A Federal UK?

[XJ Flyer]

ash73 said:

rs1952 said:

Your statement that councils have raised council taxes in recent years...

I didn't say recent, you did. I was referring to central government caps that were implemented after local councils received budgetary powers and immediately increased their Council Tax by 12.9% in 2003/04.

Council tax increases mostly being a result of central government funding 'adjustments'.Which under the Blair administration translated as Labour MP's sending more funds to their chosen local administrations in the North and Scotland at the expense of the South of the country.The same applied in the case of most other types of public spending.Which is why what's needed is more localised regional government that keeps money earn't in southern England for southern England for example.

Not any system of centralised control based on national majorities with all the politically driven transfer of wealth and outside government control that goes with that system.

Which means firstly the breakup of the UK into its respective different sovereign nation states with their own seperate sovereign governments and funding systems.In which case Scottish MP's don't make policy for the South East of England.

In addition to a system of regional government in which MP's from Northern England only get to make policy regarding their own electorates not the South East of England for example and vice versa.

Let alone withdrawal from the EU to stop the situation of unelected Euro MEP's making majority decisions concerning policy that applies throughout the EU in countries where they don't have an electoral mandate.Together with the right of local veto and opt out regarding any policy decision where that is the case.

All of which is the antithesis of federalism.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

Ukraine is not in NATO (if it had been it never would have been invaded). And we have no interests in Ukraine. If we (the West) did have an interest then you can be sure that NATO would be involved, as we did in Kosovo.

Trust me we can't win a conventional war against Russia and the US population would never be willing to accept the issue of mutually assured destruction if/when it all inevitably goes nuclear,over Ukraine.

[rs1952]

I suppose this is always an option...

[XJ Flyer]

rs1952 said:

I suppose this is always an option...

That's my choice.Firstly the return to the nation sate of Anglo Saxon England run on Anglo Saxon local government lines.

[V88Dicky]

rs1952 said:

I suppose this is always an option...

Northumbria was much bigger!

And Cumbria was one of it's colonies

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

Ukraine is not in NATO (if it had been it never would have been invaded). And we have no interests in Ukraine. If we (the West) did have an interest then you can be sure that NATO would be involved, as we did in Kosovo.

Trust me we can't win a conventional war against Russia and the US population would never be willing to accept the issue of mutually assured destruction if/when it all inevitably goes nuclear,over Ukraine.

Not convinced we (the West) couldnt win a conventional war against Russia. Even the UK has a bigger economy than Russia. Not that we would ever try unless Russia started it. If the Ukraine had been in NATO then Russia would never be willing to accept the issue of MAD either.

[Sir Humphrey]

s2art said:

Ukraine is not in NATO (if it had been it never would have been invaded). And we have no interests in Ukraine. If we (the West) did have an interest then you can be sure that NATO would be involved, as we did in Kosovo.

Kosovo is not in NATO and certainly wasn't when it was a part of Yugoslavia/Serbia.

If we only go to war in places where "we have an interest" and/or are allied to a country, why didn't we fully intervene in the Iran/Iraq war (where three years later we had switched sides and invaded them when they posed no threat to the west) or do more to fight the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan (where we flew in thousands of weapons and gave them to the local freedom fighters/Al Qaeda).

If it is about protecting innocents, why didn't we go into Rwanda, why did the CIA help to support the regime in Chile who killed 30,000 of its own people?

You still haven't answered my point about why the countries which have been attacked by Islamists are the ones who went into Iraq, and how the one who was attacked before (embassy bombings, ship bombings, 9/11) had a long history of bombing and invading Muslim majority countries "pre-emptively" whereas other rich, free countries have escaped it.

[XJ Flyer]

ash73 said:

XJ Flyer said:

what's needed is more localised regional government that keeps money earn't in southern England for southern England for example.

Nuts. All monies should be collected into a central pot and allocated, fairly, where it is needed, by a central government. Just because the current allocation isn't fair it doesn't mean we should regress to a feudal system with local barons.

The government committee that assessed the legal implications of the referendum said Scotland is entitled to 90% of North Sea oil and gas resources. Do you think they should calculate the total income over the last 40 years and reallocate 90% north of the border, so they can "keep the money earned"?

If Scotland thought it was getting less out of the UK deal than it was putting in it would have voted by a landslide for independence.Instead of which the facts speak for themselves.The Scottish,not surprisingly,seem to be more than happy with the deal.We have got southern money subsidising the rest of the UK and Scottish MP's making English policy amongst all the other retrograde issues of the federal system of government both in regards to the UK and the EU.The centralised federal system of government should be left where it belongs with the demise of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav federation.

