Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
Because people don't want a left wing separatist/nationalist movement that got paltry 500,000 votes at the last GE holding the balance of power over 60+ million people.
Wills2 said:
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
Because people don't want a left wing separatist/nationalist movement that got paltry 500,000 votes at the last GE holding the balance of power over 60+ million people.Slaav said:
When I saw Tarzan was on I actually cringed slightly as a few of his more recent appearances were not his finest moments; to the extent that on one occasion he was slightly embarrassing to the point that I thought his mind was going.
On Thursday this week, he just came across as someone who was a little old rather than losing it and I loved his honesty about Ant and Dec.
'50 shades of Red' was a lovely set up and caught Flint (especially) out - hook line and sinker!
Sturgeon was an embarrassment and at times was almost ridiculed. I have not seen her that bad before; and that is really saying something when my opinion of her was pretty poor to begin with.
It was nice to see Tarzan back as a figure that I agreed with and admired over the years! He is what I would call a 'proper Politician' and not one of these modern 'career politicians'
When did it suddenly become so easy for people to have a career in Politics without ever having a proper job? It used to be rare - it now appears the 'norm'! And how much worse it is as a result?
Flint is bl00dy awful as well - and to think I thought she was reasonably attractive when she first came on the scene????
Thanks for that excellent summary On Thursday this week, he just came across as someone who was a little old rather than losing it and I loved his honesty about Ant and Dec.
'50 shades of Red' was a lovely set up and caught Flint (especially) out - hook line and sinker!
Sturgeon was an embarrassment and at times was almost ridiculed. I have not seen her that bad before; and that is really saying something when my opinion of her was pretty poor to begin with.
It was nice to see Tarzan back as a figure that I agreed with and admired over the years! He is what I would call a 'proper Politician' and not one of these modern 'career politicians'
When did it suddenly become so easy for people to have a career in Politics without ever having a proper job? It used to be rare - it now appears the 'norm'! And how much worse it is as a result?
Flint is bl00dy awful as well - and to think I thought she was reasonably attractive when she first came on the scene????
audidoody said:
The problem with a nuclear deterrent is that it relies entirely on it deterring the other side (MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction). This worked fine during the Cold War when neither the USSR or the USA had any wish to see the world end. The trouble is we are now dealing with countries with a belief system that the end of the world is not such a bad idea particularly if it wipes out the infidel and 'kufar'.
In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
Well I object to you using the Persians as an atomic scapegoat. In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
Are you American, or a member of the 'ouse of Saud, prince or princess <lifeofbrianmode> bignose ? <modeoff>
audidoody said:
The problem with a nuclear deterrent is that it relies entirely on it deterring the other side (MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction). This worked fine during the Cold War when neither the USSR or the USA had any wish to see the world end. The trouble is we are now dealing with countries with a belief system that the end of the world is not such a bad idea particularly if it wipes out the infidel and 'kufar'.
In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
I think you'll find we're still dealing with the Russian issue + the middle east (but having said that nothing much has changed as they have both been an issue since the end of the WW2) In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
If Iran lets one off over Israel then that will be the end of Iran and they probably love their children too. Sting all rights reserved
turbobloke said:
How is Westminster ruled by England?
As to the wider question maybe some people reflect on the West Lothian question and then think of developments with the tail wagging the dog.
Based on the attitude of some people and the way questions are worded, it certainly 'sounds' like a proportion of society deems england to be the ruling region of this country and any other region that may have a larger than previous representation is deemed 'dangerous' and not in the best interest of the UK. Why not have fair and equal representation for all parts of the country, instead of more mps and more power in westminister for one part of the country?As to the wider question maybe some people reflect on the West Lothian question and then think of developments with the tail wagging the dog.
Troubleatmill said:
Wills2 said:
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
Because people don't want a left wing separatist/nationalist movement that got paltry 500,000 votes at the last GE holding the balance of power over 60+ million people.arp1 said:
Troubleatmill said:
Wills2 said:
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
Because people don't want a left wing separatist/nationalist movement that got paltry 500,000 votes at the last GE holding the balance of power over 60+ million people.The "SYSTEM" being BRUSSELS it's so obvious, but people can't see it!!
arp1 said:
Troubleatmill said:
Wills2 said:
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
Because people don't want a left wing separatist/nationalist movement that got paltry 500,000 votes at the last GE holding the balance of power over 60+ million people.We have 650 small sections of the country. We all get to chose who we want to represent us for our section. The political party that gets the most seats wins. Simples.
Scotland can chose how to spend it's money on health, education etc etc - but they can also get to stick their oar in rUK issues of health, education etc
You want your cake - and to eat it too.
