Off Topic Political Debate

I don't give him any respect.

Re ECHR - there is nothing illegal about what other countries do, and should England do the same, there would be nothing illegal about that either. The 1998 Human Rights Act gave domestic courts the power to adjudicate on Human Rights issues, taking into account, but not necessarily having to follow, decisions made by ECHR - and they do so in the vast majority of cases, with only a few actually going on to Strasbourg.

If England were to 'pull out of' Strasbourg', its courts would still work in the same way, because the HR Act requires them to do so - which makes the whole thing puzzling. Again, it must come down to the judges - they are the ones causing the problem, not ECHR and not the HR Act.

 

Actually, if you study that, it confirms what I said - that Scotland's population has increased every year this century.

Without getting into the arguments about why older people voted the referendum down -their vote had absolutely everything to do with Labour party lies over pensions - I'll repeat again, the Scottish government and people welcome immigration. The signs are there that the population demographics are already changing, albeit anecdotally. My wife is the nursery teacher for two similar sized schools here - both with enrolments of around 450. Next session's nursery intakes at both has increased by 40% - from 80 to around 110 - with the non-English speaking component being approx. 45%. Similar figures are being quoted in other schools around the NE of Scotland.

 

Yes I will accept that what you say is technically correct BB. Maybe you should be a politician.

However the growth over the past thirty years has not been large enough to support the pension system, and the children who are entering school now will not be contributing to the scheme for probably another 15-20 years.

The comparison I was making between Corsica and Scotland without going into a lot of technical detail, was that two regional powers that would like more say in how they are run, are not large enough to go it alone financially. If either of them said we will do our own thing without any money from the larger authority I am sure that both the UK and France would say go, but this is not what they are saying because they know it is not viable.

 

Just to finish off before I return home, school intake can be very misleading. My wife worked in our village school for thirty years and over that time roll numbers went from around sixty to one hundred and ten. Some years one or two children, the next ten or twelve. Extra classrooms were needed and provided, the kitchen was turned into a classroom and mobiles were put into the play areas. Now the numbers are about seventy and they have had to add "kitchen pods" whatever they might be to supply all of the younger children free meals. As I sat on the board of governors for about twelve years I was faced with trying to make sense of the budget that was controlled purely by numbers on the roll at a given date. No matter who is running the show, councils or politicians are not flexible enough to react quickly to changing situations wherever one lives.

 

The thing is though, that for every child entering school now - and I'm referring to the ESL ones - there are, in most cases, two parents working & contributing. That wasn't happening 30 years ago - it wasn't even happening 5 years ago, but it certainly is now.

Not large enough to go it alone financially? You do realise that that flies in the face of fact? Take a good look at the top ten richest countries in the world - as measured by GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. All bar one - the US - have one thing in common - they all have small populations, similar in size to, and some even smaller than, Scotland. Size isn't everything - there is a direct correlation between the size of a state and the wealth of its people - the bigger the former, the smaller the latter. The more power is concentrated, the less wealth is spread. And of course, the smaller the state, the more the wealth is spread. I'd suggest that is the real reason Westminster, in particular the tories, is loathe to let Scotland go. That and the subsidy Scotland has provided Westminster with over the last 100 years or so...

 

I think that's a bit below the belt Leo - it's more a case of a group of MPs 'giving a ****' about doing the job that those who voted for them expect them to do. This particular shot, taken the very next day during a debate on a slightly more important matter, equally highlights that many other MPs simply 'don't give a ****' ....

I guess that is the difference between Scottish and English politics.

 

If you add to this the fact that Finland tops the league for its schools, and that the Austrians have the most politically active population and the Danish are meant to be the happiest people in Europe (have no idea how that is calculated) then small is indeed beautiful. I have heard the Finns explaining the apparent success of their school system (the top European nation in the Pisa study) by saying that with a population of only a couple of million they need the abilities of the whole population. Whereas the larger nations such as Britain, Germany and France tolerate a culture which accepts human wastage - all those countries have developed an 'underclass,' which is sometimes in work and sometimes not, which would not be tolerated in countries like Switzerland, Austria or Finland.

 

No effective work is done during the showcase debates on the floor of the house. The real work of Parliament is done in committees, meeting rooms and face to face discussions. MPs like to be "seen" representing their constituencies - they always get photographed - but soon learn as the SNP will that sitting in a debate is not a cost effective use of MPs' time.

Have a look in 2 years time when the SNP are old hands. At the moment they are like young eager Labradors trying to show how much they care and others don't. Sorry I don't buy it at all. Pure politics

 

So they're 'showcase' debates now?

 

Most of them are yes. Did you think the hammering out of legislation takes place on the floor of the Commons? No - if you have ever watched the debates they are about politics and posturing. In my younger days as a Civil Servant I used to attend the debates in the House of Commons to pass Ministers answers to questions prepared by their civil servants. It was all about making a lot of noise, waving of bill papers and the like. Occasionally you could get a real and good debate but they are few and far between. I can bet you nothing on zero hours contracts or Trident that came up in those debates was novel - just political posturing yes.
The SNP have shown under Salmond and now Sturgeon they are masters of political presentation - please don't try to tell me they bring anything refreshing to the Commons or are in any way "superior"

 

1)The word showcase obviously has a different meaning in England to that in both Scotland and Australia.

2) Where on earth did I try to say anything like that?

 

1 - I have probably not used the word correctly - all I am trying to say is that the debates are for show - they are not a central part of the legislative process
2 - you didn't exactly so I was trying to head you off at the pass - you did imply that they "give a **** where others don't quote"a case of a group of MPs 'giving a ****' about doing the job that those who voted for them expect them to do. This particular shot, taken the very next day during a debate on a slightly more important matter, equally highlights that many other MPs simply 'don't give a ****' ....I guess that is the difference between Scottish and English politics. Took that to mean you saw the SNP in a superior light because they sit in a debating chamber. Was I wrong to make that interpretation?

 

Yes - by that I meant that the MPs do what 'their public' expect them to, and be seen to be doing it.

 

One thing that is never considered when referring to the possible break-up of Britain, is what the possible effects would be on the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

 

If the "break up" means just Scotland exiting then you would not expect and additional effects. The UK would not change constitutionally - it would simply be minus one country. I cannot see any other break up happening.

 

please log in to view this image

An interesting quote from Winston Churchill.

Raises questions for me about a more social form of Tory philosophy?

 

At the heart of my Conservative philosophy. The Conservative way is to create wealth through order. The Labour party come in and distribute wealth whilst killing the creator of the wealth resulting in overall long term decline. It's a leftist propaganda that promotes this "tory" evil selfish viewpoint. Whilst the far right can be self centred the majority and the philosophy is one of wealth through endeavour.

 

Not sure of the notion of wealth through 'order'?

I think there is a grouping in the Labour party which does not support business etc.

I think there is a grouping in the Tory party which is really selfish too.

Clearly a middle ground approach is a way forward that is inclusive and does not alienate a large section of society.

 

So, apparently, soldiers, police officers, research scientists, mechanics, teachers and nurses, not to mention the thousands of Phillipino workers working under slave like conditions transporting all of our goods on container ships do not belong to the 'creators of wealth`. Whereas a small number of parasitic rich capitalists do. Apparently the economy will grow faster if the supposed 'wealth creators' keep more of their profits with less of it going into taxation or compensation for workers ? Equal access to the fruits of the earth is our birthright and so 'wealth' does not need to be 'created' it is ours anyway.