We have the UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are descriptions of regional groups within the UK. As are London and Yorkshire.
England doesn't act in partnership with anyone. The UK acts collectively.
(Remember the YES campaign did lose, no matter no hard you try to spin it)
And it is this thinking, the arrogance and also the foolishness to attempt to dismiss nations and peoples describing them as regions that has left the Union broken. You can fix it if you can treat the other members of the UK, Englands partners, as equals. Either that or you can say we're all British and watch Britain crumble away. You need to take Scotland seriously.
In federal states the opinions of all the different areas of that state's opinion would be taken into account. The UK is admittedly not federal but Scotland was told that our relationship with the UK was to become that which you would expect to see in a federal state.
In federal states, referenda are usually held on a simple one person/one vote basis.
The Act of Union meant that Scotland, Wales and NI have a disproportionate share of MPs - in other words it means it takes fewer votes to elect an MP there than in England. Hence it isn't just "one person one vote" in practice as not all votes are equal when MPs are elected.
A referendum held on a "one person one vote" basis undermines the Act of Union as it was established as it wipes out that advantage to the non-English parts of the UK. In other words England would have a greater say than it does in a vote held in Westminster.
Tosh.
The Act of Union has no mention of special representation for Wales and Scotland. The fact that they have fewer votes per MP is a function of boundary changes and the fact that some geographical limits are applied to MP representation (separate MP for Northern and Western Isles for example)
Your whole argument has no basis in law and is spurious.
The Act of Union meant that Scotland, Wales and NI have a disproportionate share of MPs - in other words it means it takes fewer votes to elect an MP there than in England. Hence it isn't just "one person one vote" in practice as not all votes are equal when MPs are elected.
A referendum held on a "one person one vote" basis undermines the Act of Union as it was established as it wipes out that advantage to the non-English parts of the UK. In other words England would have a greater say than it does in a vote held in Westminster.
wow! - I've seen some straw clutching in my time but...
And it is this thinking, the arrogance and also the foolishness to attempt to dismiss nations and peoples describing them as regions that has left the Union broken. You can fix it if you can treat the other members of the UK, Englands partners, as equals. Either that or you can say we're all British and watch Britain crumble away. You need to take Scotland seriously.
I did. Along with 60% of the population of Aberdeenshire (that's Alex's home turf in case you didn't know) I voted to stay in the Union.
I take Scotland seriously - but it's not a member of the UK. It is the UK
As much need as any other area of the UK has for devolution - which is why Northern Ireland, Wales and London have similar institutions and why Labour and the Lib Dems are talking about similar bodies for other regions.
I have no problem with the Scottish Parliament - before it was completely derailed by the independence campaign it was doing a good job (even the SNP minority government). But it doesn't mean that Scotland is separate or a member of a federal UK.
As much need as any other area of the UK has for devolution - which is why Northern Ireland, Wales and London have similar institutions and why Labour and the Lib Dems are talking about similar bodies for other regions.
I have no problem with the Scottish Parliament - before it was completely derailed by the independence campaign it was doing a good job (even the SNP minority government). But it doesn't mean that Scotland is separate or a member of a federal UK.
This is the direction in which we heading. Further powers, which will not be enough to satisfy a populace, two thirds of which want devo-max, who want real powers for their country. At the next referendum I'd imagine there might be some offer of genuine federalism in order to secure another no vote. Either way what has gone before is in the past. Pre-referendum Scotland and Britain is dead. The Britain and the Scotland you've just described no longer exists.
This is the direction in which we heading. Further powers, which will not be enough to satisfy a populace, two thirds of which want devo-max, who want real powers for their country. At the next referendum I'd imagine there might be some offer of genuine federalism in order to secure another no vote. Either way what has gone before is in the past. Pre-referendum Scotland and Britain is dead. The Britain and the Scotland you've just described no longer exists.
YOU LOST!
The Britian and Scotland I describe is alive and well in Aberdeenshire.
When do you think the next referendum will be then - is it now a nerverendum referendum because 44.6% of the population won't accept the will of the majority?
Devo-Max is a nebulous thing - I myself would not be against a federal system like the USA. Note that the USA does not allow secession in its federal structure, it fought a rather nasty civil war over that.;-)
English posters who cannot get their heads around the fact that it ought not to be their God given right to dictate to the other nations in the Union what happens.