But it's ok for rUK to decide on scottish issues that msp's cannot vote on? Also Snp traditionally do not vote on rUK matters but when it affects our pocket money then rightly they should be able to vote on such matters. You wanted scotland to stay as an equal partner, let's see how you like eating that cake...
arp1 said:
But it's ok for rUK to decide on scottish issues that msp's cannot vote on? Also Snp traditionally do not vote on rUK matters but when it affects our pocket money then rightly they should be able to vote on such matters. You wanted scotland to stay as an equal partner, let's see how you like eating that cake...
Let's break it down into small points so we don't get any misunderstandings.UK based issues - Westminster. 650 MPs decide
Scottish based issues - Edinburgh 129 MSP's decide
rUK based issues - Westminster. 600 MP's should decide
If we take education as an example.
Why should 50 Scottish MP's get to vote on education matters for rUK?
As rUK has no reciprocal agreement to vote on Scottish education matters.
Scotland wanted to stay. Get over it - and enjoy life.
Edited by Troubleatmill on Friday 20th February 20:02
arp1 said:
But it's ok for rUK to decide on scottish issues that msp's cannot vote on? Also Snp traditionally do not vote on rUK matters but when it affects our pocket money then rightly they should be able to vote on such matters. You wanted scotland to stay as an equal partner, let's see how you like eating that cake...
The facts are, the VAST majority of people do not vote for the SNP even in Scotland during a GE and no one votes for them in the RUK so the thought that they could hold the balance of power in the UK is ridiculous. You're not equal.
HTH.
Halb said:
arp1 said:
Why not have fair and equal representation for all parts of the country, instead of more mps and more power in westminister for one part of the country?
Do we not have that now?Steps involved
1/ Look at the population of the UK
2/ Divide where they live into 650 segments of equal size populous. ( There are 650 seats to be filled )
3/ The people living in each segment vote for someone to represent them.
4/ That person goes and sits in Westminster - and represents their constituents.
How much more fair and equal do you want it?
Mojocvh said:
Well I object to you using the Persians as an atomic scapegoat.
Are you American, or a member of the 'ouse of Saud, prince or princess <lifeofbrianmode> bignose ? <modeoff>
Object away. It's still (just) a free country.Are you American, or a member of the 'ouse of Saud, prince or princess <lifeofbrianmode> bignose ? <modeoff>
Are you a lecturer at the London School of Economics or a SPAD for a LibDem MP with a small majority?
Perhaps you could explain your novel use of the apostrophe. Are you attempting "''umour'?
Wills2 said:
I think you'll find we're still dealing with the Russian issue + the middle east (but having said that nothing much has changed as they have both been an issue since the end of the WW2)
If Iran lets one off over Israel then that will be the end of Iran and they probably love their children too. Sting all rights reserved
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realise you had been appointed a moderator in this thread. If Iran lets one off over Israel then that will be the end of Iran and they probably love their children too. Sting all rights reserved
Troubleatmill said:
We do - but the simple logic escapes the Braveheart inflicted.
Steps involved
1/ Look at the population of the UK
2/ Divide where they live into 650 segments of equal size populous. ( There are 650 seats to be filled )
3/ The people living in each segment vote for someone to represent them.
4/ That person goes and sits in Westminster - and represents their constituents.
How much more fair and equal do you want it?
Exactly. Steps involved
1/ Look at the population of the UK
2/ Divide where they live into 650 segments of equal size populous. ( There are 650 seats to be filled )
3/ The people living in each segment vote for someone to represent them.
4/ That person goes and sits in Westminster - and represents their constituents.
How much more fair and equal do you want it?
They (SNP) don't like it as it gives them at best a minor party tag instead of party in power at that hot house Holyrood.
All these layers of government to rule the country not needed why not spend that money on the poor those who have to use food banks let's scrap the spare bedroom allowance scrap child benefits or give it to all up to 2 kids etc etc.
Welshbeef said:
Troubleatmill said:
We do - but the simple logic escapes the Braveheart inflicted.
Steps involved
1/ Look at the population of the UK
2/ Divide where they live into 650 segments of equal size populous. ( There are 650 seats to be filled )
3/ The people living in each segment vote for someone to represent them.
4/ That person goes and sits in Westminster - and represents their constituents.
How much more fair and equal do you want it?
Exactly. Steps involved
1/ Look at the population of the UK
2/ Divide where they live into 650 segments of equal size populous. ( There are 650 seats to be filled )
3/ The people living in each segment vote for someone to represent them.
4/ That person goes and sits in Westminster - and represents their constituents.
How much more fair and equal do you want it?
They (SNP) don't like it as it gives them at best a minor party tag instead of party in power at that hot house Holyrood.
All these layers of government to rule the country not needed why not spend that money on the poor those who have to use food banks let's scrap the spare bedroom allowance scrap child benefits or give it to all up to 2 kids etc etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff