Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[Moonhawk]

Stevanos said:

England contributes 19% more per capita more then the rest of the UK to Scotland, I think that has got people thinking.

I personally have no issue with that per-se. If certain areas of the UK are generating wealth at this particular point in time - and other areas have a greater need to spend that wealth for regeneration etc - then so be it.

What pisses me off is the churlish attitude of 'we are generating more than you - so we want independence'. This seems to have been the cornerstone of the Scottish independence movement (it held little sway before north sea oil - funny that) - yet you also hear people in the South east saying the same thing (some tongue in cheek - some not) - and it's just as ridiculous.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

England contributes 19% more per capita more then the rest of the UK to Scotland, I think that has got people thinking.

I personally have no issue with that per-se. If certain areas of the UK are generating wealth at this particular point in time - and other areas have a greater need to spend that wealth for regeneration etc - then so be it.

Fair enough, but funneling money from the SE to points northwards took place over the Labour years, with considerable regeneration arising. If being generous with other people's money and on their behalf for so long (i.e. still happening and on into the future without any apparent time limit and likely to increase if anything) hasn't worked then carrying on with the same policy starts to look less like essential regeneration and more like overly generous subsidy which needs a re-think.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

Fair enough, but funneling money from the SE to points northwards took place over the Labour years, with considerable regeneration arising. If being generous with other people's money and on their behalf for so long (i.e. still happening and on into the future without any apparent time limit and likely to increase if anything) hasn't worked then carrying on with the same policy starts to look less like essential regeneration and more like overly generous subsidy which needs a re-think.

Yep - it should of course be based on need. Areas shouldn't expect a certain level of funding just because "we have always had it".

[XJ Flyer]

MoshiLego said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the idea of increasing English Conservative influence in English matters,at the expense of Scottish input,it seems obvious that the motivation for that would be to push through the cutbacks needed in English budgets to pay for the economic bribes provided to guarantee the Scottish no vote.Not that the Cons,or UKIP,could care less about the English being that they and UKIP have both shown themselves to put the Unionist cause above that of the English national interest.If that wasn't the case then it is equally obvious that supporting the Scottish yes vote for independence while also supporting same in the case of English independence,would have made much more sense than doing whatever it took to keep the Union staggering on.

The fact is the contradiction in supporting the idea of the Union while at the same time complaining about the political implications of that by calling for devolution of the UK is just likely to damage the credibility of all of those who supported that contradiction.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 00:56

1. Clues are in the names. Conservative and Unionist Party - tends to suggest this party is in favour of the Union. United Kingdom Independence Party - tends to suggest that this party is in favour of the United Kingdom, and is not intended to be a forum for English nationalists. Not sure why this surprised you?

2. Devolution is not the same as independence. If devolution is the only way to keep the UK together, then of course Unionists will support it. There is no contradiction here, just pragmatic politics.

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

[Gaspode]

turbobloke said:

Fair enough, but funneling money from the SE to points northwards took place over the Labour years, with considerable regeneration arising. If being generous with other people's money and on their behalf for so long (i.e. still happening and on into the future without any apparent time limit and likely to increase if anything) hasn't worked then carrying on with the same policy starts to look less like essential regeneration and more like overly generous subsidy which needs a re-think.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect any region (large or small) of the UK to be able to put together a case for receiving enhanced investment, but they should also be expected to demonstrate the success (or otherwise) of that investment within an agreed timeframe. The benefit could be financial in terms of improved growth, enhanced GDP, reduced deficit, but equally it could be intangible such as reduced crime, improved education, or whatever. The point is that investments should be made for a reason, and the resulting success or otherwise should be open to public scrutiny.

So if Chavtown in Scumshire wants to have increased spending because half its inhabitants are on the dole, then their case ought to be founded on stuff like "If we get extra investment we can reduce unemployment in our region by 10% over the next 2 years" rather than simplistic "We want extra money because we need it" type pleading.

Regions that demonstrate that they are making good use of additional investment should consequently find it easier to attract further money, whereas local authorities that piss it away on outreach workers and fact-finding missions to St Lucia should quickly find their funding withdrawn

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Not sure of your point. Why cannot UKIP favour a more devolved UK, while not wishing to be a member of the EU?

[XJ Flyer]

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

England contributes 19% more per capita more then the rest of the UK to Scotland, I think that has got people thinking.

I personally have no issue with that per-se. If certain areas of the UK are generating wealth at this particular point in time - and other areas have a greater need to spend that wealth for regeneration etc - then so be it.

What pisses me off is the churlish attitude of 'we are generating more than you - so we want independence'. This seems to have been the cornerstone of the Scottish independence movement (it held little sway before north sea oil - funny that) - yet you also hear people in the South east saying the same thing (some tongue in cheek - some not) - and it's just as ridiculous.

That actually justified logic actually formed a lot of the basis behind the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.The fact is transfer of wealth in whatever form is just a form of socialism nothing more nothing less.Which in this case translates as giving the Scottish a higher standard of public service and social spending at the expense of the English.It is then obviously just a matter of which side of that scam anyone happens to be on which would obviously determine their outlook towards it.Make no mistake the issue won't go away and what has actually happened is that the Scottish reasoning for independence has now finally woken up the English to the fact that we would be better off as an independent nation than the Scottish would have been.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Not sure of your point. Why cannot UKIP favour a more devolved UK, while not wishing to be a member of the EU?