But that's exactly what Queen Sturgeon is trying to suggest by saying that Scottish votes should effectively be worth more than English votes, and that the wishes of 5 million trump a potential 55 or so million - she thinks that it is Scotland's god given right to dictate to the other nations in the Union.
A single UK wide referendum is still the fairest option - everyone's vote is equal, and it isn't England vs everyone else, it is UK voter vs UK voter.
You could argue that the Scottish indyref was exactly that too, Scotland unilaterally decides the future of the union, despite the potential effects it had on the remaining countries
And it is this thinking, the arrogance and also the foolishness to attempt to dismiss nations and peoples describing them as regions that has left the Union broken. You can fix it if you can treat the other members of the UK, Englands partners, as equals. Either that or you can say we're all British and watch Britain crumble away. You need to take Scotland seriously.
I love it when Unionists shoot themselves in the foot like DerekP continues to do..........describing constituent countries as regions. Carry on Derek! He's so blind to the fact it makes us more intent to win self-determination.
Re the Scottish referendum, I prefer to describe the result as a marginal win for NO due to the fact that they played dirty and had the main stream media on their side. The Daily Record's front page stated the Cameron Clegg & Miliband had signed a solemn promise. If that was not the case, why didn't the politician's move to correct that statement? Perhaps during the next referendum (yes, there will be one in the not too distant future), the pro indy side should declare that in the event of a Yes vote, each adult in Scotland would receive an independence bonus of £2,000 and see how the Unionists like it
How? It could be argued that Yes were hardly whiter than white with their declaration that they'll have everything that they knew they weren't getting, like a currency union and immediate EU membership
Perhaps during the next referendum (yes, there will be one in the not too distant future), the pro indy side should declare that in the event of a Yes vote, each adult in Scotland would receive an independence bonus of £2,000 and see how the Unionists like it
Will there be a referendum soon? This isn't the EU running one, where they repeat it over and over again until the "right" answer is reached (see Ireland). As for money - I'm sure that Westminster won't care too much about any bribes the Scottish Government might hand out in absolute desperation. They'll have to find the money for it themselves though without dragging the non-Scottish taxpayer into it
I love it when Unionists shoot themselves in the foot like DerekP continues to do..........describing constituent countries as regions. Carry on Derek! He's so blind to the fact it makes us more intent to win self-determination.
Re the Scottish referendum, I prefer to describe the result as a marginal win for NO due to the fact that they played dirty and had the main stream media on their side. The Daily Record's front page stated the Cameron Clegg & Miliband had signed a solemn promise. If that was not the case, why didn't the politician's move to correct that statement? Perhaps during the next referendum (yes, there will be one in the not too distant future), the pro indy side should declare that in the event of a Yes vote, each adult in Scotland would receive an independence bonus of £2,000 and see how the Unionists like it
You're obviously forgetting this classic story...
Eye-catching Alex Salmond independence claim was based on no economic modelling
The Act of Union has no mention of special representation for Wales and Scotland. The fact that they have fewer votes per MP is a function of boundary changes and the fact that some geographical limits are applied to MP representation (separate MP for Northern and Western Isles for example)
Your whole argument has no basis in law and is spurious.
You might want to check your history books for how things worked in practice.
England's population doubled in the period 1840-1918, Ireland's nearly halved as a result of famine and its aftermath.
Yet Ireland elected 105 MPs in 1918 just as it did in 1840. England meanwhile elected a mere 24 additional MPs.
Even allowing for a limited franchise, there is no way that constitutes equal weighting in Westminster.
You might want to check your history books for how things worked in practice.
England's population doubled in the period 1840-1918, Ireland's nearly halved as a result of famine and its aftermath.
Yet Ireland elected 105 MPs in 1918 just as it did in 1840. England meanwhile elected a mere 24 additional MPs.
Even allowing for a limited franchise, there is no way that constitutes equal weighting in Westminster.
But that is not relevant at all - the Rotten Boroughs in England who had as few as 7 voters in the constituency were not finally totally abolished until the Reform Act of 1918. And it was not until the 1944 act that we got the modern constituency boundarys that we see today.
Even today there is no requirement for equality of voter numbers - something Labour have been fighting tooth and nail against in this current Parliament.
You might want to check your history books for how things worked in practice.
England's population doubled in the period 1840-1918, Ireland's nearly halved as a result of famine and its aftermath.
