[Closed] Assembly Governments

A small step in the right direction for "North Britain"

Yeah, those hairy Celts really need the enlightened guiding hand of her Majesty's London Government. Besides, those horn-helmeted yobs in the Dane Law will be getting ideas too if things aren't brought to heel...

😕

Why the plural? I thought there was only one Assembly in the UK.

Look if you keep nick griffin,nick clegg and "call me Dave" We'll take back Brown and Darling and maybe even Blair if he spends most of the time out of the country but you ll have to hold on to Danny Alexander 😀

Northern Ireland, Wales, and a regional parliament in Scotland... no?

I am sorry my previous post about "North Britain" is not relevant as this thread specifically mentions "assembly governments" and not parliaments.

An expensive, divisive experiment well past it's use by date and given the current lack of money a rather expensive luxury.

Even with all four regions we're still not a huge country and there's already enough issues around people speaking different languages without stirring it up further.

I think the assemblies in particular are just a platform for idiots to stand up and spout on about how well off they would be if they were completely independant without the threat of actually having to survive under those conditions.

I also hate the fact that health provision / universtity funding and a range of other services are different a few miles apart despite still being in the same sovereign country.

You mean you hate the fact Scotland has a choice and now can and has chosen a different path to England?

From up here its mainly good. Scotland does not have the idiotic money wasting nonsense that England has in the form of foundation hospitals and city academies and will not have the Tory NHS privatisation. Saves a lot of money not having these useless and expensive ideologically driven nonsenses. This money saved can be then used to improve services.

stumpyjon The United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries .

Look if you keep nick griffin,nick clegg and "call me Dave" We'll take back Brown and Darling and maybe even Blair if he spends most of the time out of the country but you ll have to hold on to Danny Alexander

I'd tear your arm off if Blair/brown/darling were still relevant in any way at all.
Just put an hit team on griffin, job done.

Scotland does not have the idiotic money wasting nonsense that England has in the form of foundation hospitals and city academies and will not have the Tory NHS privatisation.

Don't disagree with that at all, I'd like to see a lot less idealogy (and in my opinion the whole devolution policy was just another idealogy) in the way our country is governed and a lot more emphasis on value for moeny services but that's a different debate.

My point is that we are one sovereign nation, we're not big enough to need a federal approach like the states, it's just additional cost that could be spent on frontline services.

stumpyjon The United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries .

Semantics, the reality is that the nation, politcal entity, whatever you want to call it, of the United Kingdom is made up of four regions, call them countries if you want to, the words are important. None of the four would do very well as a truly separate poltical entity.

I know it's probably not a popular view and as I'm English my view is probably not generally considered important or valid but there you go.

If it makes my views any more valuable my wife's Welsh 🙂

I think the assemblies in particular are just a platform for idiots to stand up and spout on about how well off they would be if they were completely independant without the threat of actually having to survive under those conditions.

EDIT:

we're not big enough

Stumpyjon Its my belief that all 4 nations of the UK could do well separately. Your own nationality is not a part of this discussion that I raised and in a free country anyone should be able to express a view my view is that devolved government (in Scotland anyway) has been a limited success and that I would welcome Scottish independence

Perhaps if we saved all the money spent on the Scottish parliament, and the Welsh and N. Irish asseblies, their members, and the extra layers of their own civil service, then there's be much more to spend on everyones' hospitals, universities etc?

The cost of the scottish parliament comes out of the block grant - it is at no cost to the English - and there is no extra layer of civil servants - just the same ones we always had just answering to the scottish Government not the UK one

Its not expensive and of course reduces westminster costs anyway

All those MSPs need to be paid (and their expenses). By having the parliament, you're costing yourselves Salmond et al's wages that surely could go to something more useful...

And the horrendous overbudget cost of the building they all sit in...

<By having the parliament, you're costing yourselves Salmond et al's wages that surely could go to something more useful...>

Zokes - do you have a problem with us making our own mind up on that one....?

Well if scotland were independent it would save the share of westmister that it currently pays. Cameron et als wages are fairly irrelevant to Scotland

Well if scotland were independent it would save the share of westmister that it currently pays. Cameron et als wages are fairly irrelevant to Scotland

If Scotland were independent it's two major banks would be bust. Even Salmond quietened on the hopeless self-defeating independence issue when the recession hit.

Zokes - do you have a problem with us making our own mind up on that one....?

Not really, but it's hardly ethical... If I were critically ill, and services that could have been provided weren't, because some self-serving MSPs demanded to be on the gravy train, I'd probably have a problem with it.

