Since it is much more likely the scots would vote for devo max than independence, yes the scots nats want to ask the question and the english government wants to stop them asking it. We shall see what happens.
There is no interest whatsoever in federalism for England. We got as far as a referendum in the NE - the region most likely to support federalism, and it was decisively rejected. Indeed Berwick council actually debated whether in the event of the cretion of a NE region it would petition to leave this and join Scotland. The idea was that at least Scotland means something - NE is a joke and no-one could want to be part of it. And as for the idea of governing the people of Northumberland from a regional capital in Durham - well the insult!
The English regions are a modern construction which have no meaningful identity. There is some county identity, though in 1974 an act of cultural vandalism damaged our county structure (the changes pushed through despite the biggest ever protests in England). If we are looking at any sub-UK unit it is England - though I'm very close to saying the unit is really the UK. There is very limited interest even in an English parliament.
The problem in the UK is that England is way bigger and richer than all the other put together. So the Westminster parliament is really already the English parliament and always has been. Westminster will fight you to the last MP if you try to take away its right to run England.My idea for federalism was simple: you have three tiers of government. At the top is Westminster, followed by the nations (England, N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales), followed by counties
We dont. and 75% of the population think all immigration should be banned entirely. We need 1 million new people like we need 1 million unemployed current brits, which is exactly what would happen. We have plenty of people. We do not use them well.. We need immigrants in Great Britain,
But while Scotland remains part of the Uk this is pretty much impossible. You have to have something which is 'yours' before you can invest in it.IMO a meaningful campaign for Scottish independence would start with a process of Holyrood strengthening the Scottish economy by investing in finance, oil and infrastructure
The current government thinks so too, which is why they are pushing one on their terms while trying to prevent a referendum on greater powers for scotland which they would lose.I find the concept of a Scottish referendum to be laughable
dandelion said:The problem in the UK is that England is way bigger and richer than all the other put together. So the Westminster parliament is really already the English parliament and always has been. Westminster will fight you to the last MP if you try to take away its right to run England.
dandelion said:We dont. and 75% of the population think all immigration should be banned entirely. We need 1 million new people like we need 1 million unemployed current brits, which is exactly what would happen. We have plenty of people. We do not use them well.
dandelion said:But while Scotland remains part of the Uk this is pretty much impossible. You have to have something which is 'yours' before you can invest in it. [...] The current government thinks so too, which is why they are pushing one on their terms while trying to prevent a referendum on greater powers for scotland which they would lose.
Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory. The US government is defined by a constitution which lays out responsibilities. In the UK the house of commons decides entirely by itself who gets to do what. This is the central principle of british government, all power resides in the person of the prime minister.You can't call Westminster the English Parliament, just as you can't call the United States Congress the New York/Texas/California Legislature. Westminster may be the seat of government and it is located in England, but you could in theory move it anywhere (Berwick?) and the result would be the same. A federal system would allow Scotland and Wales a proportional vote in the upper house, while allowing England a proportional vote in the lower house. Leave the MPs and a reformed Lords the chance to fight out future battles.
The funny thing about free movement of people (ie as within the EU) is that it allows them to go home. The traditional ways of sneaking into Britain all tend to be one-offs, so if you leave again you cant come back. Thus people lose contact with home and stay. Also, since people tend to go from poor countries to rich, there is less pressure withing the EU for its citizens to come to Britain.Yes and no. The problem is that the immigration system is completely fucked, in part due to bleeding hearts and in part due to the European Union's regulations.
We dont. We could do with a lot less people. Inviting in more is just the same as borrowing money now without knowing how to pay it back. You cant keep adding more people who all eventually will end up as liabilities to the state. Stats also show that economically speaking, immigrants tend to be neutral. They send money home and still add to the need for state services, accommodation, etc, etc.We need some sort of population growth to sustain our economy...
now your getting to the problem..., but a lot of young Britons simply don't work
Then a good start might be to stop getting involved in wars.I realize that this may be a controversial topic, but I think that the UK has to stop taking asylum seekers entirely until this mess is sorted out.
Frequently Britains strength has been her navy. Because of the huge population we pretty much have no choice but to remain dependant on foreign trade.Great Britain's strength has always been her diversity
Since inequality is increasing not decreasing the liberals arent being very effective.On the other side, I see a very strong liberal core that punishes innovation and success in order to achieve an impossible level of "equality."
You could, but we have one already effectively. England has the greatest population so outvotes everyone else. (oh, and incidentally only about 5% of the population think the current arrangements for the house of lords are satisfactory)If you reformed the House of Lords to be a quasi-elected body, you could place a quota for English, Scottish and Welsh peers with equal voting rights
then you would have the great majority of the population of the british isles subject to the minority. That is even less democratic than the arrangemwnt we have now.In my total fantasy, the dignity of the peerage would be separated from the privilege of the peerage. Each national parliament would select 100 peers out of the existing body and send them to Westminster for life terms.
dandelion said:Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory.
dandelion said:The act of union when Scotland joined the UK by bribery gave the scots a minimum representation in the house of commons, which grossly overrepresented them but still meant English MPs were the great majority. This was English conquest with window dressing. The Scots agreed to give up all power over themselves in return for a few MPs and Lords.
dandelion said:The funny thing about free movement of people (ie as within the EU) is that it allows them to go home. The traditional ways of sneaking into Britain all tend to be one-offs, so if you leave again you cant come back. Thus people lose contact with home and stay. Also, since people tend to go from poor countries to rich, there is less pressure withing the EU for its citizens to come to Britain.
dandelion said:We dont. We could do with a lot less people. Inviting in more is just the same as borrowing money now without knowing how to pay it back.
dandelion said:Then a good start might be to stop getting involved in wars.
dandelion said:Frequently Britains strength has been her navy. Because of the huge population we pretty much have no choice but to remain dependant on foreign trade.
dandelion said:then you would have the great majority of the population of the british isles subject to the minority. That is even less democratic than the arrangemwnt we have now.
Jason said:The British system works by tolerating logical inconsistencies. The system has worn in over many centuries and fits. One inconsistency is compensated by another.
Jason said:Present population trends see most of the growth in England. England topping 90% of the population of the UK by 2030ish seems about right. Quirks which support Wales, Scotland and NI simply help to remove the problems of this national imbalance.
No, actually councillors complain of powerlessness, and it is reportedly very hard to get anyone to stand for office because the job is pretty pointless. One good reason to stand is if you happen to have a forthcoming planning problem, or something of the like, and want to influence the outcome. This is of course forbidden, but is probably still one reason for standing. Probably the other is to get in with a local political party so you have a chance at a real elected position as an MP. Mostly what councils do is administration and argue about which service to cut.I think your local council would disagree.Britain has a one-tier government, never mind how many levels there are in theory.
Are you saying I should judge things by 18th century standards? Is that why such odd ideas seem to come out of the US? I am looking at what happened then by modern democratic standards, and it was simply a bought and paid for takeover.I wouldn't describe the Act of Union as a conquest of Scotland, but rather a merger despite firm evidence of blatant corruption leading up to the vote. You can't hold 18th c. voting practices to modern standards
I'm not sure how far we need to reduce the population to be able to feed ourselves, never mind have nice new chinese phones. At least half.Even with a smaller population, you'd still have to depend on foreign trade. The theoretical removal of 20,000,000 people wouldn't automatically yield a vibrant domestic manufacturing economy to rival the likes of China, and Britain's industrial trade has been under severe pressure since the late 19th c.
What you are suggesting sounds like giving Luxembourg a veto over what the Eu does. The EU is set up to give vetoes in some critical areas but generally works on proportionate representation but a large majority needed to pass something. So maybe impose a 75% threshold for the commons to pass a law? That would shake them up!shouldn't we try to patch the problem now rather than wait for the future?
I understand your argument and it's very... "Yes, Minister" in nature if you will, but shouldn't we try to patch the problem now rather than wait for the future? I don't feel as if these quirks are tolerable when you have over a million people who'd look upon the dissolution of the Union with favor.