Yet Ireland elected 105 MPs in 1918 just as it did in 1840. England meanwhile elected a mere 24 additional MPs.
Even allowing for a limited franchise, there is no way that constitutes equal weighting in Westminster.
You are talking about political gerrymandering being a basis for giving Scotland a veto on a UK decision?
You have completely lost the plot.
If you look at the constituency sizes today they are broadly similar in Scotland and England apart from the geographical oddities I have mentioned. Wales is over represented (and this is one reason Labour are fighting tooth and nail to prevent boundary changes to correct this).
But this has no bearing on the principle that electoral constituencies should, wherever possible, be of similar sizes to ensure equality of representation.
I love it when Unionists shoot themselves in the foot like DerekP continues to do..........describing constituent countries as regions. Carry on Derek! He's so blind to the fact it makes us more intent to win self-determination.
Re the Scottish referendum, I prefer to describe the result as a marginal win for NO due to the fact that they played dirty and had the main stream media on their side. The Daily Record's front page stated the Cameron Clegg & Miliband had signed a solemn promise. If that was not the case, why didn't the politician's move to correct that statement? Perhaps during the next referendum (yes, there will be one in the not too distant future), the pro indy side should declare that in the event of a Yes vote, each adult in Scotland would receive an independence bonus of £2,000 and see how the Unionists like it
What is a country in the UK?
According to ONS it is a top level admistrative division
“That’s my view. In my view this is a once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland.”
“Harold Wilson famously (said) one vote is enough in a referendum but we're not aiming to win by one vote, we're aiming to achieve a substantial majority if we can.
“If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.
“In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland.”
But that's exactly what Queen Sturgeon is trying to suggest by saying that Scottish votes should effectively be worth more than English votes, and that the wishes of 5 million trump a potential 55 or so million - she thinks that it is Scotland's god given right to dictate to the other nations in the Union.
A single UK wide referendum is still the fairest option - everyone's vote is equal, and it isn't England vs everyone else, it is UK voter vs UK voter.
You could argue that the Scottish indyref was exactly that too, Scotland unilaterally decides the future of the union, despite the potential effects it had on the remaining countries
Scotland's greatest fear in that case is that the English vote would expel them. They would not be self determining, merely a nation rejected.
They had the oppotunity last month to do that and didn't take it. They could always hold another referendum if the majority in Scotland voted to stay in the EU. As for self determining it seems some don't think that applies to the English but as they say is "all about me".
If the EU referendum is initiated by Westminster then the collective number of votes from all home nations matter, not the breakdown into regions. Therefore this proposal is a nonsense.
If the EU referendum is initiated by Westminster then the collective number of votes from all home nations matter, not the breakdown into regions. Therefore this proposal is a nonsense.
I'm glad that you have explained so simply and succinctly the reason why this Disunited Kingdom does not work in any shape or form.
Comments
And it is this thinking, the arrogance and also the foolishness to attempt to dismiss nations and peoples describing them as regions that has left the Union broken. You can fix it if you can treat the other members of the UK, Englands partners, as equals. Either that or you can say we're all British and watch Britain crumble away. You need to take Scotland seriously.
In federal states, referenda are usually held on a simple one person/one vote basis.
Tosh.
The Act of Union has no mention of special representation for Wales and Scotland. The fact that they have fewer votes per MP is a function of boundary changes and the fact that some geographical limits are applied to MP representation (separate MP for Northern and Western Isles for example)
Your whole argument has no basis in law and is spurious.
wow! - I've seen some straw clutching in my time but...
I did. Along with 60% of the population of Aberdeenshire (that's Alex's home turf in case you didn't know) I voted to stay in the Union.
I take Scotland seriously - but it's not a member of the UK. It is the UK
So no need for a Scottish Parliament then?
As much need as any other area of the UK has for devolution - which is why Northern Ireland, Wales and London have similar institutions and why Labour and the Lib Dems are talking about similar bodies for other regions.
I have no problem with the Scottish Parliament - before it was completely derailed by the independence campaign it was doing a good job (even the SNP minority government). But it doesn't mean that Scotland is separate or a member of a federal UK.
This is the direction in which we heading. Further powers, which will not be enough to satisfy a populace, two thirds of which want devo-max, who want real powers for their country. At the next referendum I'd imagine there might be some offer of genuine federalism in order to secure another no vote. Either way what has gone before is in the past. Pre-referendum Scotland and Britain is dead. The Britain and the Scotland you've just described no longer exists.