Take the emotion out of it, and having the extra parliament is paying for admin, whereas more hospitals / doctors / schools is surely paying for something a bit more useful?

Zokes - ITS AT NO COST TO THE ENGLISH! and minimal total extra cost

there is a reduced cost in other areas - less scots MPs, more direct and less bureaucratic nonsense ( no house of lords) Scots legislation does not go thru westminster.

Devolution understanding fail!

Zokes - on independence yo are simply wrong - the banks issue did not stop the case - it strengthens it. If the banks had been under the control of Holyrood they would not have gone bust.

Devolution understanding fail!

De - meaning reverse of, to go backwards

Evolution - Improvement, advancement

Nope, I understand just fine thanks...

Zokes - you clearly don't grasp what the relationships between the two governments are, how the money works and what the words mean.

Its either poor trolling or major understanding failure

Zokes - I don't really buy into the whole "minimal state" idea that I think underlies your argument. In theory, you can imagine that abolishing the extra layer of democracy would put more doctors and nurses on the wards, or bobbies on the beat - but it might just as easily pay for weapons of mass destruction or tax breaks for millionaires. The point is to have a representative forum for making choices and prioritising between the alternatives.

Scotland has its own layer of governance because for years it felt ill-served by Westminster decision making. I'm not sure that a referendum for independence is winnable, and we probably shouldn't go there on this thread, but I don't get the impression that many people would want to turn the clock back.

Its either poor trolling

Easy trolling towards a very predictable target. But nonetheless, I do understand what, unfortunately for those who want it to appear forward-thinking, the word 'devolution' actually means...

Its not an extra layer - its actually one less as no house of Lords.

Sorry Zokes - you might understand what "de-evolution" means, but the rest seems to be passing you by.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devolve

I'm not sure that a referendum for independence is winnable

It probably wasn't winnable when the British/Scottish economies were doing well. Given the global recession, and the speed at which it's dropped from the radar almost completely, I very much coubt it is contemplatable, never mind winnable, to most people with half a brain.

There are many regions of the UK who feel that different stands of rule that come out of westminster fit them less than others. Go back a couple more centuries from where the current boundaries lie, and you find the Cymru across most of the North West of England - hence why there are so many Welsh-sounding places such as Pen-Y-Ghent there. The current boundary is merely a political line. When taken into perspective of the last thousand or so years carving a small island up by some very arbitrary lines just seems daft.

YOu don't even understand why a referendum is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Its to do with eh unionist parties refusing to have one - and the unionists are the majority. Its nothing to do with the Economic situation - and anyway that makes the case for independence stronger not weaker

the SNP would have one tomorrow but they can't get support thru the parliament

I didn't join this thread to debate independence - but well done you for reducing the argument to one of brain function.

Could you clear this up for me though? Which parts of the Scotland-England border are arbitrary political lines? Are you from Berwick upon Tweed?

You see: "have the majority".

Sounds like democracy to me, just the plastic Scotsman doesn't like it for some reason...

It's still an absurd argument - slicing up an island because a few self-serving narrow minded politicians like stirring up outdated and bigotted views. The sooner the world works out we're just one species and stops trying to shit on its neighbours, proclaiming them to be different (or even inferior), the better we'll all be.

Blimey, I've out-leftied TJ....

Are you from Berwick upon Tweed?

LOL!

Nope, I'm typing from Adelaide, but I'm about as Australian as TJ is Scotish. You want to discuss who stole land from who etc, come down here - that'll make you open your eyes a bit more...

Which parts of the Scotland-England border are arbitrary political lines?

Pretty much all of it actually, as with all [u]political[/u] boundaries...

I see Zokes. You've travelled some way in a few short posts from "shrink the state" to "safety in numbers".

So, are you in favour of closer political union with our EU partners and joining the single currency, or would you perhaps prefer to accede to the U.S.? Surely you don't think that we (the UK!) can carry on in our splendid isolation.

<Pretty much all of it >

Really? You've looked into this in more detail than I have. Which major settlements used to be on the other side of the present boundary?

Personally, I do see joining the EU as the eventual solution. Given your tone I know you're already likely to laugh at the next bit, but here goes:

The UK (yes, Scotland too) is very relient on fossil fuels. I'm sure TJ will let me know that Scotland [i]could[/i] be self sufficient, but really can it? For electricity, maybe, petrol (or its eventual replacement), no way.