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

The fact is there's no way that any party can put Unionist and Independence into its ideological title and maintain its credibility.

[Hackney]

Soov535 said:

Agree 100%

Cameron has played a fking hand and half here.

The hand where the union almost came apart on his watch?

[Rovinghawk]

XJ Flyer said:

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

One works, one doesn't. This seems a pretty convincing argument.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Not sure of your point. Why cannot UKIP favour a more devolved UK, while not wishing to be a member of the EU?

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

The fact is there's no way that any party can put Unionist and Independence into its ideological title and maintain its credibility.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. The Unionist bit is union of the peoples of the British Isles, for historic, cultural and pragmatic reasons. Not union of whatever random group of peoples anyone can construct, with no regard for history, culture or practicalities. One of the first questions is; is there a demos? And the answer to that re the EU is no, the separate peoples do not form a single demos. Hence no democracy.

[toppstuff]

XJ Flyer said:

The fact is there's no way that any party can put Unionist and Independence into its ideological title and maintain its credibility.

A union of the UK while being outside of a federal Europe is a perfectly legitimate objective. You are talking claptrap. They are not mutually exclusive.

[steveT350C]

Rovinghawk said:

XJ Flyer said:

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

One works, one doesn't. This seems a pretty convincing argument.

exactly.

Farage and UKIP want the UK to be independent from the EU. Farage also stated, prior to Scottish Referendum, that he hoped Scotland voted to stay within The UK.

Very simple really.

[XJ Flyer]

Rovinghawk said:

XJ Flyer said:

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

One works, one doesn't. This seems a pretty convincing argument.

The ideological arguments and reasons against federalism are exactly the same in both cases.If one works and one doesn't we wouldn't be having exactly the same arguments, concerning foreign MP's,setting domestic policies,in both cases.

[Rovinghawk]

XJ Flyer said:

The ideological arguments and reasons against federalism are exactly the same in both cases.

The pragmatic differences are huge, though.

XJ Flyer said:

If one works and one doesn't we wouldn't be having exactly the same arguments, concerning foreign MP's,setting domestic policies,in both cases.

It's only Scottish MPs deciding English domestic policy, not vice versa. I'd scrap that, certainly.

If you mean English MPs deciding Scottish domestic policy then you're mistaken.

Google "West Lothian Question"

[XJ Flyer]

steveT350C said:

Rovinghawk said:

XJ Flyer said:

So exactly what makes membership of the EU federation such a bad thing but membership of the UK union such a good thing.When all the ideological reasons against federalism remain the same in both cases.

One works, one doesn't. This seems a pretty convincing argument.

exactly.

Farage and UKIP want the UK to be independent from the EU. Farage also stated, prior to Scottish Referendum, that he hoped Scotland voted to stay within The UK.

Very simple really.

Exactly.Thereby destroying any credibility which UKIP might have had as a so called Independence/anti federalist Party.While also removing any credibility for any arguments against 'Scottish' MP's ( or European ones ) setting English policy.Being that their is no such thing as a national sovereign government of England ( or Scotland ) only UK parliament subservient to the EU parliament.It is time for the Unionists/Federalists to wake up and smell the coffee in that the fig leaf of 'devolution' won't work in compensating for real independence,sovereignty and the nation state.Especially in the case of England being that,unlike Scotland,there's too many people to bribe to keep the status quo of the Unionist cause going and even more especially when we're the ones paying for that Scottish,let alone European,stitch up.

[Zod]

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Nope; even at a third reading, this remains a lot of words making no sense at all.

[XJ Flyer]

Rovinghawk said:

XJ Flyer said:

The ideological arguments and reasons against federalism are exactly the same in both cases.

The pragmatic differences are huge, though.

XJ Flyer said:

If one works and one doesn't we wouldn't be having exactly the same arguments, concerning foreign MP's,setting domestic policies,in both cases.

It's only Scottish MPs deciding English domestic policy, not vice versa. I'd scrap that, certainly.

If you mean English MPs deciding Scottish domestic policy then you're mistaken.

Google "West Lothian Question"

The simple fact is you can't 'scrap' the idea of 'UK' MP's voting on UK matters and there is no such thing as an English sovereign parliament.There is no way that the Libdems and Labour Party are going to commit political suicide by counting out all of their UK MP's in the UK parliament.As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.The reason why there is no sovereign English parliament being that as soon as there is the Union is effectively finished anyway.

[XJ Flyer]

Zod said:

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Nope; even at a third reading, this remains a lot of words making no sense at all.

Trust me it makes a lot more sense than a Unionist Independence Party.Remembering they need people to vote for them I don't need anyone to vote for me and they've certainly lost my vote unless they decide to be an independence party not a unionist one.

[Rovinghawk]

XJ Flyer said:

The simple fact is you can't 'scrap' the idea of 'UK' MP's voting on UK matters

I can't see why I should want to.

XJ Flyer said:

there is no such thing as an English sovereign parliament.

Yet.

XJ Flyer said:

There's no way that the Libdems and Labour Party are going to commit political suicide by counting out all of their UK MP's in the UK parliament.

Expecting honesty & fairness from politicians? They won't choose it, Miliband has been squawking about not doing it (in a 'doing-it-sort-of-way', obviously) but they might not get the choice.

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

It could be argued that he's trying to get England equal treatment to Scotland.

XJ Flyer said:

The reason why there is no sovereign English parliament being that as soon as there is the Union is effectively finished anyway.

Can you flesh out that position slightly?