about the rest of the British Isles. This legacy also transforms itself 'naturally' into Britains' assumption of the role of junior world policeman behind America. British forces have been involved in active service overseas, somewhere, every year since the conclusion of World War 2 under the guise of peace keeping - and this appears somehow 'normal' because of our history. I do not want to go back - but, at the same time, I do not believe that movement through time necessarily equates to progress. I would support birth control programmes by the way. I also want a new definition of democracy, because I am not happy with yours. For some reason we are told that capitalism must grow and develop (but not democracy ?) - we are told that we have democracy - because the best way of stopping somebody from fighting for something is to convince them that they have it already. In the West you have what is called representative democracy ie. all ideas come from political parties (In the UK just 1% of the population) and the population are invited every 5 years to vote yay or nay. Do you call this democracy ? I favour a direct democracy where the organ of decision making has moved to the base of the pyramid and the role of the state has become purely administrative - I also believe in the establishment of democracy in every area of life, including within economics (which is why I favour the cooperative as the future model of production) - does all this imply that I am looking backwards ?
Nice to see you back to your usual excellent quality of making points - I was slightly surprised by your previous first sentence as it was not your normal style. I did not take it personally I can assure you - I am far too opinionated to deny anyone the right to have a go at me. I am going to answer this on the Pure Politics Board though as I think it fits better there.
Whilst I realise that the decision on independence will be made by a simple majority vote, I can't help pondering the consequences of a majority of less than a hundred one way or the other, given what the polls seem to be saying.
Neither can I if the No vote prevails in such a way - given the Electoral Commission's lack of action in three rather obvious cases of breaching the rules. I hesitate to go as far as saying that I probably would believe that a No victory would indicate vote tampering though....
One thing I fail to understand is that the Scots are stereotypically very careful with money, although generous with friends, so why do they tend to a profligate socialist outlook, and deride the slightly more careful, Tories? Continuing a theme, after Margaret Thatcher (the target of a lot of their venom) was removed from power we have had John Major (far less right wing) for seven years, Tony Blair (who oversaw the initial devolution of Scotland) for ten and Gordon Brown for three and then four of an anti-Labour coalition. Why in the thirteen years of Labour government for the UK and fifteen years of Labour and SNP governments in Scotland did these politicians not try somewhat harder to right the wrongs they perceived had been done?
Unfortunately it's all too late NZ. Normally, for a referendum which involves a change in the law or constitution of a whole country, then it would be necessary to achieve over 50% of the entire electorate in favour, not just 50% of those who actually voted ie. non voters would be seen as de facto in favour of 'no change'. That is not the case here. Also, the fact that there is no 3rd option on the ballot paper is unusual. For these shortcomings the fault can only be laid at one door - that of David Cameron, who agreed to a referendum at this time (only 7 and a half months before a general election) and under these conditions.
For my krónur I think three options would be very difficult. I looked at wikipedia for this information (which is a tool of Westminster from some postings) and the voters for Scottish parliament total about 50% except for the first which was 59% and the complete UK elections which was 60% for the last two elections and over 70% voters before that. To arrive at 50% of the votes with three options would be more difficult. With two choices does the vote need to be 50% + one of the votes made to win or 50% + one of the peoeple who could vote?
Good question. They all bought into the neo-liberal agenda as did most of the developed world. As Thatcher said her greatest achievment was Tony Blair. 35 years going in the wrong direction is why many of us see this referendum as the most important politcal event in our lives.
Spurf - before you state that Scottish independence would signal a move away from, or a rejection of neo liberalism, you may like to study Alex Salmonds' description of the TTIP deal as being incredibly good news for Scotland. TTIP means in effect the granting of multi nationals the same legal position as that of nation states. The aim of TTIP being to strip away all obstacles to large corporate profit making - be they in protection of privacy, environment or control over the food we eat. Do not be surprised if you see Philip Morris taking Scotland to court in the future because of lost revenues due to anti smoking posters ! All this is being negotiated behind our backs in Brussels - and the Tories, SNP and UKIP are all in favour, with Labour and the Greens being against. A future Scotland, according to Salmond's ideas would be a very neo liberal place to be.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. He did not give English, Irish or Welsh people the chance to have their say on whether their United Kingdom should be broken up. He agreed a timing which is stupid. He agreed to a voting question which allowed a Yes and a No - in a situation where the natural urge is not to be seen negative so gives Yes an automatic head start ( Salmond realised this and was passionate in getting the question framed that way and has ever since decried his opponents as negative) The question should have been set out as two questions: Do you want Scotland to become Independent?; and on the other line Do you want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom? Both would then be seen as an active choice. He accepted a situation where a vote for independence could be approved with a minority of the voting population in favour. He is such a dummy that he could not successfully campaign in Scotland.
Maybe he is no so daft. Let the Scots have a vote to leave the UK and let them think it's their victory, all the time regaining the 40+ seats the Tories needed to win to match the Labour returns for Scotland. Currently one Conservative MP for 20% of the vote is a very poor return, so just get rid of the Scots. He's playing a canny game. With Scotland out of the way the dynamic of British politics changes in his favour and the tax spend for Scotland is gone at a stroke, tax receipts have gone as well but it was never that much and the next Labour government will increase taxes to recoup any current shortfall.