The global population is growing, as its demand for such fuels, and also the massive fossil-fuel investment in intensive agriculture. Ultimately, the bigger the bargaining power, the more likely we are to keep getting enough food and fuel to live at a level we feel comfortable with. 60M people in the UK have a lot more bargaining power than 5M in Scotland. 820M in the EU have a lot more than 60M.

It may be pie in the sky at the moment, but you wait 10 years, it won't seem so daft then. Global warming is just a sideshow to what the human population will do to itself when it really starts running out of resources. It's the elephant in the room that politicians (possibly correctly) aren't talking about.

That's my mindset, and it's also why I see nationalism as an activity pursued solely by the small-minded who've yet to work out there are more important things to worry about...

Zokes - I'm sorry if you think I'm finding this funny. I'm sure though that deep down you know that the UK has [i]already[/i] joined the EU. Some time back. Or are you thinking that the UK has been drifting back and forth over one of those arbitrary political boundaries you're worried about.

I'm all for hearing a sensible debate play out - but have few hopes of this happening with one side of the argument that can only see its opponents as mentally impaired or petty bigots.

Anyway, much as I'd love to hear this out - I'm off to see Toy Story 3. Be sure and let me know if Australia changes shape whilst I'm out.

Scotland would work very well as in independent nation.

The money we saved by not killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably enable us to buy most of Northern England. 🙂

zokes - Member
...and it's also why I see nationalism as an activity pursued solely by the small-minded who've yet to work out there are more important things to worry about...

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

And you can't have that if you are not running your own country.

How much Scottish North Sea gas/oil is left? Just as well the English folks sorted that deal with BP 😉

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

And you can't have that if you are not running your own country.

Yup, just about sums up how small minded nationalists generally are. Well done for putting it so succinctly

i know imagine wanting freedom ...dont they relaise it is better to be ruled than rule themselve. Hate it when people get ideas above their station what next will we let women vote?

zokes - Member
Yup, just about sums up how small minded nationalists generally are. Well done for putting it so succinctly

So, as a Scottish citizen, do you rule yourself, or are the laws set by Salmond and Co?

Unless you're First Minister, I think you'll find you always have someone dictating to you in Scotland. Frankly I don't see how it makes any difference. But fine, be a small-worlder, stick your head in the sand, and just wait until you wish you'd been a bit more forward thinking...

Sadly some people are happy being subservient in a class-ridden society with no freedom and want to see everyone else in the same mire.

Not sure if that's incorrectly aimed at me or not, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm doing quite well thank you very much, after having just acted quite selfishly and buggered off to a much better paid job with much better conditions on the other side of the world. By being quite the opposite of subservient, I got myself into a position where I could make that decision. What's your excuse?

I'm not sure I quite buy the comments about "idiotic money wasting nonsense that England has" or that this has resulted in better services, particularly in healthcare.

A quick google suggests that the most recent research has found that the oppositite is true - healthcare in Scotland is less efficient, less productive and delivers worse outcomes that England e.g. one and five year cancer survival rates are worse; despite receving significantly more funding.

[url= http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/36928 ]The Centre for Public Policy Research[/url] and KPMG also report improved health outcomes in all the constituent countries, but conclude that there hasn't been a narrowing of the relative health gaps between Scotland and England, despite a 12-16% higher spend per person and 30% higher staffing levels north of the border.

Obviously some of this may be explained by geographic differences, but the differences in the numbers above seems pretty substantial.

yes that is correct an elected representative sets the laws via parliament. Are you arguing against democracy now or just getting desperate with your trolling attempts?

But fine, be a small-worlder, stick your head in the sand, and just wait until you wish you'd been a bit more forward thinking

Farmer health outcomes are NOT dictated solely by the amount of money the state spend on this. Clealrly other factors such as smoking, diet, alcohol consumption and excercise and wealth affect health outcomes.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are part of a sovereign nation, The UK. Why should the people living there have any more right to decide to become independant than say somewhere like Burnley? If I'm understanding the argument correctly, because a majority of people in a specific area want to be independant then they should be allowed to. I suppose what I don't get is that before the region became devolved it was part of a bigger entity, an entity that I am also a citizen of. Why didn't people in England (or Wales for that matter) get to vote on the splitting up of their country. At that time we were all equal citizens?

If you follow the logic to it's ridiculous conclusion any small town or hamlet should be able to declare independance. Look at it another way, many people in the countryside alliance argued against the fox hunting ban because it was alleged to have been mainly supported by people living in towns. Obviously the argument is drivel as we live in a democracy which means everyone's views are equally important and in theory are represented by our politicians. Shouldn't the same have been true for the devolution issues, everyone should have been able to vote, or conversely nobidy and the elected representatives make the decision on our behalf.

Probably not argued that very clearly but I'd be interested in people's views.

Personally I'd rather live a one bigger diverse but cohesive country, which is what I was born into, seems my wishes don't count though when the break up was decided.

I suppose what I don't get is that before the region became devolved it was part of a bigger entity, an entity that I am also a citizen of

Why didn't people in England (or Wales for that matter) get to vote on the splitting up of their country.

England,Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland all joined the United Kingdom as equal nations and if the people of any one of those nations vote to leave the United Kingdom they can do so.

At the time of the union the scottish people did nt get much say. Instead a few nobles with vested interests decided to line their own pockets... nothing much has changed in 300 years

England,Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland all joined the United Kingdom as equal nations and if the people of any one of those nations vote to leave the United Kingdom they can do so.

Not the way it was taught when I did history....

Anyway, what's not to like about devolution?

Plenty of examples where states devolve a lot of power to regional "states" or autonomous / semi-autonomous regions.

About time there was a Cornish Assembly....

rkk01 Its not the way I was taught history in school either but that was due to a system that ignored large chunks of Scottish history. The system only changed in the mid 70s. Try googling "Treaty of Union 1707"

Again why would anyone want to partner up with you when this is your disparaging attitude towards them.

Que?

I'm only disparaging towards those supporting such a petty ludicrous argument. Again, not sure what 'partnering up' has to do with anything. Do you actually have anything useful to say?

If Cameron really wants to save money he should move the British parliament out of Westminster (very expensive real estate) and sell the building to an American high end hotel group.

Senior civil servants (much as they might dislike it) would soon leave London if they found they had to travel to see their minister; juniors would soon follow.

So make money on the building sale and save money on wages without anyone loosing their standard of living.

Scotland would work very well as in independent nation.

The money we saved by not killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably enable us to buy most of Northern England.

Large parts of northern England find London about as relevant as Scotland does and might well be interested in a "Federation of Bits of Britain That Ain't The Corpulent South East" - we may need to work on a snappier title.

I'm only disparaging towards those supporting such a petty ludicrous argument. Again, not sure what 'partnering up' has to do with anything. Do you actually have anything useful to say?

The big problem with the UK is that there is not a devolved government for England.

Then our national government could be just that.

At the moment the national government is basically an English government.

I note you declined to comment on whether the UK could leave the European Union without the consent of the other partners as you state Scotland /Wales cannot.

Did I? Don't remember typing that, but then I have more interesting things to do in my life than pay too much attention to what quite a few on here take far far too seriously. You seem to be confused anyway - Scotland, Wales and NI are all within the UK. Did you mean England?

I am able to state my case and counter your points without calling your argument ludicrious or throwing petty insults in your general direction.

State your case you may be able to. State a convincing case for the following questions I seem to ask forever more on these threads? No...

a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK

b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels, as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...

c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')

d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?

There you go, answer those convincingly, and you might just have a credible argument...

Easy!

a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK

2 main threads - one is that Scotland would be richer now from retaining the oil money and 2) that Scotland could have macro economic policies that suit Scotland rather than the south est of England

b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels, as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...

Because Scotland would have representation in the EU which at the moment it does not.

c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')

d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?

You do show your ignorance on this one Zokes

2 main threads - one is that Scotland would be richer now from retaining the oil money and 2) that Scotland could have macro economic policies that suit Scotland rather than the south est of England

You do show your ignorance on this one Zokes

Really? I said long-term, and you put your nation's future on a fast dwindling resource. I don't need to argue that - it argues itself.

Before the oil runs out though, I guess you'll be paying a massive subsidy to the EU's poorer countries then, seeing as I remember you previously waving figures demonstrating Scotland would be significantly better off. I don't believe it, but if you are, then surely that's what you'd have to do to be a member?

Anyway, they may just kick all the English back out if they were independent - who would you moan about then? 😉

zokes - hence the second part - macro economic policies to suit

zokes - Member
...State your case you may be able to. State a convincing case for the following questions I seem to ask forever more on these threads? No...

a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK

If would be worse off, then surely all those against its devolution should change their minds and support devolution, otherwise you are subsidising us.

let's repatriate the english back to germany where they came from and leave Britain for the Britons

(phone won't let me insert those smiley things)

Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK

b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...
Scotland would get to vote if it was a seperate entity in the council of ministers.

c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')

d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?