As for South East England no thanks I want the representative/s I've voted for to be the only person/s who decide and implement policy here and money earn't here to remain here paying for our services not Scottish and/or Northern ones.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9783725/Taxes-from-Lon...

[Sir Humphrey]

ash73 said:

Nuts. All monies should be collected into a central pot and allocated, fairly, where it is needed, by a central government. Just because the current allocation isn't fair it doesn't mean we should regress to a feudal system with local barons.

The government committee that assessed the legal implications of the referendum said Scotland is entitled to 90% of North Sea oil and gas resources. Do you think they should calculate the total income over the last 40 years and reallocate 90% north of the border, so they can "keep the money earned"?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Of course it always turns out that the people in the most need are either the dictators (Communism) or the billionaires who buy the elected politicians' votes (Corporatism).

Both lead to the rich and powerful getting richer and more powerful and the poor and middle classes becoming poor(er).

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

Not convinced we (the West) couldnt win a conventional war against Russia. Even the UK has a bigger economy than Russia. Not that we would ever try unless Russia started it. If the Ukraine had been in NATO then Russia would never be willing to accept the issue of MAD either.

If you believe that try it and see what happens.

[XJ Flyer]

Sir Humphrey said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The Gordon Brown system of economic success.Which in reality means what's Scotland's belongs to Scotland and what's ours belongs to Scotland.

[Sir Humphrey]

XJ Flyer said:

If Scotland thought it was getting less out of the UK deal than it was putting in it would have voted by a landslide for independence.Instead of which the facts speak for themselves.The Scottish,not surprisingly,seem to be more than happy with the deal.We have got southern money subsidising the rest of the UK and Scottish MP's making English policy amongst all the other retrograde issues of the federal system of government both in regards to the UK and the EU.The centralised federal system of government should be left where it belongs with the demise of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav federation.

As for South East England no thanks I want the representative/s I've voted for to be the only person/s who decide and implement policy here and money earn't here to remain here paying for our services not Scottish and/or Northern ones.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9783725/Taxes-from-Lon...

I think the money being taken from the South and being moved North is having a bad effect on both, less money in the South and less innovation and private enterprise in the North with the lack of growth in standard of living that follows.
Even if I was wrong on that point I would rather not steal your money, however wealthy you are.

[XJ Flyer]

Sir Humphrey said:

XJ Flyer said:

If Scotland thought it was getting less out of the UK deal than it was putting in it would have voted by a landslide for independence.Instead of which the facts speak for themselves.The Scottish,not surprisingly,seem to be more than happy with the deal.We have got southern money subsidising the rest of the UK and Scottish MP's making English policy amongst all the other retrograde issues of the federal system of government both in regards to the UK and the EU.The centralised federal system of government should be left where it belongs with the demise of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav federation.

As for South East England no thanks I want the representative/s I've voted for to be the only person/s who decide and implement policy here and money earn't here to remain here paying for our services not Scottish and/or Northern ones.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9783725/Taxes-from-Lon...

I think the money being taken from the South and being moved North is having a bad effect on both, less money in the South and less innovation and private enterprise in the North with the lack of growth in standard of living that follows.
Even if I was wrong on that point I would rather not steal your money, however wealthy you are.

Somehow I don't think the Scottish independence debate will end there.Ironically the government could now find itself increasingly in the position of it being England which has had enough of the undemocratic and economic scam that is the UK.Let alone sorting out the issue of our EU membership and contributions.With Farage and many Conservative MP's now suddenly realising that they've backed the wrong horse in supporting the Scottish no campaign.Instead of helping the yes side to break up the UK Union/Federation.Thereby bringing down Cameron and his federalist cronies in the LabLibdem alliance in the process.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

Not convinced we (the West) couldnt win a conventional war against Russia. Even the UK has a bigger economy than Russia. Not that we would ever try unless Russia started it. If the Ukraine had been in NATO then Russia would never be willing to accept the issue of MAD either.

If you believe that try it and see what happens.

I wouldnt wish it on anyone, but if you think Russia could withstand the West (I include India and Japan in that category) then you are sadly mistaken. Hell, just Germany alone would have beaten the USSR (a much bigger place) without allied support in WW2. Now, the relatively tiny Russian economy would flatline in months if things got nasty. Lets see what happens if Russia 'trys it' as you put it. In wouldnt be pretty for the Ruskies.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

Not convinced we (the West) couldnt win a conventional war against Russia. Even the UK has a bigger economy than Russia. Not that we would ever try unless Russia started it. If the Ukraine had been in NATO then Russia would never be willing to accept the issue of MAD either.