YOU LOST!
The Britian and Scotland I describe is alive and well in Aberdeenshire.
When do you think the next referendum will be then - is it now a nerverendum referendum because 44.6% of the population won't accept the will of the majority?
Devo-Max is a nebulous thing - I myself would not be against a federal system like the USA. Note that the USA does not allow secession in its federal structure, it fought a rather nasty civil war over that.;-)
But that's exactly what Queen Sturgeon is trying to suggest by saying that Scottish votes should effectively be worth more than English votes, and that the wishes of 5 million trump a potential 55 or so million - she thinks that it is Scotland's god given right to dictate to the other nations in the Union.
A single UK wide referendum is still the fairest option - everyone's vote is equal, and it isn't England vs everyone else, it is UK voter vs UK voter.
You could argue that the Scottish indyref was exactly that too, Scotland unilaterally decides the future of the union, despite the potential effects it had on the remaining countries
I love it when Unionists shoot themselves in the foot like DerekP continues to do..........describing constituent countries as regions. Carry on Derek! He's so blind to the fact it makes us more intent to win self-determination.
Re the Scottish referendum, I prefer to describe the result as a marginal win for NO due to the fact that they played dirty and had the main stream media on their side. The Daily Record's front page stated the Cameron Clegg & Miliband had signed a solemn promise. If that was not the case, why didn't the politician's move to correct that statement? Perhaps during the next referendum (yes, there will be one in the not too distant future), the pro indy side should declare that in the event of a Yes vote, each adult in Scotland would receive an independence bonus of £2,000 and see how the Unionists like it
How? It could be argued that Yes were hardly whiter than white with their declaration that they'll have everything that they knew they weren't getting, like a currency union and immediate EU membership
Will there be a referendum soon? This isn't the EU running one, where they repeat it over and over again until the "right" answer is reached (see Ireland). As for money - I'm sure that Westminster won't care too much about any bribes the Scottish Government might hand out in absolute desperation. They'll have to find the money for it themselves though without dragging the non-Scottish taxpayer into it
????
You're obviously forgetting this classic story...
Eye-catching Alex Salmond independence claim was based on no economic modelling
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11026966/Eye-catching-Alex-Salmond-independence-claim-was-based-on-no-economic-modelling.html
You might want to check your history books for how things worked in practice.
England's population doubled in the period 1840-1918, Ireland's nearly halved as a result of famine and its aftermath.
Yet Ireland elected 105 MPs in 1918 just as it did in 1840. England meanwhile elected a mere 24 additional MPs.
Even allowing for a limited franchise, there is no way that constitutes equal weighting in Westminster.
But that is not relevant at all - the Rotten Boroughs in England who had as few as 7 voters in the constituency were not finally totally abolished until the Reform Act of 1918. And it was not until the 1944 act that we got the modern constituency boundarys that we see today.
Even today there is no requirement for equality of voter numbers - something Labour have been fighting tooth and nail against in this current Parliament.
You are talking about political gerrymandering being a basis for giving Scotland a veto on a UK decision?
You have completely lost the plot.
If you look at the constituency sizes today they are broadly similar in Scotland and England apart from the geographical oddities I have mentioned. Wales is over represented (and this is one reason Labour are fighting tooth and nail to prevent boundary changes to correct this).
But this has no bearing on the principle that electoral constituencies should, wherever possible, be of similar sizes to ensure equality of representation.
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-the-review/
What is a country in the UK?
According to ONS it is a top level admistrative division
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html
Do you want to know what that means in reality (as opposed to nationalist fantasies)?
It means that Scotland, England etc are on the same level as Maine or Virginia in the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_administrative_divisions_by_country
And to quote Alex Salmond
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-pledges-not-to-bring-back-another-referendum-if-yes-campaign-fails-9731885.html
And common sense returns. Sorted.
Scotland's greatest fear in that case is that the English vote would expel them. They would not be self determining, merely a nation rejected.
Expel them from what?
They had the oppotunity last month to do that and didn't take it. They could always hold another referendum if the majority in Scotland voted to stay in the EU. As for self determining it seems some don't think that applies to the English but as they say is "all about me".
I'm glad that you have explained so simply and succinctly the reason why this Disunited Kingdom does not work in any shape or form.
If Nicola's vote was extrapolated, we would vote to get rid of Scotland. Believe me.