If you believe that try it and see what happens.

I wouldnt wish it on anyone, but if you think Russia could withstand the West (I include India and Japan in that category) then you are sadly mistaken. Hell, just Germany alone would have beaten the USSR (a much bigger place) without allied support in WW2. Now, the relatively tiny Russian economy would flatline in months if things got nasty. Lets see what happens if Russia 'trys it' as you put it. In wouldnt be pretty for the Ruskies.

From the point of view of a strategic nuclear exchange they've got the best chance of having somewhere inhabitable left after.As opposed to western Europe and even North America.

As for Germany in WW2 they didn't even get to Moscow let alone further east,before running out of their supply lines and then getting hit by counter attacks that eventually drove them back to Germany.IE Russia isn't Iraq.

[grantone]

Sir Humphrey said:

I think the money being taken from the South and being moved North is having a bad effect on both, less money in the South and less innovation and private enterprise in the North with the lack of growth in standard of living that follows.
Even if I was wrong on that point I would rather not steal your money, however wealthy you are.

The version of the country I see with my friends is; they grow up in the provinces, move to London in their early 20's, work hard, on average make lots more money for themselves and the country than they could in the regions, then some stay in London while others head back out again in their 40's. I wouldn't like to see that dynamic change by not being able to spend the London tax take on raising the next generation who live outside.

[Martin4x4]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

Ukraine is not in NATO (if it had been it never would have been invaded). And we have no interests in Ukraine. If we (the West) did have an interest then you can be sure that NATO would be involved, as we did in Kosovo.

Trust me we can't win a conventional war against Russia and the US population would never be willing to accept the issue of mutually assured destruction if/when it all inevitably goes nuclear,over Ukraine.

Not convinced we (the West) couldnt win a conventional war against Russia. Even the UK has a bigger economy than Russia. Not that we would ever try unless Russia started it. If the Ukraine had been in NATO then Russia would never be willing to accept the issue of MAD either.

He is an ignorant hoon spouting bullst.

Russian military technology is obselete, their best Tanks and Aircraft date from the 70's and havent been replaced since the fall of the USSR.

Their best tank is the T90 an upgraded T80 which is an upgrade of the T72 that are no match for Western Tanks. In the Gulf war they were useless against our tanks, all three use the same 125mm smoothbore gun that canno penetrate our armour even at short rank and their armour is extremely vunerable even to fighting vehicles like Warrior and Bradley not only just tanks.

Their best Fighters are the Mig 29 and Mig 25 were no match for Tornados never mind Typhoons.

They don't even have the numbers on their side any more.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 20th September 09:52

[richie99]

The risk of this is that the various anti-English factions try to use the opportunity to destroy English dominance once and for all by splitting it into regions. This was exactly the line that nu labour wanted to take but we're prevented from doing so by the English themselves. Fluffy over on the Scottish thread wants England to be broken up into 'manageable' chunks, now that his bid for independence has failed. He means manageable by Scotland of course. The EU too would dearly love to see England with less influence.

The only saving grace is that any region which included the South East would still be dominant, all be it less influential than it could be. I fear a ' keep England United' campaign might become necessary. We could call it ' Better together'!

[Martin4x4]

rs1952 said:

I suppose this is always an option...

You do realise those are just as arbitary as England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

Any devolution must reflect the modern situation with regard to cities, transport and infrastucture to gain maximum benefits.

[richie99]

Rovinghawk said:

Sir Humphrey said:

Companies don't pay tax.

Mine does. It even has its own bank account (seemingly with payment of tax as its primary function).

Companies don't pay tax. People do. Your company charges it's customers enough to pay the tax. If it didn't pay it, it could charge them less.

Let's imagine a hypothetical case where an internet retailer was based in Luxembourg and so only charged VAT at 5%. If they were instead based in the UK then their prices would rise by 15% to cover the extra VAT. Any tax is just passed on to the customers.

Even more interesting, what if they gave customers the option of paying a higher price, knowing that the extra money would go in tax and hence to various good causes like the Indian space programme or paying off NHS Execs so they could walk straight into another NHS job. How many of the 'tax is a moral issue' whiners would pay the higher price? Would Margaret Hodge?

Tax is paid by people!